 joined him with my ping pong session, which raised lots of laughs. I'm really disappointed it wasn't on the word cloud when he talked about what you enjoyed just today. But welcome. It's a real pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker for the day. Jessey's Twitter, jesefer, please do you go and have a look at his Twitter account and see some of the quotes from his ac yn ystod y cwysig o'r llwyddoedd yma, oedd wedi'i gweithio yma yma. Jesse yw'r Unifas, yn ystod y Unifas Tŷ y Meriwasiwn Tyn yn Ffiddiniau. Yn ystod y Llywodraeth Cymru, mae'r ysgol yn ystod ystod yma, ac mae'r cofawr yn ystod y Llywodraeth Cymru, a'r Llywodraeth Cymru, a'r Llywodraeth Cymru. Yn ystod y gallwch chi, mae'n gweithio yma, a'r gweithio yma yw'r llwyddoedd yma, a dweud weithio yma yma ar gyfer gyntaf y cwysig yma. Y gweithio yma yma yma, felly rydw i am ddweud o sgol, i ddim yn ystod eich hunig, i ddim yn dweud, ddim yn dderbyn am i ddim yn manavil, i ddim yn ddych chi. A bywch i dweud i ddim yn d assumption. Mae'r ddim yn ddweud i ddim yn wateryn a dweud o'r organiwyr honna. Rydw i ddim yn dweud i ddim yn dweud i ddim. O'r dweud i ddim, I want to say before I introduce Jesse and that's our nice kind of fact that we share is that if you look at Jesse's bio you'll see that he has in fact a daughter called Hazel. I too have a badass daughter called Hazel but they're just at different ends of their journey in education. But it is my real pleasure to welcome you to ALT and welcome you to the stage. Thank you very much. Giving you a chance to, I think my microphone is on, is it on? Yep. Giving you a chance to look at my daughter there behind you and I'm actually going to start by talking a little bit about her. When I give a keynote like this one of the things that's really important to me is to show up fully in the room. I'm a closet introvert as I've now told many, many people. A lot of people don't believe me. Somehow I've managed to do the work that I do all the while being a relatively deep introvert and I come from a family of extroverts and so they have taught me how to pose as an extrovert. So I'm an extrovert on TV and actually an introvert and one of the things that I like to do is tell a story about myself at the beginning of my keynotes and the thing that it does is it helps situate me in the room with all of you. Another thing that I like to do is to sit at the level that everyone is sitting at so that I can actually look people in the eyes. There's something very unnerving about being up on a keynote stage and feeling like you're above all of these people and you're not actually connecting with them. One of the other things that I do is I decide that I'm not going to determine what story I'm going to tell and tell just before I tell it. So I decided on this one this morning. It's a relatively cute story. Sometimes the thing that pops into my head is a much more serious story but there are some serious tones in my keynote and so I felt like starting with a little bit of a lighter story would be worthwhile. So my daughter is two and a half. She just started preschool. I was actually going to bring her with me to Scotland but I decided not to relatively close to the last minute because it would be her second week of preschool and I felt like hard to take her out of her second week of preschool. I walk her to school every morning. We live about two blocks from the preschool and one morning I walked her to school and I was late and so I was walking relatively quickly and she stopped at a planter and was investigating the plant. It was one of those moments that in my head I was thinking wait we've got to get there. We're running late but then I saw her just completely engrossed in what she was looking at. The thing that I've noticed about my daughter and it's the reason that I can't help but bring her into every conversation that I have about education is that she's learning every second. That she's constantly learning. She's a learning machine and another thing that I've noticed is that she's so much better at it than I am. She learns by nature. It just happens and it happens constantly and so she wasn't just checking out a curious thing. She was investigating it and so this was all about eight seconds that these things popped through my head and I thought wow I have to have a picture of this. That's not the picture but so I pull out my camera and go to take a picture of her. She sees me holding that camera and in seven seconds she gives me seven poses and I just rattle off photographs. She's two and a half. I didn't even know that she knew what a camera was but what was interesting to me was that she was actually I could tell that she was posing knowing that I would show her the pictures later. So she understood what my Instagram feed is or her Instagram feed rather. She understands what her Instagram feed is and she understands that these poses are going to appear on it later. What I really loved about this moment though is that I could tell that she wasn't posing for me and she wasn't posing for her followers on Instagram. She doesn't know what a follower is. But she was posing for herself. She was posing so that later in the day she could admire the pictures and she'll look at them and say cute which actually for her she says oh toot. I guess because that's what I say although I think I said cute not toot. But so it was this moment for me of realizing how quickly and how fast she's learning and how complex her learning is. But it was also a moment for me of realizing that there was this place that she was in that day that she was in some ways going to lose. She was going to lose because at some point she was going to not be posing for herself. She would be posing for other people and probably also herself. But there was this really pure moment watching her do that. And also that's what I notice about her learning is when she's learning she's not learning for other people. She's learning for herself. And there's something really marvelous about that. And so I have a lot to learn about learning from my daughter. She teaches me every day. But so one of the strands that's going to run through my keynote today is talking about listening to students and talking about listening for learning and watching for learning and all the invisible signs of learning. And I think it's something that we need to do more of and it's something that's in my mind it's something that's deeply human. So I think we've invented a lot of ed texts that try and do this for us. We've invented a lot of algorithmic processes that try and like I assume you probably have some of these early warning systems where they're following the student through their progress. The idea being that the algorithm can detect if they're in crisis and they need your support. I guess one of the things that I want to argue is that we need to be even better at using our human processes to do that. So the quote that I have up here on the screen next to this beautiful, this is a picture taken when she was about, I