Advertisement

Whose Domain and Whose Ontology? Preserving Human Radical Reflexivity over the Efficiency of Automatically Generated Feedback Alone

  • Amanda Russell Beattie
  • Sarah HayesEmail author
Chapter
  • 4 Downloads
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

In this chapter, we challenge an increase in the uncritical application of algorithmic processes for providing automatically generated feedback for students, within a neoliberal framing of contemporary higher education. Initially, we discuss our concerns alongside networked learning principles, which developed as a critical pedagogical response to new online learning programmes and platforms. These principles now overlap too, with the notion that we are living in ‘postdigital’ times, where automatically generated feedback never stands alone, but is contested and supplemented by physical encounters and human feedback. First, we make observations on the e-marking platform Turnitin, alongside other rapidly developing artificial intelligence (AI) systems. When generic (but power-laden) maps are incorporated into both student and staff ‘perceived’ spaces through AI, we surface the aspects of feedback that risk being lost. Second, we draw on autoethnographic understandings of our own lived experience of performing radically reflexive feedback within a Master’s in Education programme. A radically reflexive form of feedback may not follow a pre-defined map, but it does offer a vehicle to restore individual student and staff voices and critical self-navigation of both physical and virtual learning spaces. This needs to be preserved in the ongoing shaping of the contemporary ‘postdigital’ university.

Keywords

Automatically generated feedback Algorithms Radical reflexivity Postdigital Critical pedagogy 

References

  1. B. Ackerly, J. True, Reflexivity in practice: power and ethics in feminist research on international relations. Int. Stud. Rev. 10(4), 693–707 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. S.S. Amsler, From ‘therapeutic’ to political education: The centrality of affective sensibility in critical pedagogy. Crit. Stud Educ. 52(1), 47–63 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. A.R. Beattie, K. Schick, The Vulnerable Subject: Beyond Rationalism in International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. B. Bhandari, Facial Recognition Drone Monitors Chinese College Class. Sixth Tone. (2018), https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1002354/facial-recognition-drone-monitors-chinese-college-class
  5. M. Brigg, R. Bleiker, Autoethnographic international relations: exploring the self as a source of knowledge. Rev. Int. Stud. 36(3), 779–798 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Business Innovation & Skills (BIS), Teaching Excellence Framework Technical Consultation (2016), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523340/bis-16-262-teaching- excellence-framework-techcon.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2017
  7. A. Carrillo Rowe, Erotic pedagogies. J. Homosex. 59(7), 1031–1056 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. C. Chesher, Navigating sociotechnical spaces: comparing computer games and sat navs as digital spatial media. Convergence 18(3), 315–330 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Coughlan, Could robots be marking your work? (2014), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38289079. Accessed 3 Sep 2017
  10. N. Couldry, Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism (Sage, London, 2010)Google Scholar
  11. K. Crawford, Can an algorithm be agonistic? Ten scenes from life in calculated publics. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41(1), 77–92 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, D. McConnell (eds.), Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning (Springer, New York, 2011)Google Scholar
  13. C. Ellis, T.E. Adams, A.P. Bochner, Autoethnography: an overview. Hist. Soz. Forsch. 36, 273–290 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. T. Fawns, Postdigital education in design and practice, in Postdigital Science and Education, (Springer, New York, 2019)Google Scholar
  15. T. Gillespie, The relevance of algorithms. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, (2013)Google Scholar
  16. H. Giroux, The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy (Paradigm, Boulder, 2004)Google Scholar
  17. M. Hamilton, Deep dreaming of AI in education. Jisc (2018), https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/deep-dreaming-of-ai-in-education
  18. T. Hart, Opening the contemplative mind in the classroom. J. Transform. Educ. 2(1), 28–46 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. S. Hayes, Encouraging the intellectual craft of living research: tattoos, theory and time, in Learning to Research—Researching to Learn, ed. by P. Bartholomew, C. Guerin, C. Nygaard, (Libri, London, 2015)Google Scholar
  20. S. Hayes, The Labour of Words in Higher Education: Is it Time to Reoccupy Policy? (Brill Sense, Rotterdam, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. S. Hayes, P. Jandrić, Learning, technologies, and time in the age of global neoliberal capitalism. Knowl. Cult. 5(2), 11–17 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. S. Hayes, P. Jandrić, Resisting the iron cage of ‘the student experience’. Šolsko polje 29(1-2), 127–143 (2018)Google Scholar
  23. V. Hodgson, D. McConnell, Networked learning and postdigital education, in Postdigital Science and Education, (Springer, New York, 2019)Google Scholar
  24. N. Inayatullah, Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (Routledge, London, 2011)Google Scholar
  25. L.D. Introna, Algorithms, governance, and governmentality on governing academic writing. Sci Technol Human Values (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915587360
  26. A.M. Jaggar, Love and knowledge: emotion in feminist epistemology. Inquiry 32(2), 151–176 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. P. Jandrić, Learning in the Age of Digital Reason (Sense, Rotterdam, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. P. Jandrić, D. Boras (eds.), Critical Learning in Digital Networks (Springer, New York, 2015)Google Scholar
  29. P. Jandrić, J. Knox, H. Macleod, C. Sinclair, Learning in the age of algorithmic cultures. E-Learn Digital Media 14(3), 101–104 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. P. Jandrić, J. Knox, T. Besley, T. Ryberg, J. Suoranta, S. Hayes, Postdigital science and education. Educ Philos Theory 50(10), 893–899 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. C. Jones, Capital, neoliberalism and educational technology, in Postdigital Science and Education, (Springer, New York, 2019)Google Scholar
  32. D. Kahane, Learning about obligation, compassion, and global justice: the place of contemplative pedagogy. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2009(118), 49–60 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. M. Mauthner, Snippets and silences: ethics and reflexivity in narratives of sistering. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 3(4), 287–306 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. A. McRae, What does ‘value for money’ mean for English higher education? Times Higher Education (2018, February 22), Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/what-does-value-money-mean-english-higher-education
  35. C. Mouffe, The Return of the Political (Verso, London, 2003)Google Scholar
  36. D. Neyland, N. Möllers, Algorithmic IF… THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20(1), 45–62 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. M.A. Peters, P. Jandrić, The Digital University: A Dialogue and Manifesto (Peter Lang, New York, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. M.A. Peters, P. Jandrić, S. Hayes, The curious promise of educationalising technological unemployment: what can places of learning really do about the future of work? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–13 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1439376
  39. M. A. Peters, P. Jandrić, A. J. Means (eds.), Education and Technological Unemployment (Springer, Singapore, 2019)Google Scholar
  40. T. Reeves, A postdigital perspective on organisations, in Postdigital Science and Education, (Springer, New York, 2019)Google Scholar
  41. R.A. Shahjahan, Being ‘lazy’ and slowing down: Toward decolonising time, our body, and pedagogy. Educ. Philos. Theory 47(5), 488–501 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. C. Shore, S. Wright, Whose accountability? Governmentality and the auditing of universities. Parallax 10(2), 100–116 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. G. Soros, Fallibility, reflexivity, and the human uncertainty principle. J. Econ. Methodol. 20(4), 309–329 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. T. Striphas, Algorithmic culture. Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 18(4-5), 395–412 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. L. Winner, Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109(1), 121–136 (1980)Google Scholar
  46. S. Zwagerman, The scarlet P: plagiarism, panopticism, and the rhetoric of academic integrity. Coll. Compos. Commun. 59, 676–671 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aston UniversityBirminghamUK
  2. 2.University of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK

Personalised recommendations