-flipped homework ( research however you want, prove your findings in class contributions)
-evaluation of the process
-intentional teaching of how to evaluate and use, or choose NOT to use, AI output.
-human-in-the-loop-centric processes modelled
-an ethos of learning together
-we still have handwritten, off line very high stakes public exams (UK) Despite very major problems with the system, this works in favour of students understanding that deskilling themselves by using AI is an extremely bad idea.
Thanks for these! I am about to start this semester and am still learning how to teach in an ai environment. What do you mean by “evaluation of the process”? And can you give an example of human in the loop?
Evaluation of the process of using AI - ie getting students to reflect in the output at each stage pretty much in the same way that they would peer assess another’s work. Eg they ask it to tell write about an aspect of the context of Shakespeare’s plays. It spits out a paragraph. They evaluate whether it’s accurate enough, the right tone, style etc. Then modify/reflect etc etc a few times. At the end they also reflect on whether the whole process was helpful or not. This was with 13 year olds last year, and many found that it was just easier to do the research themselves!
This year, I will do the same but add in the web search and more fact checking. Obviously this is entry level AI use but they are only 12/13 and we believe in a slow, measured and critical approach that stage. For now anyway.
Modelling human-in-the-loop = me using an LLM live in class up on the board (eg asking it to give me a summary of the tropes explored in different waves of dystopian literature, with 17-18 year olds) and modelling my thinking, my prompts, my mistakes and my evaluation of whether it’s useful output or not.
They are all using it anyway so I think it’s important to dive in & learn alongside, verbalising the issues plus celebrating the speed & usefulness of AI. Also I learn from the students: by being open about my questions and mistakes, I stop being the “sage on stage” or even the “guide on side” and become, a (and I can’t think of a rhyme) co-learner with them for a while.
Agreed about "just easier to do the research themselves" if the educator essentially requires almost like an annotated cognition narrative from a student. Metacognition is very challenging for many students.
I tried a 1/2/3 model in evaluating AI output for an American Literature pre AP Literature course in 22-23. Students added the original assignment, read through the output, and had to number the claims accordingly. Then I conferenced with students individually as the rest of the class was looking at notes and assignments from novels they read to find specific quotations to support the AI claims.
1) I understand every claim produced in this output and could create it on my own if you made me write it blue book style with only the text and a pencil
2) I somewhat understand every claim...but would need to ask questions or see examples to double check before I could create it on my own
3) I rarely or overall do not understand the claims produced in this output, would not be able to create any of these on my own
worked somewhat, though this was this 11th grade students in spring 2023, so GPT was still pretty new at the time. A number of students said 1, but then when they had to present aloud, they sounded like a 3. Other students in the room ended up roasting those kids pretty loudly, too...that particular group knew each other well enough to push each other a bit. It wasn't 2024 or 2025 then, so even if the usage was widespread, just a different reality for students the first year GPT pushed public.
Interesting! I love that they were comfortable enough to roast eachother 😊What approaches do you think you will try out this year? Now that the tech isn’t new any more and students are presumably all using it anyway, what will you do differently, if anything?
I’m thinking that we need to keep hard baking metacognitive thinking into the process.
yep. It's amazing even just coming back to the AI and Ethics course in three weeks, after just teaching it once from Sept 2024 to Jan 2025...I'm kind of glad most AI tools have become, from a teen viewpoint, expected and maybe a little boring? Hopefully that means a better look at Alpha Fold, tools for jobs like underwater welding (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-024-10940-x)
and you could work in a fantastic graphic novel related to the topic, too
But this fall - I'd say it's about guiding daily discussion across the public sphere looking at integrated AI tools as well as ones trying to gain wider adoption...what is the marketing language for the tool, who would suggest using that tool creates progress, and is the tool a human replacement, thoughts on that replacement?
If I can pull it off, I'd like to develop a few physical, kinetics activities where students are unknowingly constructing meaning like an LLM. Token systems for language models are still hard to explain simply.
The education malpractice that's taking place because of AI is almost too big to fathom. Grateful for this no-bullshit report from the front lines of our massive effort of cognitive automation. But also filled with righteous fury.
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I really resonate with the idea that relationship is key.