think she's about three months old there. And I love this picture because she has this fist on her chest and then if you can't read it it says well behaved women rarely make history. And then it's got this resist fist and then there she was with her resist fist. She's actually taken this resist fist into her life. It has become a part of her. It's the thing that I know most about her. She's the sweetest, most generous kid but she has always got an eyebrow raised at everything. And maybe she learns that from me but actually I think I'm learning to do it better from her. So Paulo Freire writes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention, through the restless, impatient, continuing hopeful inquiry. Humans, human beings pursue in the world with the world and with each other. I marvel at this quote and I use this quote quite a bit in my work and part of the reason I can keep using it and keep coming back to it is it says something different to me every time. There's something about the way that he uses language here, this juxtapositions of these words separated by commas. Well which is it? Is it restless? Is it impatient? Is it continuing? Is it hopeful? And how do those words fit next to one another? And so there's something really great here about how complicated learning is, how complex it is, how deep it is, how in some ways it's a bit of a conundrum. It's something that we don't yet understand that we can't possibly, probably ever fully understand. And for him it's this sort of circling around learning that he's interested in, trying to figure out what it is. And I also love this idea of knowledge emerging. There's also these words here invention and reinvention and I think that's one of the things that we're talking about at this event is talking about invention and what inventions have wrought upon learning. And also what are the wonders and the marvels of technology for learning. So this is my definition of pedagogy. I'm going to be talking about critical digital pedagogy which is what my book that I co-authored with Sean Michael Morris is about and it's what a lot of my research has been about. Essentially the juxtaposition of the critical pedagogy movement and my thinking through digital pedagogy how these do or do not live together in the world. And so I want to start by breaking down these three words thinking about critical pedagogy, thinking about just pedagogy and also then talking a little bit about where what I see critical digital pedagogy doing. So pedagogy for me is praxis. It's insistently perched at the intersection between the philosophy and practice of teaching. For me this is recursive. It means that in the moment I'm thinking about what I'm doing, doing what I'm doing and then modifying and changing what I'm doing on the fly. It is a constant process for me and so it is this marriage of theory and actually the work of teaching. One of the things that I think has been difficult for me with technology when I first started teaching online in 2007. At that time there was a sort of a move towards constructing your online course entirely in advance of the students arriving upon the scene. And that wasn't the only way it was done but at the institution I was at that was the process. So the process would be that I would spend months and get a grant to design this course and then maybe six months later students would arrive into the course. And for me one of the things that was lost was this, this feeling of being able to revise and edit on the fly. And so the thing I would also call for as I'm thinking through some of our ed tech is the ways that we can both marvel at it and also ask questions of it and also raise our eyebrow at it. And that those things don't necessarily, that they can coexist so that our enjoyment and our pleasure at technology and the ways that it changes our work can live alongside of our skepticism, of our criticality. What is critical pedagogy? In pedagogy of the oppressed, Paulo Freire argues against the banking model in which education becomes an act of depositing in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. So one of the big things that critical pedagogy pushes on is this idea that I am just a fount of knowledge and that you are just a receptacle for that knowledge. And that's the goal. The goal is for me to just get what's in here inside of there. The story that I just told about my daughter that would actually seem absurd. It would be absurd to imagine that I would teach her what Instagram was or that I would teach her what a camera was or that I would teach her what a photograph was or what investigating a photograph was. In fact, what was happening was an exchange, a dialogue, us in conversation, even when she's two and a half, us in conversation and dialogue with one another. The other thing that critical pedagogy is really interested in is context. So thinking about how we're situated in our learning experience, what bodies we bring to the experience, what culture we bring to the experience, what backgrounds we bring to the experience, and thinking about how the educational experience changes depending on who shows up to the classroom or to the online course portal. And I mean who shows up both because students are idiosyncratic but also because teachers are idiosyncratic. And we show up embodied differently. So I often, people, I have very strong ideas. I'll get to some of my strong ideas soon. And people often ask or worry that when I have strong ideas that I'm trying to imply that all of the rest of you should also share my strong ideas. And really for me that's not how pedagogy works. What I want is I want teachers to be as idiosyncratic as students. I want every teacher to bring a different self to the work of teaching. And what I am doing is modeling a particular self to perhaps inspire you to keep finding the self that you bring to the work. So it isn't about there being one pedagogy. It is instead about finding what your pedagogy is. And that's a really key piece to critical pedagogy. People often wonder at the critical pedagogy movement. So there's both lower case critical pedagogy. A pedagogy that it is critical of itself and of the work of teaching and learning. But also capital C, capital P critical pedagogy which is a philosophical movement associated with Paulo Freire and Bell Hooks. People often wonder at critical pedagogy being critical of itself. And to me I think it can't help but be critical of itself. It is by its nature in my mind critical of itself. So in place of the banking model, Freire advocates for problem posing education. In which a classroom or learning environment becomes a space for asking questions. A space of cognition, not information. So a space of wonder, a space of marveling at, a space of raising your eyebrows at. And so that's what I'm going to bring to edtech today is both that marveling and also the eyebrow raising. Bell Hooks, another critical pedagog who has been really influential to me, she writes, as a classroom community our capacity to