83 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2020
    1. Cocreating guide dog partnerships: dog training and interdependence in 1930s AmericaNeil Pemberton

      Annotations for this article are in our CENTAUR hypothes.is group - available at the link I sent in the email.

    1. Promoting health and well-being through more than human collaboration and companionship

      CENTAUR friends -- these are public annotations. Please join our group (link was in the email) if you want to keep your comments within our circle.

    2. Being well together?

      Hi Alex! If you're reading this, can you reply and let me know that it's working? Thanks!

  2. Apr 2019
    1. However, if psychology is truly going to help insight change in education or itself, it needs to get over its distaste for qualitative methods and desire to distance itself from sociology.


  3. Mar 2019
    1. we don’t want to fund teachers and manageable class sizes, so we outsource the plagiarism problem to a for-profit company that has a side gig of promoting the importance of the problem it promises to solve.

      Yet another example of a misdirected "solution" to a manufactured problem that ends up being more costly - in terms of monetary expense AND student learning AND faculty engagement - than it would have been to invest in human interaction and learner-centered pedagogies.

    1. Native nationhood. Without this recognition, our status as sovereign nations whose people were—and are—Indigenous to this continent are erased

      I so appreciate having this formulation made explicit. Failure to recognize native nationhood is erasure. Thank you.

  4. Jan 2019
    1. My engineering courses were pushed to use Matlab and Mathematica by the companies selling them, who have then successfully set themselves up for market dominance outcompeting literally free, equivalent tools despite ludicrous cost and abhorrent business models. Changing our practices and what tools we use is the first part of escaping that.

      Let's go. This gets at the heart of the point I wanted to make last week about the necessity of interrogating these practices -- or at least raising awareness around alternatives to them. Thank you!

    1. Turnitin’s practices have been ruled as fair use in federal court. But to Morris and Stommel, the ceding of control of students' work -- and their ownership over that work -- to a corporation is a moral issue, even if it's legally sound. Time spent on checking plagiarism reports is time that would be better spent teaching students how to become better writers in the first place, they argue. “This is ethical, activist work. While not exactly the Luddism of the 19th century, we must ask ourselves, when we’re choosing ed-tech tools, who profits and from what?” they wrote in the essay. “The gist: when you upload work to Turnitin, your property is, in no reasonable sense, your property. Every essay students submit -- representing hours, days or even years of work -- becomes part of the Turnitin database, which is then sold to universities.”

      This is key issue for me - and we talked about this last week in GEDI when someone brought up the case of wide-scale cheating on the quizz / test that students took online.

      I'd like teachers to focus on teaching and helping students learn. And I think the question about who profits and who benefits from ed-tech tools like TurnitIn need to be asked.

  5. Mar 2018
    1. Try, explore, fail, share, revise.

      Yes. Time to get past the fear of all of these things, especially the trying, failing and revising. And the exploring...yes, all of them!

    2. Let students curate course content.

      Absolutely. The course should be something we make together rather than something students "take" and faculty "deliver."

    3. Build course policies, outcomes, assignments, rubrics, and schedules of work collaboratively with students. Once we involve students in creating or revising OERs or in shaping learning architectures, we can begin to see the syllabus as more of a collaborative document, co-generated at least in part with our students.

      Would love to see more institutional support and encouragement for doing this.

    4. Students can choose to openly license the work that they post on these sites, thereby contributing OERs to the commons; they can also choose not to openly license their work, which is an exercising of their rights and perfectly in keeping with the ethos of Open Pedagogy. If students create their own learning architectures, they can (and should) control how public or private they wish to be, how and when to share or license their work, and what kinds of design, tools, and plug-ins will enhance their learning. It is important to point out here that open is not the opposite of private.

      Yes. Shades of open. Informed agency.

    5. So one key component of Open Pedagogy might be that it sees access, broadly writ, as fundamental to learning and to teaching, and agency as an important way of broadening that access.

      Access + agency = Open Pedagogy

    6. Will they be able to read their Chemistry textbook given their vision impairment? Will their LMS site list them by their birth name rather than their chosen name, and thereby misgender them? Will they have access to the knowledge they need for research if their college restricts their search access or if they don’t have Wi-Fi or a computer at home? Are they safe to participate in online, public collaborations if they are undocumented? Is their college or the required adaptive learning platform collecting data on them, and if so, could those data be used in ways that could put them at risk?