With that in mind, I’m curious if you’ve thought about ways that you might target an intervention toward building/repairing relationships between teachers and students. I hear you that the pleas to use AI ethically are largely ineffective, but I’ve been skeptical that shifting all assignments to blue books and in-class assignments that can be surveilled by a teacher is really a robust answer to the challenges we face (https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/blue-books-and-oral-exams-are-not-the-answer). It seems to me that this approach may further fray the relationships between students and teachers rather than cultivate them. Would be curious to hear your thoughts.
I think demonizing “blue books“ or in-class writing as some sort of surveillance project misunderstands the powerful freedom it provides from temptation, alleviating at least for that assignment the feeling many students have shared that they are working hard, but their classmates are using AI and benefiting from it. Used as part of a process-oriented approach to learning, blue books can indeed take the pressure to use AI off for students who’ve been sold the message that “everyone’s using it.” Obviously, we need to think about how a blue book is different from a polished essay. Indeed, we need to rethink learning goals for each stage of the process. (Ideally, students would have access to air gapped computers as well, but that isn’t going to happen.)
Thanks Katie. It is not my intention to demonize anyone or anything. I'm just not sure that I agree with the suggested fix that the authors made to "stop assigning *unsupervised* take-home work". The line between supervision and surveillance seems pretty blurry to me and I can imagine students would feel that too.
I'm also not suggesting that there aren't valid reasons for moving to blue books and agree with the points you've made. It's true that using in-class work in the way that you've mentioned can help to take the pressure off and provide a respite of sort in a world where students are feeling these pressures on all sides.
But my read (perhaps incorrect) is that many (most?) who are pushing for a return to blue books and in-class work are doing so mostly so that they can directly oversee/supervise the work and make it harder for students to use genAI because they are in view of an instructor. If the real problem is the relationship between educators and their students (and between students and their work) our interventions should be targeted at helping to improve that.
I think you're making really important points about the importance of relationships and the risks of a surveillance-oriented approach.
Speaking from my experience as a community college writing teacher, though, I believe that it's possible to shift toward in-class work in a way that's oriented toward building relationships and fostering intellectual engagement. Here are a few of the practical keys to my own approach.
- Build the course around developing a significant writing project. Sustained engagement over time is essential to deeper learning.
- Give students space to make meaningful decisions about their projects: what they want to write about, how they want to approach it, what kind of audience they want to be writing for. Not only does meaningful choice do a ton for student engagement, it puts students in the position to do a lot of really important intellectual work.
- Help students develop a repertoire of different approaches while persistently noodging them in the direction of doing work that they care about. The key is to provide structure and direction in a way that supports meaningful choice and curiosity.
- Dedicate a significant amount of class time to in-class writing and individual/small group check-ins, somewhat along the lines of a studio art class. In my classes, about 50% of class time is in-class project time (and generally more as the semester goes on). In addition to providing a consistent framework for getting work done, this time provides valuable social support, both in the form of being in a place where other people are working on their projects and in the form of regular conversations with me. (Relationship-building takes time!)
- Engage with in-class work and really the vast majority of student work as work in progress. When students are doing this work, they should be somewhere in the middle of things. The point is not to test their knowledge and ability, it's to stimulate and support their learning. (In-class writing is not a quiz, it's a draft; in-person check-ins are not oral exams, they're coaching conversations.)
- Use a grading system that emphasizes credit earned for work in progress over marks for performance. In my class, about 75% of the final grade comes from credit for work in progress, which can be earned in a number of different ways. Students who are putting in the work on a reasonably consistent basis can be confident that they'll do well in the class.
In my experience, the combined effect of these practices significantly reduces the amount of AI misuse that I'm seeing. Importantly, though, these are all things that I believe in doing because I believe they encourage meaningful learning, AI or no AI. (And in fact, most of them are things that I started doing before ChatGPT et al came on the scene.)
All of this is definitely a work in progress for me, too, but even in its current and presumably perpetual state of imperfection, it feels like it's been moving things in a really good direction.
These are really good ideas. I use some of them, and agree that in-class time should be spent writing as though a studio class. Thanks for these details here!
Happy to hear it was useful! I would be curious to learn more about what you've been doing and how it's been working for you. (Honestly, I think teaching high school is harder than teaching community college in a number of ways, so I want to make sure I acknowledge that, too.)
Excellent points, thanks for sharing. Totally agree that there are fruitful ways to shift toward more in person work together without needing to default to surveillance mode. Your examples are a wonderful playbook. My biggest takeaway is that these in-person activities are almost all formative rather than summative assessments. I normally associate the call to “go back to the blue books” with the latter, but this is a good example that it needn’t be the case.