generate excitement is deeply affected by our interest in one another. In hearing one another's voices, in recognizing one another's presence, in looking at each other in the eye. Whether that's our physical eyes or finding ways to see one another within our technological tools. Bell Hooks is really important in this conversation for me because she brings to the discussion of pedagogy this sense of joy, how important joy is, how important pleasure is. When we're talking about education, if we're not talking about joy I think we're doing something wrong. As at least one part, if not the main part of learning and education. That's the thing that I saw on my daughter is I saw joy. I saw curiosity. I saw a little bit of frustration but I also saw joy and even joy at her frustration. So what is critical digital pedagogy? My work has wondered at whether and how critical pedagogy translates into digital space. Can the necessary reflective dialogue flourish within web-based tools, social media platforms or learning management systems? What is digital agency? How can we build platforms that support learning across age, race, gender, culture, ability, geography? What are the specific affordances and limitations of technology toward these ends? I wrote a couple pieces which were cheekily titled but also I meant it as a serious thought experiment. I wrote one piece called If Bell Hooks Made a Learning Management System. And I wrote another piece called If Paulo Freire made a MOOC. Because what I was interested is how these things, the learning management system or the MOOC, do or do not sit comfortably with a lot of our long-standing pedagogical theories and philosophies. And what I ended up finding is that the question if Bell Hooks made a learning management system ultimately was something absurd, Bell Hooks and the learning management system were living in different rooms from one another. And in some ways the same with Paulo Freire but there was ways for me to think about the learning management system and the MOOC in different ways when I was putting them alongside in a sort of metanomic relationship with these thinkers that I had been using and working with for so many years. The wondering at these questions is not particularly new. In some ways critical digital pedagogy is a nascent field and yet it really isn't because I can go back and I can find in some of the earliest writing about pedagogy that most of my work was already done 100 years ago. So here we've got Evelyn Dewey and John Dewey in Schools of Tomorrow and this was written in the 20s. And they write, unless the mass of workers are to be blind cogs and pinions in the apparatus they employ, they must have some understanding of the physical and social facts behind and ahead of the material and appliances with which they are dealing. This is in some ways the thesis of my keynote written 100 years before I arrived onto this stage. And this one, the word that really gets me here and there may be some degree of linguistic change. This word may have had a different resonance when they were writing than it has now. But the word that strikes me here is appliances. One of the things that strikes me also is when I'm talking with ed tech companies and they talk about customers or they talk about users. And that is the language inside of a tech company for talking about those things. So I don't begrudge them for using those words. But there is for me a moment of tension, a moment of anxiety, that makes me think about the relationships that I'm trying to develop in an educational environment and how those are different. The idea of a learning management system or a VLE being an appliance, that alone is probably enough for me to wonder at the rest of the day what that means for the work that we might do inside of one of those environments. In the forward to frarie's pedagogy of the oppressed, Richard Shaw writes, our advanced technological society is rapidly making objects of most of us and subtly programming us into conformity to the logic of its system. The paradox is that the same technology that does this to us also creates a new sensitivity to what is happening. There's a sort of matrix that you fall into as I read this quote, this sense in which the technology is programming us and yet the technology may be the exact thing that allows us to see and think critically about how we're being programmed. So it's a conundrum. I teach digital studies. The rest of my talk is going to be relatively digital critical. And yet the work that I do with my students inside these environments is so important because I want my students to have the skills that they need to use these appliances for both good and to raise their eyebrow at them. A bit of history, the large format blackboard was first used in the US in 1801. The vacuum tube based computer was introduced in 1946. In the 1960's Seymour paper began teaching the logo programming language to children, the first learning management system, PLATO, program logic for automatic teaching operations. I love the title of that. Program logic for automatic teaching operations. When we think about the sort of fears that teachers are going to be replaced by computers, which I don't think is actually possible, I think the very nature of the work of teaching makes it impossible. It is human work by its nature, but here that fear is already telegraphed. Automatic teaching operations, I love that, was developed in 1960. After the introduction of the radio lecture in the 1930's Lloyd Allen Cook warned, this mechanizes education and leaves the local teacher only the tasks of preparing for the broadcast and keeping order in the classroom. This for me sounds a lot about the critique that we saw of the MOOC during the year of the MOOC and in the years after. This idea that somehow the work of teaching would be replaced, that teachers would become mere facilitators, essentially they would become, I'm thinking about the movie Metropolis, and if you've seen Metropolis, the opening scene where the workers are actually slaves to the machine, to the point where their bodies end up being the meat that's ground up to keep the machine going. This idea that that would be what a teacher is. They would be the people, the meat ground up to keep the computer, the automatic, what is that again? The automatic teaching operation going. Digital technologies have values coded into them in advance. Many tools are good only insofar as they are used. Tools and platforms that do dictate too strongly how we might use them. Or ones that remove our agency by covertly reducing us and our work to commodify data should be rooted out by a critical digital pedagogy. I think about what my responsibility is. If my work is focused on figuring out what digital technology is and thinking about how it does or does not live happily alongside my pedagogical values, then one of my responsibilities when I see a piece of ed tech that is being used in ways that don't live happily with the pedagogical foundations that I rely on is to