      Crucial questions here. It's challenging for faculty to ask and answer all of them at the same time. But we simply must.

    7. Open Pedagogy” as a named approach to teaching is nothing new. Scholars such as Catherine Cronin,[1] Katy Jordan,[2] Vivien Rolfe,[3] and Tannis Morgan have traced the term back to early etymologies. Morgan cites a 1979 article[4] by the Canadian Claude Paquette: “Paquette outlines three sets of foundational values of Open Pedagogy, namely: autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.”

      This historical framing is important - a wonderful reminder of previous democratizing and empowering currents in education.

    8. We hope that this chapter will inspire those of us in education to focus our critical and aspirational lenses on larger questions about the ideology embedded within our educational systems and the ways in which pedagogy impacts these systems. At the same time we hope to provide some tools and techniques to those who want to build a more empowering, collaborative, and just architecture for learning.

      For me this is an essential summons -- the pedagogies we cultivate and perpetuate are not ideologically neutral. Open Ed, OEP and Open Ped have the potential to challenge the neoliberal currents many of us find so antithetical to our calling and commitment as educators. Keeping the focus on the nexus of theory and practice is critical.

    9. avoid digital redlining,[26] creating inequities (however unintentionally) through the use of technology.

      So many challenges here, and we really must address all of them. I'm also interested in learning how to make sure my websites and other affordances I use are accessible to people with disabilities.

    1. “Open Pedagogy and a Very Brief History of the Concept.” Explorations in the Ed Tech World, 21 Dec. 2016, https://homonym.ca/uncategorized/open-pedagogy-and-a-very-brief-history-of-the-concept/.

    2. For Paquette, open is very much about learner choice, (albeit for him this is really about creating a classroom environment where this can be optimized).  Good stuff right? Of course, this becomes much more fascinating if you consider the sociopolitical context in which these ideas were playing out.

      I so appreciate this framing - context is essential (and always sociopolitical). Thank you!

  6. Feb 2018
  7. Apr 2017
    1. What would that look like? I don’t know, but I suspect that the answer relies on building capacity and a network of colleagues who can share the labor, work together, and change a system to be in the service of those it is charged to serve-to place the system into the obediential service of students and faculty/staff alike.
    1. help institutions be their “best selves” in this tradition.

      I think this is the root of my curmudgeonliness. I keep twitching at the juxtaposition of "students" and "institutions" I appreciate that the kind of change we're talking about here will happen at the institutional level, but I think that leaving faculty out of the basic equation undermines the premise of liberal education in particular and the primary role of institutions of learning in general. You could shed a lot of things and still have a university, but the two indispensable parties are students and faculty.

    2. earning and the best principles of American higher education. This commitment holds that educating the whole person, with knowledge, skills, and the larger capacities for a life of purpose, is essential both for professional success and for a life of fulfillment and flourishing. Colleges and universities, at their best, are distinctive as institutions that can produce this kind of learning.

      Love the ideas in these sentences (starts at the bottom of previous page). I would like to think that institutions "support" or "nurture" or "facilitate" rather than "produce" learning. Want to push back against the production metaphor whenever possible.

    3. Learner-centered digital tools must respect the sovereignty of student identity, of data related to a student’s own learning, and of intellectual work itself (representing knowledge, skills, and abilities) as well as the relationships among all three.

      Definitely. I would also add that the faculty member's intellectual labor and investment in facilitating and supporting student learning also warrants recognition and respect.

    4. meld, seamlessly and transparently, with the platforms that support the best assessment practices

      Alternatively, one could argue that leaving the "seams" exposed would accomplish a lot - it would make the assessment tools visible to the students, could see what kind of data are being collected and thus gain some insight as to how the institution sees them and what parts of the learning experience it values and measures.

    5. Domains, the Personal API, and related efforts are all emergent examples of how learner-centered technologies could be fundamentally reimagined within broader digital strategies at the institutional level.