It would be interesting to think about how the course might be scaffolded to offer students more trust and autonomy as the course goes on as well, to match the intrinsic desire that they hopefully begin to see flourish as they engage in the work. Ultimately, we want to see students build their own habits and learn how to wisely engage/disengage with these tools in their work.
The shift toward formative assessment is really key, I think, and my experience has been that the studio art/shop class approach helps in a number of ways. With the in-class check-ins, I'm giving a lot more feedback in person. Pragmatically, this makes my workload more manageable because I can provide formative feedback on a regular basis without churning through endless stacks of drafts. But it also shifts the orientation of my feedback so that I'm responding to the person and not just the text, and it also tends to make the process of formative assessment more of a collaboration with the student. My sense is that this has been really helpful for building relationships with students, and also and very importantly for fostering students' self-efficacy as writers.
Building toward greater student autonomy is also really critical, though what that looks like may be different for different students. For example, some of my students have been trained into a heavily routinized approach to academic writing, where they can crank out papers but may not really be putting much into them or getting much out of them. Others have little or no experience with academic writing, and whatever experience they do have may be years or decades away. So, part of the challenge is to design a system where students can make meaningful progress from very different starting points.
I think the "blue books" argument tends to be narrower than the broader point it is making when most use it these days: bringing assessments back into the classroom, including writing, has far more benefits than downsides.
That doesn't mean we have to order a ton of blue books and handwrite everything, but it does mean that assigning work outside of class for the purpose of assessment is a quite-precarious move in this moment—including for relationships and trust. And, quite honestly, there were already many other equity issues in pushing assessments outside of the classroom (speaking from a high school lens in particular) so shifting back to nearly 100% in-class assessments is an easy move, at least for me.
I hear that, and understand the rationale. I’m sympathetic to the idea and also recognize that my context/discipline is different. Classes with a lot of written assessment are certainly much trickier to navigate.
The hang up for me is that this seems like a bandaid on a much bigger issue and doesn’t address the root cause. We can move assessments to the classroom so that students are more likely to engage with them without cheating themselves of the learning. But ultimately this is just a stick to further lean into extrinsic motivation and seems unlikely (to me at least) to lead to the sorts of root virtues we want our students to cultivate.
Perhaps it is a reasonable short term move in the constellation of options, but I hope that we can be more creative in this moment to think about ways to help our students more authentically engage with the work we are putting in front of them without leaning more and more heavily on proctored assessments. There’s good reason, at least in my mind, for having writing in particular happen outside a time-constrained context and in spaces with more solitude. The question of course is how we get there, but let’s try to solve the relationship problem instead of settling for an alternative short-term fix to patch the cheating issue.
I also think the whole concept of "blue books and pencils" is a metaphor for all that also occurs when writing in class: conferencing one-on-one with students, workshopping writing, peer reviewing, etc...
I agree with all this—and I'm also saying this with the context of a lot of high school students who are incredibly overwhelmed outside of class (work, sports, etc.) and the notion of shifting more to in-class has multiple benefits. I also could see this as something done over multiple periods or a stretch of time, too, rather than just one sitting—which I fully acknowledge has downsides.
Right now students are swimming in the transactional waters of education, which of course predates AI, but our classrooms are part of those waters and for me I'm humble enough in the short term to make a more pragmatic choice while also still inquiring and trying to find a better long-term solution.
Well put, Marcus. Appreciate the way you see the full humanity of your students and join you in hoping and working to recultivate our educational spaces and weed out the transactional ethos that often pervades them.
Just popping in to thank you both for this thoughtful discussion. One of my hopes when I started The Important Work was to have this site be a space for discussion, and it's been such a privilege to see how the pieces are sparking that!
-Socratic dialogues
-in class writing
-flipped homework ( research however you want, prove your findings in class contributions)
-evaluation of the process
-intentional teaching of how to evaluate and use, or choose NOT to use, AI output.
-human-in-the-loop-centric processes modelled
-an ethos of learning together
-we still have handwritten, off line very high stakes public exams (UK) Despite very major problems with the system, this works in favour of students understanding that deskilling themselves by using AI is an extremely bad idea.
