Will Brehm  1:11
Dave Cormier, welcome to FreshEd.

Dave Cormier  1:32
Thanks. Thanks for having me.

Will Brehm  1:33
So, congratulations on your book. Really fantastic. It’s a short read, but there’s a lot in there. It’s sort of dense, and deep, and brings up a lot of really big issues. So, I guess I want to start the conversation today by thinking about the internet and its relationship to education and learning. Has the internet been sort of a small change, do you think, when it comes to the way in which we learn and how we learn? Or has it been what we might consider a transformational change?

Dave Cormier  1:57
Yeah, I definitely see it as transformational change in the sort of big ways. I mean, there are ways in which it is a small change. And people can argue that we’re out there and just finding information -it’s the same as looking at a book. And I think there’s some small ways in which that’s true. There’s some really broad transformational ways it’s changed. And one of the ways I like to think about it, when I was in college, back in the stone age, I had to walk into a library and go into card catalogs and sift through things and pull the cards out and go around and find the books and look through the books. And at some level, I had to read through those things. I had to actually engage with them and not, because I was a good student -because I can promise you, I was not- but because I had no other choice, right? I didn’t have access to all these things in any other way. When you look at the internet, the sort of actions of the student to find the same quote, for the same article that took me hours inside of a library takes them 25 seconds. So, they go to something like Google Scholar, they do a quick search, they get the document down, they do a CTRL F on that document, and then they get just the quote. And the distinction between those two things is foundational. In one sense, I’m not only looking at the quote that I have to backup an argument I’m making, but I’m reading around all the things, I’m understanding the structure of knowledge, basically, inside of a library. Whereas now with the internet, all I’m doing is the task of acquiring a quote that I’m attaching to an essay, right? I’m not learning any of the interstitial pieces -not because again, one student is better than the other- but just because of the ways in which you go about doing that process. The same as any student who’s doing any studying or any work right now. Basically, the way I describe it to my Bachelor of Education students, is you kind of have a beer on the corner of your desk all the time. And you’re told not to drink it because the access to any of the things you may want, whether you call it cheating, or helping or whatever, it’s right there to grab. And you don’t need to do any of the processes together, right. So, in that sense, totally fundamentally different in terms of how you go about learning that one little thing. And that same process change applies to dozens and dozens of different processes inside the education system.

Will Brehm  3:59
I am one who is very nostalgic for libraries. I miss the library to be honest. I started a new job in Australia  and the first thing I did was I went to the library. And the library has no books, they moved everything online. I mean, I shouldn’t say that there’s a few shelves of books, but they basically have gotten rid of the books and have created just desk space for students to come in with their laptop.

Dave Cormier  4:23
And I had the exact opposite experience inside my library. I went through it when I moved to this university and started teaching the education program. I went into this education space that they have, but it was from the 70s. And it really hasn’t been touched since. And it’s almost like an archeological expedition because inside of it, they have like boxes full of laminated pictures of like marine animals inside of a box of marine project that you might want to teach, which -it’s gorgeous. Like the work was fascinating. It was done 40 or 50 years ago, and it was built to last, and it did. And now really, it’s a museum with no one attending, you know what I mean? Because all of those things, all that work that you had to do to prepare the information and set it up and all that stuff that’s there for you to use inside the library -totally and absolutely not something you’d ever need inside of a classroom today.

Will Brehm  5:14
Is there a comparison to be made with, say, the internet, and how it is fundamentally changing the process of learning as you’re sort of going into? Is there other examples of past technologies that sort of are comparable, that have done similar things, that have changed the way in which we approached learning, the process of learning, or just sort of social norms?