      Want to support both of these whenever possible.

    6. New majority students are typically the most in need of support in learning how to make use of such tools; the skills and capacities for using the web effectively are distributed very unevenly. This further strengthens the argument for taking the most authentic digital learning environment as the starting point for remaking higher education.

      Yes. Although I feel this has also shifted just in the last few years. The main challenge for new majority students is (still) access -- access to the internet, to the tools, to a laptop. But I've seen a real erosion across the board (among all kinds of students) of basic familiarity with the web and its participatory communities. Apps have siloed everyone's experience in ways that challenge the imperative to integrate, or at least traverse different environments.

    7. There is an intricate and inalienable relationship between attaining digital fluency and being liberally educated in the twenty-first century. Yet in most institutions there is a mismatch between the most common digital environments where students spend their time, on the one hand, and the commitment to developing students as critically capable agents in a networked world, on the other.

      Definitely. And that disconnect grows every day.

    8. With technology fluency, a student not only navigates within a single environment, but also begins to ‘demonstrate an ability to make effective choices and use the tools to advance their understanding and communication.’...[T]he ultimate sign of technology fluency is the ‘ability to manipulate, transform and move information across various media and platforms.’”

      I would add that having some understanding (at least conceptually) of how various environments work is also a key element of "fluency." I wonder if we should be thinking about "emerging fluencies" here, as this is (will likely always be) a moving target?

    9. How are students being empowered to curate their learning? Are all students—especially new majority students—being given the full range of tools and capacities they need to thrive in digital environments? Is the collection of student data transparent? Are students being given the tools to make their learning portable and to make their learning records flexible, so they can be reshaped for different purposes during multiple job and career changes?

      Critical questions! IME the answer to most of them is "definitely not."

    10. We have as human beings a greater opportunity than ever before to narrate, document, and shape our digital lives. We are also subject to having our data and behavior tracked and our information profiles shaped and manipulated in ways we may not even understand. It should be a distinctive responsibility of higher education institutions at least to prepare students for this world.

      Could not agree more whole heartedly.

    11. diverse instructional staff (including faculty) are engaged in the redesign of learning experiences,

      Why designate faculty as parenthetical after thoughts in a transformation they should help lead?

    12. Digital learning environments are not merely scaled systems through which students pass; they are empowering environments in which students learn to make meaning, solve problems, and marshal their best work in communities of practice.

      Yes. networked environments that facilitate collaboration and co-learning -- for and with students AND faculty.

    13. Bass and Eynon, Open and Integrative. Designing Liberal Education for the New Digital Ecosystem (2016)

    14. Focusing only on faculty designs and ignoring what students actually do and learn misses a crucial element of the equation.

      Definitely! IME there is often a disconnect between what faculty think is happening and what students actually do in the analog world. No need to carry that forward.

    15. I t respects and builds on what faculty know. While faculty may not be experts in technology, they bring key expertise to the conversation. “Training” that disregards faculty expertise misunderstands the nature of professional learning, discards crucial knowledge resources, and is unlikely to produce meaningful engagement.

      I would say that meaningful engagement is impossible without attention to faculty expertise and the inflections of particular fields. And the more integrative the subject, the more critical this becomes.

    16. Effective faculty development around digital learning goes beyond technology training to focus attention on pedagogy.

      I don't mean to sound so contrarian, but here again, I think we're putting the technology cart before the faculty horse. Is there not a way to engage faculty in the development and articulation of the digital affordances that best suit their students' needs? There are lots of faculty out there who really need to think about how they understand their own pedagogical praxis. Let's work on that in tandem with developing the new digital ecosystem -- then we could have something that leveraged faculty expertise and experience to everyone's benefit and pass on the "training."

    17. n contrast, our contention is that, just as colleges and universities must rethink and rebundle to make college learning more integrative and adaptive, so too must the faculty role be rebundled in the emerging digital learning ecosystem.

      I can see lots of potential in "unbundling" / "rebundling" institutions, but where students and faculty are concerned I'd like them to be agents rather than objects of these transformations.

    18. Connected learning previews the new ecosystem where learners move easily between formal and informal contexts, connect knowledge and lived experience, and deepen learning through engagement with others.