Thanks for these! I am about to start this semester and am still learning how to teach in an ai environment. What do you mean by “evaluation of the process”? And can you give an example of human in the loop?
Hi! We are all learning on our feet!
Evaluation of the process of using AI - ie getting students to reflect in the output at each stage pretty much in the same way that they would peer assess another’s work. Eg they ask it to tell write about an aspect of the context of Shakespeare’s plays. It spits out a paragraph. They evaluate whether it’s accurate enough, the right tone, style etc. Then modify/reflect etc etc a few times. At the end they also reflect on whether the whole process was helpful or not. This was with 13 year olds last year, and many found that it was just easier to do the research themselves!
This year, I will do the same but add in the web search and more fact checking. Obviously this is entry level AI use but they are only 12/13 and we believe in a slow, measured and critical approach that stage. For now anyway.
Modelling human-in-the-loop = me using an LLM live in class up on the board (eg asking it to give me a summary of the tropes explored in different waves of dystopian literature, with 17-18 year olds) and modelling my thinking, my prompts, my mistakes and my evaluation of whether it’s useful output or not.
They are all using it anyway so I think it’s important to dive in & learn alongside, verbalising the issues plus celebrating the speed & usefulness of AI. Also I learn from the students: by being open about my questions and mistakes, I stop being the “sage on stage” or even the “guide on side” and become, a (and I can’t think of a rhyme) co-learner with them for a while.
Agreed about "just easier to do the research themselves" if the educator essentially requires almost like an annotated cognition narrative from a student. Metacognition is very challenging for many students.
I tried a 1/2/3 model in evaluating AI output for an American Literature pre AP Literature course in 22-23. Students added the original assignment, read through the output, and had to number the claims accordingly. Then I conferenced with students individually as the rest of the class was looking at notes and assignments from novels they read to find specific quotations to support the AI claims.
1) I understand every claim produced in this output and could create it on my own if you made me write it blue book style with only the text and a pencil
2) I somewhat understand every claim...but would need to ask questions or see examples to double check before I could create it on my own
3) I rarely or overall do not understand the claims produced in this output, would not be able to create any of these on my own
worked somewhat, though this was this 11th grade students in spring 2023, so GPT was still pretty new at the time. A number of students said 1, but then when they had to present aloud, they sounded like a 3. Other students in the room ended up roasting those kids pretty loudly, too...that particular group knew each other well enough to push each other a bit. It wasn't 2024 or 2025 then, so even if the usage was widespread, just a different reality for students the first year GPT pushed public.
Interesting! I love that they were comfortable enough to roast eachother 😊What approaches do you think you will try out this year? Now that the tech isn’t new any more and students are presumably all using it anyway, what will you do differently, if anything?
I’m thinking that we need to keep hard baking metacognitive thinking into the process.
yep. It's amazing even just coming back to the AI and Ethics course in three weeks, after just teaching it once from Sept 2024 to Jan 2025...I'm kind of glad most AI tools have become, from a teen viewpoint, expected and maybe a little boring? Hopefully that means a better look at Alpha Fold, tools for jobs like underwater welding (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-024-10940-x)
and you could work in a fantastic graphic novel related to the topic, too
https://cbldf.org/2015/10/using-graphic-novels-in-education-the-underwater-welder/
But this fall - I'd say it's about guiding daily discussion across the public sphere looking at integrated AI tools as well as ones trying to gain wider adoption...what is the marketing language for the tool, who would suggest using that tool creates progress, and is the tool a human replacement, thoughts on that replacement?
If I can pull it off, I'd like to develop a few physical, kinetics activities where students are unknowingly constructing meaning like an LLM. Token systems for language models are still hard to explain simply.
Brutal, honest, and important. But it may be too late.
This is what I worry about, too.
It's so disheartening -- thank you for this honest look into how the AI infiltration of our high schools feels on both sides.
Thanks for reading! It's such a depressing reality and I really don't know what the best thing to do is except to keep talking about it...
I’m moving to way more scored discussions and maybe even no-notes tests (which I’ve never done) instead of essays.
I've done this, too, but I still want students getting the experience of writing. It's such a difficult thing to reconcile...
Thank you so much for reposting this. Happy to see this discussion, especially given it’s such a fraught topic!
The education malpractice that's taking place because of AI is almost too big to fathom. Grateful for this no-bullshit report from the front lines of our massive effort of cognitive automation. But also filled with righteous fury.