call that out, is to point to it and ask hard questions of those technologies. One of the things I want to say is I think that teachers, educators, and by educators I don't mean just classroom teachers or online teachers, I also mean instructional designers, I also mean technologists. Increasingly teaching is a collaborative endeavor. I think it was always a collaborative endeavor. It is necessarily collaborative. When I think about who an educator is, it's a much wider group of people than just the person who has the title. If we are educators, I think it behooves us to talk to the technology companies that are making our technologies. When there's an exhibitor hall, I think going to the exhibitor hall and having conversations, not just ooing and awing at the technologies, but sitting down with the people there and asking them hard questions about the tools, not hard questions because you want to be an asshole, excuse my language, but hard questions because you actually want to understand the tools and because you want to have an influence on the tool makers who are thinking about what their version 2.0 might look like. As I am now going to root out a couple of tools, as I do that, the thing that I want to say is that I want to say that, excuse me, any of these tools, I want to go and talk. One of them is at the exhibitor hall. You'll see which one that is in a minute. I almost went when we were having drinks last night at the reception. I wanted to sit down and just say, let's just talk before I give my keynote. But I will go and chat with them and happily am open to having that conversation. But the thing is being willing to do that, being willing even when we see something and we raise our eyebrow at it, even when we see something and it makes our stomach sort of churn and we think automatic teaching processes, being willing to sit and have the hard conversation that helps you get to the bottom of what that is and how it might work and what it might do for our work. The Canvas CEO, Canvas is not one of the exhibitors. The Canvas CEO recently announced their, quote, second growth initiative focused on analytics, data science, and artificial intelligence. The code name for this initiative is DIG. My co-author, Shawn Michael Morris, pointed out that the things that have code names are spies and military operations. And this one actually seems like a really good spy or military operation code name DIG. And I wonder if it stands for anything and if it doesn't stand for anything, it's sort of even spookier. It's just an acronym with no, nothing attached to it. We have the most comprehensive database on the educational experience in the globe. So given that information that we have, no one else has those data assets. There's real hyperbole here that I'm fascinated by. No one else has those data assets at their fingertips to be able to develop those algorithms and predictive models. What I think they're talking about is automatic teaching processes. They're talking about developing automatic teaching processes using their data assets, their most comprehensive database on the educational experience in the globe. I wonder if that's really true and I wonder how we would measure that. The thing that's fascinating to me about this is that what are those data assets? Those data assets are our work. Those data assets are our students' work. Those data assets are the relationships that are developed between librarians and students, librarians, instructors, teachers and students. That's the data assets that they're talking about. And they're going to mine those for automatic teaching processes. Mind you, they did not tell us what they were going to do with that data when they started collecting it many, many moons ago. Sean Michael Morris also worked at Canvas and he told me a story about sitting at a table and people said, we have all this data, what are we going to do with it? They hadn't even decided what they were going to do with it and so finally years later they think we've been collecting it all, we might as well monetize it. So these are the questions that I actually asked to one of the vice presidents of Canvas on Twitter after this announcement was made. I asked, does Canvas educate students about IP and data privacy before collecting data? I didn't get answers to a bunch of these questions but I can sort of guess at the answers. That one I think the answer is sure it's in our terms of service, which is in education. Or the other answer is that's the responsibility of the educational institutions. And I think really, you're the ones collecting the data, why is it not part of your responsibility? Can individual students opt out no matter the university policy? Individual students can opt out, however it was that no matter the university policy that was important to me because Canvas says that this is subject to the university policy. And for me in some ways if you're a tech maker and you make tech, you have both a responsibility to your customer, the person buying it, the institution, as well as your user, which is the students. And you have to have responsibility to both. Is there a single button students can click to remove all their data? And one of the reasons I don't mind bringing Canvas up right now is Canvas is actually pretty good with the way that it talks about its data, it's very transparent about what data it's collecting. And it does have this sort of thing. I don't know if it has this exact thing. I'm almost certain it doesn't because imagine what this button would be. It would be a single button that you would click and all of your data from every course module that you had ever been a part of would instantly be deleted and every trace of it. I actually feel like you have some laws here that say that you're supposed to be able to do that. I doubt it really works the way that it's supposed to. If Canvas does monetize the data it has collected, and I love this question because of course the answer is no, if Canvas does monetize the data it has collected, whether permission was given or not, will the owners of that data be compensated? So I'll go back here. The most comprehensive database on the educational experience in the globe, data assets. So the question is here is the people who produced that data, the people whose information, experiences, interactions, relationships, community are being mined to produce this algorithm that's going to help them have a billion dollar valuation at some point in their future. Are those people going to be compensated? These are the kind of questions we need to be asking of all of our ed tech tools and students should be part of this conversation. And I think that it's fine for us to ask these questions even if we know that the ed tech company isn't up to speed yet. Even if we know that the ed tech company is going to say no, we're not compensating people, but at least asking the question of having that conversation so that we can then say when they say no, we're not going to compensate all those students and