      Would like to see faculty incorporated into this ecosystem more explicitly. They also need to be more nimble and able to negotiate across these domains.

    19. eedback, for example,

      Flagging "Reclaiming "Scale" from "Massive" (Text box below). I see this as absolutely imperative.



  8. Mar 2017
    1. We should be asking – always and again and again: just what sort of future is this technological future of education that we are told we must embrace?

      Yes, whether we see that future as necessarily positive, apocalyptic, or somewhere in between, the only way we control the shape of things to come is to ask good questions in the present.

    2. You can delete the data. You can limit its collection. You can restrict who sees it. You can inform students. You can encourage students to resist. Students have always resisted school surveillance.

      The first three of these can be tough for the individual faculty member to accomplish, but informing students and raising awareness around these issues can be done and is essential.

    1. individual's interpretation of that policy

      AUP connections to individual / institutional variance in Fair Use / Copyright interpretations relevant here as well.


      Very important DH work being done on Red Lining by LaDale Winling at Virginia Tech and others: (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/housing-discrimination-redlining-maps/) Robert K. Nelson, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, Nathan Connolly, et al., “Mapping Inequality,” American Panorama, ed. Robert K. Nelson and Edward L. Ayers, accessed March 7, 2017, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/37.2720/-79.9750&opacity=0.8&city=roanoke-va. (https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=4/36.71/-96.93&opacity=0.8)

    1. Not all plagiarists are smart, but the smart ones will not steal from OA sources indexed in every search en-gine. In this sense, OA deters plagiarism.1

      This is a big plus. I've also found that plagiarism declines when students work openly using OA materials. It doesn't take them long to realize that cut and paste will cause problems.

    2. Academic publishers are not monolithic. Some new ones were born OA and some older ones have completely converted to OA. Many provide OA to some of their work but not all of it.

      And keeping track of all of the permutations can be tough.

    3. There are many hypotheses to explain the correlation between OA and increased citations, but it’s likely that ongoing studies will show that much of the correlation is simply due to the larger audience and heightened visibility provided by OA itself.

      This could be the game changer.

    4. n fact, the idea that OA depends on author altruism slows down OA progress by hiding the role of au-thor self-interest.

      Definitely -- again, I think addressing the larger ecosystem of employers and the publishers is also important.

    5. Public and private funding agencies are essentially public and private charities, funding research they regard as useful or beneficial. Universities have a public purpose as well, even when they are private institutions. We sup-port the public institutions with public funds, and we support the private ones with tax exemptions for their property and tax deductions for their donors.

      Yes. So the shift to OA in scholarly publishing is more about making this piece explicit so the public can claim what is rightfully already ours. I would love to think that faculty can do this by themselves, but I don't think it's so.

    6. The academic custom to write research articles for im-pact rather than money

      I'm not sure it's this simple. If your university expects you to write for impact then doing so is a basic component of job security, and therefore not separate from the compensation / money issue.

    7. no legitimate scholarly purpose in suppressing attribution to the texts we use.

      And furthermore, attribution creates a chain of authenticity and evidence - essential foundations for credibility, legitimacy and integrity of the work.

    8. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited

      Of course this would be fabulous. But the obstacles are considerable: theoretical / legal vs. practical control and enforcement (for citation / attribution); and the publishers....what's in it for them?

    1. But for research articles we’re generally talking about authors from the special tribe who want to share their work as widely as possible. Even these authors, however, tend to transfer their copyrights to intermediaries—publishers—who want to sell their work.

      Yes, although many authors see this transfer as a necessary precondition -- not one they like. Publishers require that you assign the copyright to them as a condition of publishing.

  9. Feb 2017
    1. and reflect on its purposes — individually and as a class. 

      Metacognitive work on what the assessment is and how it works. Nice.

    2. Drier’s final grades are based on students’ written self-assessments, which, in turn, are based on their review of items in their portfolios. 

      Really appreciate modalities like this one where students are asked to show us what they've learned and to interact with the instructor and other students.