Dave Cormier  5:38
I really like the way the transition of the telephone works with this. You know that with every kind of change, you end up with an exchange, right? So, with the telephone, you exchange the charm of distance, and the idea of writing letters to people for that immediate contact. And immediate contact is great, I love being able to reach out and talk to people, but at the same time, you lose that sort of focused feeling that you have when you’re thinking about somebody who’s far away, and also the quiet inside your house, right? Like, since the 20s, our houses haven’t been quiet -the 1920s that is. And when you look at the progression of the telephone, it’s a nice way of thinking about the difference between incremental change and transformational change. So, you’ve got that sort of transformational change of the telephone when it first comes in. And then you have this sort of incremental change as it goes along. So, suddenly, we have you know, caller ID, and you can actually see the person who’s calling which sort of cancelled all my prank calls as a kid. But it’s a little bit of difference. You’ve got an answering machine, which lets you leave the house and not come back, but it’s still the same thing; point to point,  it’s still one person calling another person directly. And then suddenly, I get an iPhone, right? And the thing that I’m carrying around is transformationally different. I don’t have a one-to-one point of contact anymore, my phone, which is still called a phone, which I guess to some degree is almost a misnomer now. But we still call it a phone. I still kind of use it as a phone, but not really anymore because it does 1,000 other things. And suddenly it goes from incremental change to transformational change. It goes from not only -and again, very important here that we don’t talk about transformational change as a good thing. So, I used to love going into a pub in a new town, and sitting at the bar and talking to the person next to me. Where you sit down, you’re sort of in a transitional space, and that sort of interstitial, that liminal space between two spaces and you sit down, have a beer and the person next to you goes, Hey, where are you coming from? That’s gone, right? You can force it to happen, you sometimes fall into it but it’s no longer the default because that transformational change, that constant contact that you get from telephone now means that those kinds of, “I’m seeking to make a connection” is now taken up inside the telephone, because again, it’s not just distraction, a lot of it is actually connection through the phone, but it’s not in person anymore. You don’t have that sort of casual interaction at the bus stop the same way because everybody is staring at their telephone.

Will Brehm  7:51
Yeah. Sometimes I go into restaurants, and I see people that are clearly on a date, but they’re just looking at their phones. It always blows my mind.

Dave Cormier  8:00
Yeah. And often they’re like exchanging links with each other, and connecting on the same thing. It doesn’t mean that they’re not engaged with each other. It’s just that that engagement is fundamentally different.

Will Brehm  8:10
Exactly, exactly. And I think what’s interesting about that example of the telephone is that switch where it became sort of commonplace to have a phone that can do everything and changing social norms. It was only what, 15 years ago?

Dave Cormier  8:25
2007, the iPhone came out.

Will Brehm  8:27
Right. It’s not as if this was a long-term transformation. And we’re sort of still in it. We’re sort of still finding our way through what does this mean for our social lives.

Dave Cormier  8:37
I’ll give you a simple example. One of the things that I love doing with my kids is -especially my eldest- we’ll get in the car and won’t talk, won’t decide where we’re going, whatever else. And I’ll just start driving in a direction. And their job is not only to find us breakfast, but to give me directions as we’re going. I’ll go in a straight line until they tell me to turn. And I do it sort of to fight back against the sort of reception culture where you’re always sort of being told what to do, and I give them the chance to be totally in control, but they’ve got to actually read the map. And using something like Google Maps or whatever, when you’re only going to one place is one thing, it’s something else to use it for wayfinding. To figure out where you might want to go, what’s ahead of me, what might be there, how I would choose between those things, and then actually getting me directed to get to that, and I love that game. But it made it clear to me that my kids can no longer be independent without a telephone. That may sound weird, because we think of the phone as being a dependency process. But you can’t just go to a space and buy a useful map in the same way that you could when I first went out to travel in the 90s, right? I could go into a town, I could get lost in the town, I could find a map, and people had the skills around me, even, to give me directions for where I needed to go. And all of those little skills amongst the community, all those things in the community that help you out, are slowly going away. And now, counterintuitively, I need my kids to have phone with data so they can be independent. It also creates a dependency at the same time, but it’s totally changed, like you say, the social norms of what’s going on.