faculty members and instructional designers and librarians for the work that they put into helping us construct this algorithm, we can at least say, why not? And then have a conversation. So this is an exercise that I do with students and I also do with faculty and so you know I'm going to have all of these slides available to you. I'm going to put them up on slide share and I will share them out on the conference hashtag as well as give anyone the ability to email them to anyone in the globe. My data assets. But this is an exercise that I do where I have, I have done versions of this exercise that I really enjoy where you take two technological tools that are in a similar space. So for example canvas and blackboard. And then you have a group of folks go through and you basically do an edtech celebrity deathmatch between the two tools. And they go through and they research the two different tools answering questions like these ones. To me basic fundamental questions that we should be asking of any tool that we're using, specifically any tool that we're using with students. And some of these questions, it is not just philosophical, it's not just pedagogical, but there are actually legal ramifications to quite a few of these questions. So it is not just our moral duty or our pedagogical duty in some respects, it's actually also our legal duty. So what assumptions does the tool make about its users? What kind of relationships does it set up between teachers and students? What assumptions does the tool make about learning and education? Does the tool attempt to dictate how our learning and teaching happen? What pedagogy does it have baked in? What data must we provide to use the tool? Who owns the data? Will others be able to use own copy our work there? And how accessible is the tool for a blind student, for a hearing impaired student, for a student with a learning disability, for introverts, for extroverts? Asking these questions of every single tool that we use, and maybe playing celebrity deathmatch, it is kind of fun. One of the things that I do during the celebrity deathmatch, I don't actually think I call it that, I just call it that for you, I don't think I call it that when I do the activity. What I encourage them to do is to tweet at or email the CEO of the company right while we're doing the exercise. The great thing is that some of these CEOs respond, which is cool to have that dialogue, to have that interaction. Sean Michael Morris writes, the predation of the ed tech industry only works if we don't lift our heads to see it, raise our hands to change it, stand in its way. So, again, when we see a tool that is doing harm to our students or to the fabric of our work or making teachers more precarious, it's our responsibility to stand in its way. Not all tools can be hacked to good use. This is a conversation that I often have with folks where they ask me, well, it's not the tool, it's just how you use it. And I think to myself, sure, maybe, but there are some tools that have bad pedagogies baked into them. There are some tools that are problematic at their core. So I'm going to talk about one of those, and I'm going to give us a minute for you to wonder which one it might be. This is one of the exhibitors, and if you're in the room exhibitor, I'm happy to sit down and chat with you. I would love to have an hour-long conversation. And I will also say that to some degree I'm using this tool as an example of the kinds of places that we might go in this investigation. Turn it in. One of the other reasons that I chose Turn it in for this is because Turn it in has 98% adoption in the UK, which means it's used by almost all of your institutions, which makes it a little uncomfortable for me to be up here because it means almost every single one of you uses it or is required to use it. Maybe yourself? Definitely, probably your students? So to some degree we're all complicit in this. So I can't necessarily put a laser eye on Turn it in without also implicating everyone in the room. So I have to do this in the most friendly way I possibly can so that we can all just sit and think about this tool and what it does and how it works and how it changes the work that we do with students. The Turn it in End User Agreement, we usually don't. How many people read terms of service regularly? Raise your hand if you read them regularly. And raise your hand if you've read even one all the way through, 100% of the terms of service. I've only probably gotten two that I've read all the way through. I usually skim them. I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the bits and pieces from this terms of service as a way of drawing attention to what we might find when we go into those documents. So the Turn it in End User Agreement, and this is not an attack on Turn it in specifically. This is a description of most terms of service or end user agreements. It's a blur of words and phrases separated by commas of which royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide irrevocable are but a scary few. A ratatatat of nouns, verbs, and adjectives is so bewildering that almost anyone would blindly click agree just to avoid the deluge of legalies. But these words are serious and their ramifications pedagogical. And I draw attention specifically to these words, royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide irrevocable. They are in the terms of service for Turn it in, but those words are in a lot of terms of service. So, again, not unique to Turn it in. I'm letting you off the hook, Turn it in person. If you submit a paper or other content in connection with the services, and I love the capital services, I feel like there needs to be a musical cue as I read that. Dun, dun, dun, or the Darth Vader march. The services. You, hereby grant to Turn it in, and if necessary for providing the service, it's Philiad's vendor's service providers and licensors. That's a little creepy. Because essentially it's saying you're providing this to us. But then also any of these other random people that we determine are a service provider, vendor, affiliate, or licensor. A non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide irrevocable license to use such papers as well as feedback and results for the limited purpose of the limited. It says limited. But then when I get to this next part, limited purposes of A, providing the services, and B, for improving the quality of the services generally. This is pretty common in terms of service language. But what are the services? What are the services that Turn it in provides? The main service that Turn it in provides is a plagiarism detection database. It does have a commenting tool. It does have a feedback tool. There's a lot of other tools built into it. So it isn't just that. But the primary tool at its center is a plagiarism detection database. Let's get these for a second. Turn it in as a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide irrevocable license to one billion student papers. Just pulled this data off from their site yesterday. One billion student papers. 