    3. “When school is seen as a test, rather than an adventure in ideas,” teachers may persuade themselves they’re being fair “if they specify, in listlike fashion, exactly what must be learned to gain a satisfactory grade…[but] such schooling is unfair in the wider sense that it prepares students to pass other people’s tests without strengthening their capacity to set their own assignments in collaboration with their fellows” (Nicholls and Hazzard, 1993, p. 77).

      While it is the "adventure in ideas" that should be the focus.

    4. Extrinsic motivation, which includes a desire to get better grades, is not only different from, but often undermines, intrinsic motivation, a desire to learn for its own sake (Kohn 1999a). 

      Focusing on grades as a / the measure of achievement also seems to undermine the kind of curiosity that is essential to authentic learning.

    1. But while the stylus-touch interfaces of modern tablets and the proliferation of online media do fulfill much of Bush’s technological vision, the key underlying epistemic concept put forth by Bush has been largely neglected.

      Or engaged obliquely -- How to map, preserve and make accessible (in a "filter forward" kind of way) the "cognitive scaffolding" of our associative trails? Lots of potential for Hypothes.is here ;-)

    2. History and humanities more generally are dominated by the single-author article and monograph, so a system built to pool research notes may seem counterintuitive.

      Yes! In general these disciplines have long been structured around the perception that scholarship is pursued largely in solitude. It isn't really so, of course, but I love the potential of projects like this one to foreground and support collaboration and networking.

    3. The goal for the project was not to publish a completed set of sites or records, but rather to facilitate active research.

      So much potential here for transforming (overcoming) the distinctions between a repository, a tool, and an ongoing project.

  10. Jan 2017
    1. “it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response.”

      The level of "openness" implied here might be calibrated differently now than when the article was written.

    2. idea of open science dates back to the very origin of modern science,

      Yes, although don't we need to be careful not to conflate scholarship and science? The methodologies of the humanities approach this process very differently.

    3. The Public Library of Science (PLOS), for example, has a policy that requires authors “to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction,” with refusal to do so being grounds for rejection of a manuscript (PLOS, n.d.a). Importantly, PLOS positions this Data Availability policy as being a natural extension of OA publishing.

      This seems especially crucial. Transparency and openness work in tandem to establish credibility and accountability.

    4. not only must it be online, but it must be public, it cannot be behind a paywall or login or have other barriers to use.

      How do we think about free (no fee) public (available on the open web) resources where you need to create an account to get access? I'm thinking more of databases, repositories, etc. than the underlying software.

    5. “open skies” policy enables a nation to allow other nations’ commercial aviation to fly through its airspace — though, importantly, without giving up control of its airspace.

      This may be the contemporary meaning, but in the fifties the US proposed an "open skies" policy that would allow for aerial monitoring of military installations in the Soviet Union by the US (and visa versa). I'm not sure I see surveillance agreements as examples of openness.

  11. Feb 2016
    1. n an outcomes-based regime, outcomes become central and crowd out other considerations.

      It's the crowding out that concerns me. Clearly there are competencies that need and should be measured in this way. It's privileging them at the expense and even exclusion of the equally essential but messier contextual kinds of learning that's a problem.

    2. For GEDIVT: Why does Donna Riley argue against a "paradigm of evidence-based practice.?

    1. For GEDIVT: Some questions to think about while reading Lombardi: What are the differences between "traditional" grading and "authentic" assessment methods? What is the difference between formative and summative assessment? What would authentic assessment look like in your discipline?

    1. For GEDIVT: I wonder if the emphasis on grading, GPA's and traditional assessments in higher ed encourage undergraduates to see college as a "test" rather than an "adventure in ideas"? It seems that the exploratory, adventurous aspect of education is too important to lose. So what can we do?

    2. For GEDIVT: How do the arguments made here (and by Daniel Pink) align with or challenge our assumptions about grading and assessment?

  12. Jan 2016
    1. Offering students the possibility of experiential learning in personal, interactive, networked computing—in all its gloriously messy varieties—provides the richest opportunity yet for integrative thinking within and beyond "schooling."

      Yes, yes, yes. Networked learning IS experiential. I am always on the lookout for opportunities to facilitate those experiences - for my students and myself, and consider every embrace of glorious messiness a significant victory.

  13. Dec 2015