Yes to this comment! So many teachers are just shrugging and saying kids always cheat. Educational malpractice is exactly the right word.
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I really resonate with the idea that relationship is key.
With that in mind, I’m curious if you’ve thought about ways that you might target an intervention toward building/repairing relationships between teachers and students. I hear you that the pleas to use AI ethically are largely ineffective, but I’ve been skeptical that shifting all assignments to blue books and in-class assignments that can be surveilled by a teacher is really a robust answer to the challenges we face (https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/blue-books-and-oral-exams-are-not-the-answer). It seems to me that this approach may further fray the relationships between students and teachers rather than cultivate them. Would be curious to hear your thoughts.
I think demonizing “blue books“ or in-class writing as some sort of surveillance project misunderstands the powerful freedom it provides from temptation, alleviating at least for that assignment the feeling many students have shared that they are working hard, but their classmates are using AI and benefiting from it. Used as part of a process-oriented approach to learning, blue books can indeed take the pressure to use AI off for students who’ve been sold the message that “everyone’s using it.” Obviously, we need to think about how a blue book is different from a polished essay. Indeed, we need to rethink learning goals for each stage of the process. (Ideally, students would have access to air gapped computers as well, but that isn’t going to happen.)
We have another post coming soon on this topic!
Thanks Katie. It is not my intention to demonize anyone or anything. I'm just not sure that I agree with the suggested fix that the authors made to "stop assigning *unsupervised* take-home work". The line between supervision and surveillance seems pretty blurry to me and I can imagine students would feel that too.
I'm also not suggesting that there aren't valid reasons for moving to blue books and agree with the points you've made. It's true that using in-class work in the way that you've mentioned can help to take the pressure off and provide a respite of sort in a world where students are feeling these pressures on all sides.
But my read (perhaps incorrect) is that many (most?) who are pushing for a return to blue books and in-class work are doing so mostly so that they can directly oversee/supervise the work and make it harder for students to use genAI because they are in view of an instructor. If the real problem is the relationship between educators and their students (and between students and their work) our interventions should be targeted at helping to improve that.
I know, I feel the same. Not sure what this school year is going to be like re: the new ways AI has come into schools.
I think you're making really important points about the importance of relationships and the risks of a surveillance-oriented approach.
Speaking from my experience as a community college writing teacher, though, I believe that it's possible to shift toward in-class work in a way that's oriented toward building relationships and fostering intellectual engagement. Here are a few of the practical keys to my own approach.
- Build the course around developing a significant writing project. Sustained engagement over time is essential to deeper learning.
- Give students space to make meaningful decisions about their projects: what they want to write about, how they want to approach it, what kind of audience they want to be writing for. Not only does meaningful choice do a ton for student engagement, it puts students in the position to do a lot of really important intellectual work.
- Help students develop a repertoire of different approaches while persistently noodging them in the direction of doing work that they care about. The key is to provide structure and direction in a way that supports meaningful choice and curiosity.
- Dedicate a significant amount of class time to in-class writing and individual/small group check-ins, somewhat along the lines of a studio art class. In my classes, about 50% of class time is in-class project time (and generally more as the semester goes on). In addition to providing a consistent framework for getting work done, this time provides valuable social support, both in the form of being in a place where other people are working on their projects and in the form of regular conversations with me. (Relationship-building takes time!)
- Engage with in-class work and really the vast majority of student work as work in progress. When students are doing this work, they should be somewhere in the middle of things. The point is not to test their knowledge and ability, it's to stimulate and support their learning. (In-class writing is not a quiz, it's a draft; in-person check-ins are not oral exams, they're coaching conversations.)
- Use a grading system that emphasizes credit earned for work in progress over marks for performance. In my class, about 75% of the final grade comes from credit for work in progress, which can be earned in a number of different ways. Students who are putting in the work on a reasonably consistent basis can be confident that they'll do well in the class.
In my experience, the combined effect of these practices significantly reduces the amount of AI misuse that I'm seeing. Importantly, though, these are all things that I believe in doing because I believe they encourage meaningful learning, AI or no AI. (And in fact, most of them are things that I started doing before ChatGPT et al came on the scene.)
All of this is definitely a work in progress for me, too, but even in its current and presumably perpetual state of imperfection, it feels like it's been moving things in a really good direction.