37 open access repositories crawled weekly. 47,000 subscription journals. The Internet Archive. 70 billion current and archived web pages. These are their data assets. And their data assets are for their use to improve the product, to provide services, and they have royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide irrevocable license to them. Now, the thing that they'll say is, no, you own your work. It's yours. But what does it mean to own something if someone else has an irrevocable worldwide essentially unlimited license to it? This actually is a court case that Turn it in won in 2009. They won a court case that essentially the argument was, we're just like a search engine. And so when we're crawling and mining all of that data, we're doing it via fair use. And the courts ruled in their favor. Fair use is a statutory exception to copyright infringement. The unauthorized user reproduction of copyrighted work for the purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, including multiple cases for classroom use, scholarship, or research is not an infringement of copyright. A search engine transforms the image and provides a social benefit by incorporating an original work into a new work, namely an electronic reference tool. So they essentially ruled that Turn it in is a search engine. Turn it in was recently acquired for $1.75 billion. Of that, exactly $0 billion is going to the students who fed the database for years. Meanwhile, Turn it in makes deals with public educational institutions which help them collect more data while Turn it in sells access to that data back to the institutions. They have a product that they're selling. They are selling their data assets, and those data assets are primarily for our youth in this context, those $1 billion student papers. So are they compensating those students? Do those students have the ability to remove their work from the database? Interestingly, and this varies somewhat in various contexts, but they do have the ability to remove their work from the database, but they have to get an institutional representative to make their request for them, so they can't actually do it themselves. Rebecca Moore-Howard. Many of our colleagues are entrenched in an agonistic stance towards students in the aggregate. Students are lazy, illiterate, anti-intellectual cheaters who must prove their worth to the instructor. Turn it in and its automated assessment of student writing is a tool for that proof. I'm going to skip a bunch of slides here, but I meant to do this. I'm going to skip them because in some ways I make these slides so that I can put them online and you can trace the entire argument that I'm making. They'll all be there online. I won't take out the ones that I skipped. But basically the stuff I was going to skip here is a lot of stuff. So it's fun stuff if you go look at it. It's about grading and it's about the problems of grading. So ultimately the other technology that we need to think more about is grading and marking because I think that's connected to thinking about something like plagiarism and how plagiarism works. But where I want to get to is here. A discussion of pedagogy needs to include a critical examination of our technologies, what they afford, who they exclude, how they're monetized, and what pedagogies they have already baked in. But it requires we also begin with a consideration of what we value, the kinds of relationships we want to develop with students, why we gather together in places like universities and how humans learn. I'm definitely interested in what ed tech companies are doing with student data. I'm also interested in how certain ed tech companies fundamentally change my relationship to my students. My issue with Turn It In is certainly about their data, but my other issue is the way that it has suspicion of students baked into it. The way that we are more likely to opt into Turn It In, to opt into a culture of suspicion and distrust of our students than we are to ask hard questions and be suspicious of that ed tech. This means we can't presume to know the reasons students haven't done the reading or craft laptop policies that make it impossible for disabled students to receive accommodation without having their disability made invisible to the entire classroom or through students with nowhere else to go out of their dorms over the holidays. We have to recognize that our students are humans and that when we're interacting with them, we're not interacting with data assets. We're interacting with human beings. So, to summarize critical digital pedagogy in a nutshell, centres its practice on community and collaboration. Two, must remain open to diverse international voices and thus requires invention to reimagine the ways that communication and collaboration happen across cultural and political boundaries. Will not cannot be defined by a single voice, but must gather together a cacophony of voices. Must have use and application outside traditional institutions of education. The third one there is particularly important to me because here I am up on a stage, keynoting standing above you all, hopefully making some eye contact with a few of you all. I did start sitting down, but I'm up on a stage lecturing to you all. But I think it's really key that this can't be a single voice. I cannot define critical digital pedagogy. It's work that we do together and it's work that I've already seen happening at this conference asking hard questions, having the deep conversations that we need to have about this work that we do and the tools that we do it with. Skip a few. Oh yeah, actually I'm going to go here. Bell Hooks writes, for me this place of radical openness, she talks about radical openness and I really love this idea and it's the idea that I'm going to leave you with here at the end. For me this place of radical openness is a margin, a profound edge, locating oneself there is difficult yet necessary, it is not a safe place, one is always at risk, one needs a community of resistance. For Hooks the risks we take are personal, professional, political. When she says that radical openness is a margin she suggests it's a place of uncertainty, a place of friction, a place of cultural thinking. I'm going to say it again in a minute, but the work is hard, the work of education is hard, the work of education is increasingly hard, the work of learning is hard. Recognizing that and recognizing the full selves that we bring to that work, not just the intellectual selves but also the emotional and the physical selves is incredibly important. Recognizing that we're working with humans, not data assets. Radical openness isn't a bureaucratic gesture, it demands our schools be spaces for relationships and dialogue. Far too many tools we've built for teaching are designed to make grading students convenient or designed to facilitate the systematic observation of students and teachers by institutions. These are not dialogues. So I've got