In the last week, I played marathon sessions of The Last of Us and The Last of Us II. I usually play/finish about one video game per year. I finished two in the last week. If catharsis helps you deal with trauma (it does help me), these are two of the best games ever made.
But they are also incredibly heartbreaking, violent, and disturbing, from the very first moments. I cried several times, just short of sobbing at one point. I used to regularly write about horror (alongside and intermingling with pedagogy). These games made me miss that work.
One of the strengths of the horror genre is its ability to deal directly with issues that would be taboo in other genres. Politics, race, religion, gender, sexuality, grief, loss. All of those are in The Last of Us with an incredible nuance I’ve not seen in other games.
These are not games I’d recommend to most people at a moment like this one. At least not without basically all the content warnings. But, more than anything else, these games are about sublime nature, parenting, the ineffable parts of being human, and love.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Proctorio requested retraction of an article by Shea Swauger critical of algorithmic proctoring in the peer-reviewed journal @HybridPed. When the journal refused, Proctorio CEO Mike Olsen and the journal’s editor, Jesse Stommel, got into a Twitter spat.” vice.com/en/article/7k9…
Thoughts drawn from threads referenced here. For many reasons, it’s nearly impossible to publicly critique edtech companies without repercussions. As I’ve said before, these companies deliberately market themselves to the least knowledgeable, most powerful people at institutions.
The monetization strategies for most edtech companies aim for university-wide adoption. When an institution requires all its teachers/students to use a particular tool, they create an environment that inhibits or silences critics.
My thoughts from this new @timeshighered piece: “We need to trust students to be partners in shaping the future of their own education. This means we can’t begin with the belief that our job is to rank them against one another or police their learning.” timeshighereducation.com/opinion/teachi…
More of my thoughts from the interview:
We need to carefully examine our approaches to grading, marking, and assessment. So much of our system is mired in one skewed approach to assessment, which focuses on quantitative, standardized, and supposedly objective marks.
There is very little wiggle room for teachers to challenge the systems for assessment in higher education and very little relief for marginalized students who are not well-served by these systems.
If your college or university’s re-opening plans are being delayed or cancelled at the last minute, now is the time to reaffirm your commitment to compassionate grading policies.
If you think students will not do the work without grades, ask yourself who education is for (and who it should be for). You can also ask other teachers who don’t grade whether students keep doing the work. (They do.)
If you think students need grades (for graduate/medical/law school applications, to show employers, or for their GPAs), consider that there are many institutions that don’t have grades. And their graduates still get jobs, go to graduate school, etc.
I‘d say it’s too late to really plan for Fall at this point. Most colleges and universities are looking at another round of emergency remote teaching. Right now, I’m gonna encourage every single teacher and institution to start planning and preparing for Spring.
Stop investing in Purell stations, Webcams, and Zoom contracts. Invest in faculty development. And not best practices or Q&A processes. Rely on experts in higher education pedagogy and create spaces for your faculty to have meaningful conversations about teaching and learning.
You don’t need to hire faculty in higher education pedagogy right now (but when you can, you should). Look to those already in your community who have been doing this work for decades. You do not need to reinvent the wheel of online, hybrid, digital, and inclusive pedagogies.
I have issues with procotoring in general. Exams should be opportunities for learning not a way to police learning and students. But proctoring by video camera is quite different from proctoring in person in a large room.
When taking a test remotely, students are often at home, in their personal space, sometimes in their bedrooms. We shouldn’t expect students can safely allow cameras into this space (or that they should be required to). It’s invasive and reinforces inappropriate power dynamics.
Proctoring by video puts the proctor 1-2 feet from the students taking a test, often with the proctor staring (or appearing to stare) directly at a student’s face. It’s intimidating and goes well beyond the usually more passive role of a proctor in a large testing environment.
A static recording of a synchronous Zoom conversation doesn’t really count as “asynchronous” learning, at least for the purposes of access. Nor does a mere recording of a face-to-face classroom session.
Robust asynchronous learning requires that students can engage (as full participants) no matter how and when they are available. If we want to provide access to students who can’t be present synchronously, making them flies on the wall after the fact isn’t enough.
We have to build for asynchronous, design real points of entry for students who can’t be physically present at a particular time or in specific ways. This can (and should) intersect with more traditional synchronous face-to-face approaches.