These are really good ideas. I use some of them, and agree that in-class time should be spent writing as though a studio class. Thanks for these details here!
Happy to hear it was useful! I would be curious to learn more about what you've been doing and how it's been working for you. (Honestly, I think teaching high school is harder than teaching community college in a number of ways, so I want to make sure I acknowledge that, too.)
Excellent points, thanks for sharing. Totally agree that there are fruitful ways to shift toward more in person work together without needing to default to surveillance mode. Your examples are a wonderful playbook. My biggest takeaway is that these in-person activities are almost all formative rather than summative assessments. I normally associate the call to “go back to the blue books” with the latter, but this is a good example that it needn’t be the case.
It would be interesting to think about how the course might be scaffolded to offer students more trust and autonomy as the course goes on as well, to match the intrinsic desire that they hopefully begin to see flourish as they engage in the work. Ultimately, we want to see students build their own habits and learn how to wisely engage/disengage with these tools in their work.
Both really good points!
The shift toward formative assessment is really key, I think, and my experience has been that the studio art/shop class approach helps in a number of ways. With the in-class check-ins, I'm giving a lot more feedback in person. Pragmatically, this makes my workload more manageable because I can provide formative feedback on a regular basis without churning through endless stacks of drafts. But it also shifts the orientation of my feedback so that I'm responding to the person and not just the text, and it also tends to make the process of formative assessment more of a collaboration with the student. My sense is that this has been really helpful for building relationships with students, and also and very importantly for fostering students' self-efficacy as writers.
Building toward greater student autonomy is also really critical, though what that looks like may be different for different students. For example, some of my students have been trained into a heavily routinized approach to academic writing, where they can crank out papers but may not really be putting much into them or getting much out of them. Others have little or no experience with academic writing, and whatever experience they do have may be years or decades away. So, part of the challenge is to design a system where students can make meaningful progress from very different starting points.
I think the "blue books" argument tends to be narrower than the broader point it is making when most use it these days: bringing assessments back into the classroom, including writing, has far more benefits than downsides.
That doesn't mean we have to order a ton of blue books and handwrite everything, but it does mean that assigning work outside of class for the purpose of assessment is a quite-precarious move in this moment—including for relationships and trust. And, quite honestly, there were already many other equity issues in pushing assessments outside of the classroom (speaking from a high school lens in particular) so shifting back to nearly 100% in-class assessments is an easy move, at least for me.
I hear that, and understand the rationale. I’m sympathetic to the idea and also recognize that my context/discipline is different. Classes with a lot of written assessment are certainly much trickier to navigate.
The hang up for me is that this seems like a bandaid on a much bigger issue and doesn’t address the root cause. We can move assessments to the classroom so that students are more likely to engage with them without cheating themselves of the learning. But ultimately this is just a stick to further lean into extrinsic motivation and seems unlikely (to me at least) to lead to the sorts of root virtues we want our students to cultivate.
Perhaps it is a reasonable short term move in the constellation of options, but I hope that we can be more creative in this moment to think about ways to help our students more authentically engage with the work we are putting in front of them without leaning more and more heavily on proctored assessments. There’s good reason, at least in my mind, for having writing in particular happen outside a time-constrained context and in spaces with more solitude. The question of course is how we get there, but let’s try to solve the relationship problem instead of settling for an alternative short-term fix to patch the cheating issue.
I also think the whole concept of "blue books and pencils" is a metaphor for all that also occurs when writing in class: conferencing one-on-one with students, workshopping writing, peer reviewing, etc...
I agree with all this—and I'm also saying this with the context of a lot of high school students who are incredibly overwhelmed outside of class (work, sports, etc.) and the notion of shifting more to in-class has multiple benefits. I also could see this as something done over multiple periods or a stretch of time, too, rather than just one sitting—which I fully acknowledge has downsides.
Right now students are swimming in the transactional waters of education, which of course predates AI, but our classrooms are part of those waters and for me I'm humble enough in the short term to make a more pragmatic choice while also still inquiring and trying to find a better long-term solution.
Well put, Marcus. Appreciate the way you see the full humanity of your students and join you in hoping and working to recultivate our educational spaces and weed out the transactional ethos that often pervades them.
Just popping in to thank you both for this thoughtful discussion. One of my hopes when I started The Important Work was to have this site be a space for discussion, and it's been such a privilege to see how the pieces are sparking that!