four ideas, provocations, possibilities for ways that we can build radically open spaces in education. One, front load support by hard coding it into curricula. Design syllabi and course materials for humans, not machines. Use language that honors the complex humanity of students. If you're making an ed tech tool, your audience for your terms of services students make sure that your terms of services human readable. That would be a first step. But also make sure that our syllabi, our module descriptions, our learning outcomes are also all human readable. It's shocking the degree to which we complain about terms of service and yet we produce syllabi, module descriptions, learning outcomes that are also not human readable. Two, for education to be innovative at this particular moment, we don't need to invest in technology, we need to invest in teachers. And that doesn't mean that we stop investing in technology. It means that the critical technology that we need right now is teachers, educators doing the hard work of thinking about how this work is changing and what we need in the future. Three, practice self care and support your contingent adjunct precarius or otherwise marginalized colleagues. The work of education is hard. My next slide is about students, but this one to say before I get there to recognize that if you're going to do the hard emotional labor of being an education, recognizing that self care and care for your colleagues and your collaborators is critical. Four, start by trusting students. Ask them when and how they learn. Ask what barriers they face, listen, believe the answers. And interestingly, I think that last bit is the hardest. People often ask me, well, start by trusting students. What are the mechanical operations that I do in order to enact that in education? And I think to myself, gosh, I think if you're starting from that place, maybe rethink that a little bit. It starts here, I think, that work starts here. But that last one is the hardest because it means letting go. It means letting go and thinking I might not know quite as well what that planter is as my two-and-a-half-year-old does. She might understand something about that that I can't possibly understand, so believe the answers. And I'm going to end here. Martin Bickman, who is one of my mentors, he writes, we often ignore the best resource for informed change, one that is right in front of our noses every day, our students for whom the most is at stake. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. So we have some questions that have come through on the app. Very thought-provoking. And it also resonated with Sue's keynote yesterday, where you talked about the importance of engaging with students and your student-led work, making sure that they have an input into the work that you're doing so often, ignored by some of the ed tech companies. Some of the other questions that we've then come through is how you balance that need to make sure you're GDPR compliant. You balance the need when maybe some of the decisions that are being made about the technology purchases or the platforms we use are not being made by people such as yourselves, but maybe people who are in higher positions, the decision makers, the purse holders. So how do we kind of find a happy medium with all of this and with all of the privacy impact assessments that we need to do as well? And I love the ending there as well. There was the points that we should be reflective about when we're thinking about the types of technology. And we're asked quite often to do health impact assessments, equality impact assessments, why aren't we asked to do that kind of critical pedagogy impact assessment? And maybe we can learn from some of those points and incorporate that into our own practice. So I'm going to open it up to the floor now. Is there any questions that anybody has that you would like to raise? Are there any moving mics, I think? Anybody like to...? Any questions? Marin. Question at the back. Hello, thank you very much. I guess I enjoyed that very much. Basically because at the heart of your talk was about the marketisation of education and how we organised to resist that in our roles as learning technologists or education technology support. And I wonder what you thought people should do on the sector that we need to do. Yeah. Well, so one of the things, and this first part of my answer will be relatively bleak, but then I'm going to hopefully turn it back around and have it be optimistic. On Twitter it was once said about me that I was irasgably optimistic. And so when I heard that I was like, I don't know what that means, but I'll figure it out. And for now I'm just going to put it on my Twitter bio. But so that's essentially where my answer is going to go. Often companies that are predatory, Sean in one of the quotes he talked about certain ed tech companies that predate are predatory use predatory marketing techniques. And one of the techniques that they use is to find the most powerful, least knowledgeable person at an institution and market their product to that person. The person who can make the decision but doesn't understand the work well enough. For example, it usually isn't the composition and rhetoric scholars who turn it in as talking to. Or when you have something like a publishing company that is selling inclusive access programs, which are, I don't know if people, how many people have heard this phrase inclusive access? Not many. I'll tell you in brief it's neither inclusive nor accessible. But it's called inclusive access. They essentially will market it to bookstores aren't the folks who are thinking about great people work in bookstores. So I'm not demonizing the people that are being targeted with this marketing. Great people work in bookstores but they're not the people trained to think about what a good educational material is. So I guess my answer to your question is across the sector what I think we need to do is we all need to be in every conversation where we can be, where decisions are being made, about what tools and technologies an institution will adopt. Especially because these are often adopted universally. So it's adopted such that a tool is used across the institution, sometimes in the blink of an eye. And so as many of us as possible need to show up for those meetings where those decisions are being made and ask the hard questions. Does that kind of answer your question? I guess I was wondering whether you thought unions had a role in that because on a national level there sometimes is the one organization all obviously but also union because they bring people from different roles within a university together. I think bringing people together to talk about the future of education is what their role is. As much as possible bringing people together so they can have the conversations. The idea that there would be some top-down legislation that would solve this problem I don't think is going to work. And so I think what we need to do is do whatever we can to create the