We are only going to get through this with greater collaboration. The siloes between instructors who teach in the classrooms and the staff who make technology decisions are far too wide and gaping. The chickens have come to roost. (7/7)

These are my gut reaction thoughts, but I think one action item instructors really should consider taking is form greater partnership with instructional staff, from CTLs to IT units to accessibility divisions. I know I'm biased since my career is as academic staff, BUT (6/7)

Seeing the institutional abdication of respect for instructor agency, the selection of design tools that undermine authentic personalization, makes me queasy. Students are going to have even more homogenized instructional experiences online. That will make online edu worse on the whole. (5/7)

And this universal integration of AI functionality is just going to accelerate the flattening (the "enshittification," per Cory Doctorow, if you will) of online educational experiences in particular. I'm a big enthusiast for online learning (I've written two books about it!!), but... (4/7)

The Canvas monopoly is troubling b/c I see how fundamentally it has reshaped instruction. So many courses are cookie-cutter. While many of Canvas's design decisions are effective (chunking content into modules, e.g.), many are hierarchical at best, destructive to student agency at worst. (3/7)

My academic tech career has meant often encouraging usage of the LMS for a number of obvious reasons: it's free, secure, and accessible to students. Yet the LMS market has shrunk considerably in my 10+ years in higher ed. I can only think of a handful of institutions that don't use Canvas. (2/7)

I hope it's useful to you!!!

3. What does it look like to resist the linguistic homogenization that LLM usage may reinforce? (5/5)

2. How do we discourage the surveillance logic inherent in requiring proof of seeing drafts? (e.g. I'm noticing that many instructors are asking for proof of drafting in the form of submitting evidence of writing logs and revisions in Google Docs, which is fairly invasive!) (4/5)

1. What does it look like to shift perspectives on writing across the curriculum to help educators of all disciplines recognize what it means to design writing assignments that go beyond "the transactional?" (3/5)

This fire rhetoric courtesy of @rcmeg.bsky.social, Jennifer Sano-Franchini, and Maggie Fernandes. Anyone who thinks about writing instruction (whether you're in the field of writing studies or not) should absolutely read this! This essay had me thinking of several follow-up questions... (2/5)

Anyway, LOTS more to say here and many more questions to explore, but I was grateful for the ways that these articles tackled my increasing discomfort at celebrations over AI "solutions" that don't appear to be solving real "problems," but are, instead, undermining pedagogical expertise. (8/8)

Example: AI is touted as a solution for instructional "efficiency" (something both Beck and Warner speak to). "Tedious" tasks like grading are cited most frequently. But is the problem with grading that it's "tedious?" Or is the problem that grading is tedious when it's poorly designed? (7/8)

If instructors don't have clear articulations of teaching challenges they're trying to solve AND if administrators are out of touch with teaching challenges, then there's a perfect vacuum for edtech solutions to swoop in and respond to ghosts of problems (6/8)

The question university administrators & instructors alike should ask when considering ANY edtech adoption (and this feels particularly acute with AI) is: "what teaching problem are we trying to solve? So much edtech is a solution in search of a problem. (5/8)

Something I've long seen as a problem with how universities talk about edtech is that it's often in significantly binarized and instrumentalist terms. So much edtech integration is focused on the wrong questions of "what does the technology do?" That's almost always the wrong question (4/8)

I enjoyed reading these pieces together since they brought up a few core lingering questions for me. What *are* the core teaching values that we can agree we must preserve as core to the teaching mission? And how can those core values be communicated persuasively, clearly, and repeatedly? (3/8)

2. @esteebeck.bsky.social's excellent & thoughtful piece on how NTT and graduate students can simultaneously resist extractive uses of GenAI while still leveraging digital platforms (and, yes, even chatbots!) to organize: cuny.manifoldapp.org/read/practic... (2/8)