hard conversations. So that's what I would say is their role to not shy away from the hard conversations we need to have about this stuff. There was another question that came up that was not showing on the screen there and I think it was from someone called Julie in the audience and her question was about how do we kind of balance the need to have this kind of scrutiny and also not stifled creativity. Because quite often people are going to want to try things out and test them before they use them and be curious themselves and I think that's really important as well but how do we kind of balance that to say, you know, be critical about your... I think one of the things that's important for me is not imagining that there's some moral high ground that any of us can at some point live upon. We have to recognize that the work of teaching and the work of learning is experimental by nature. And so one of the things that I do is I try out every single technological tool that I can get my hands on and I try it out with students and sometimes I realize, wow, he uses student data in a really weird way and at the point that I realize that I then bring that up with my students and I say, let's talk about this. I just noticed in their terms of service what do you all think? And so one of the things we might do is not be afraid to use the tool or experiment with the tool and then also not be afraid to halfway through the class have the students realize, ooh, we don't want to use this anymore and then have them remove themselves from the tool and those are real experiences that we all need to have. The decision to sign up on Facebook and then the decision maybe later to change the way we engage with it. So I think having those conversations with students as part of a class sort of moving to the meta level where we ask, what did we just do here? We had a Twitter chat. How was a Twitter chat different from a chat we might have in a room? And then using that conversation as a way to get into the conversation. I guess we don't want to put more work on to people in terms of red tape and processes and having to complete lots of impact assessments but there needs to be a balance there too about how they evidence the kind of conversations they've had with students so that they can actually show that they've carried out those kinds of texts and balances themselves and taken on board the feedback from the students. Are there any other questions in the audience? And you're not going to be leaving us, are you? No, I'm going to be here afterwards. I'll hang out sitting right here as long as people are near me. Then I'll run away real quick and hide in another room. Hi, we have a question here. Sorry, next. There's one question at the back, yes. Fascinating talk, Jess. Thank you very much. You talked of trusting students. I imagine that your students might be unused to that in some cases. How do they respond to being trusted? Well, and it's interesting because people have often asked me, well, what if a student betrays your trust? Honestly, my response to that is I don't think that that can actually happen. I think that there's something in my role as an educator where what I have to do is be willing to always spend disbelief for students. In part because I feel like that's my job, that is the work that I do. But I would say that the other reason for trusting students is not just because there's something inherently good about it, it's because it's pedagogically effective. And so what I find is for the most part it works 97% of the time. And the only point where it doesn't work is that first moment where students realize, wait, you're not going to grade any of the work that we turn in? Well, how's that going to work? It's that first moment of sort of discomfort at realizing, wait, things are going to be different here. And I actually think that the answer to that is to let us all sit together in that discomfort. I don't need to make it, I don't need to make that part easy. And the great thing that I would say about helping is about building trust and it goes both ways. So it's both about me trusting students but also asking students to trust me, asking them to suspend disbelief. The great thing about that is that I think that it... I lost the thread of where I was going. But I think that that last bit answered your question. The idea that I asked them to suspend disbelief. If they have that uncomfortable odd moment of what are we doing here? I say, trust me, you'll get it later and if you don't, talk to me and we'll work it out. Trusting students but also trusting lecturers and our teachers and staff as well actually we trust them with kids and we should be able to trust them to use these things. Yes, last question. Last question, if you can pick up the question that somebody else asked which I think is a really important question about open source solutions and why they are on the decline at the moment and what can be done about that. Oh gosh, that's a hard one. I think we need a whole hour to talk about that but I can pontificate on that. My first thought is, well they don't have millions of marketing dollars. They didn't just have a valuation of 1.75 billion that they can then use to market to people. I think that that's one of the challenges we face which is that companies, private companies with a lot of money market much better and more clearly than open source. Is the question up there now? No. Oh, are open source solutions now that was a different one? Yeah, well it was a variation. Gosh, it's a complex question. I think that why my hope is that our students and that we help our students develop the digital tools and digital literacies that they need in order to build our next generation of open source tools I think the learning management system is an interesting example a tool like Moodle which was open source and which to some extent still is open source except that it was bought by Blackboard High Blackboard Not Moodle but Moodle Rooms. One of their biggest No, no, I know not Moodle itself. I'm talking about Moodle Rooms that one of the biggest instances of Moodle the company that ran that instance was bought by Blackboard I know that the tool itself the open source tool doesn't. But what my argument is is that that relationship with the private company changed the dynamic changed the culture of Moodle to some extent and not necessarily it didn't ruin or destroy the culture but it changed it in fundamental ways I don't know that I am as big of a lover of Moodle as I was before that happened in some ways it changed the culture but I'd love you seem to have really great ideas about Moodle so hang out afterwards and tell me why I'm wrong about that Moodle is not my area of expertise I have used it a few times okay and we're running out of time now but I'd like to join me in thanking Jesse for such a great keynote for all stages of education future developments include a text and data mining service working with satellite data and machine learning and smart campus technology