Will Brehm  10:03
It sounds like you are someone who is embracing these changes, right, and recognizing that they are changing social norms, and being okay with that, and understanding that things are different now than they used to be. Now, of course, some people would resist it, wouldn’t they? Some people wouldn’t be as open to some of these changes, to be accommodating to children that are now using this technology to be independent, defining independence in a new way, they would see it as they’re dependent on their phone, screen time is too much, we have to lower the screen time. So, in your book, you give a really great example of some of this resistance to the telephone as it was being introduced into the US Senate. Can you tell that story because it just captures how there will always be a group of people that resist some of this change? And in a way, that’s okay.

Dave Cormier  10:53
It’s okay. And they’re not always entirely wrong. And they always have some kind of reason -that story just makes me howl, though. So , in 1930, I think there’s a Senate Resolution that I found reading through something that was like “he who be it resolved”… that we’re going to go back to a telephone service, and that rotary telephones are like basically unfair to humans. And there’s a bunch of complaints literally inside of the piece where it’s like, “And we’re forced to know the numbers of the people we want to call”. And “Somehow we need to be able to use the dial thingy to get telephone service”, and “how are we expected to have the light in our offices to be able to do it”. And it’s like very specific, weird complaints in the actual Senate piece that’s written up. And so, it goes on for weeks. What they had done is the telephone service had come in and taken out all of the sort of plug-in phones. And I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the pictures of this, but it’s basically, there’s a central location inside the building, that person has a bunch of wires, you pick up your phone, they hear you pick up the phone, they connect to you, and then they take another wire and directly connect you to the person you’re wanting to talk to. So, those telephone operators were the ones they wanted back. Ostensibly, they’re worried about them losing their jobs and I mean, there are lots of arguments that get made. But in actuality, they were frustrated with having to be able to do the work themselves. And so, there’s a lot of pieces in there that are fun to think about. Like one of them is just what changes you need in a room, right? You need lighting to be able to see the number, and then you need to be able to use both hands, and that really seemed to bother them that they had to pick up the phone with one hand and then dial with the other. They couldn’t like I don’t know, hold their coffee, or have a snack. I don’t know what they’re doing but two hands seemed to be a really big problem. That sort of piece of coordination that’s there. And there’s a sense I think which people particularly in positions of power, I think we can all agree that people who are in the US senate are in a position of power, they don’t want to feel like they don’t know what they’re doing, right? They don’t want that sense of someone else knowing how to do something that they don’t. And I think that that feeling is a tough one for all of us to get over. Where something will come up -and I’ve certainly seen this myself, though, I’ve been trying as hard as I can to follow the Gen AI changes in last 15 months. Every time I turn myself around, I’m looking at something and I’m like I don’t even know how that works anymore, right? And the first response is, “Well, we don’t need it”, right? And I see a lot of that with faculty that I work with. Frankly, I’m starting to see it with the students I work with. But it’s a normal response, it’s a human response, I think. We want to know what’s going on, we want to be able to be proficient, and when you work your whole life to become proficient and suddenly what it means to be proficient changes, that kind of feels unfair. And I’m sympathetic to that. But I think when it comes to any of these times of change, where there’s these huge shifts, the first thing we always got to do is be honest with ourselves. Really think about why we’re responding this the way that we are, where our response comes from, where it’s valid. So, you know, you were saying that sort of trying to work with these changes -and I do- but also, there are places where I’m really concerned about some of the changes as well. And well, the screen time is certainly. But it’s not the time, it’s the quality. It’s not the quantity that worries me, it’s the quality. There’s that great article from 1977 in the New York Times, it talks about the amount of screen time that people are having on TVs. Now kids these days can’t play on the schoolyard anymore, and all they can do is watch a screen. And there’s this really vivid line where it’s like “They have this blank look on their face. And they don’t know how to interact anymore”. And I’m reading it and I’m like, you could copy and paste internet for TV in there and get the same kind of response. But when you look at something like a reel and for those of you who may or may not know, that’s the automatic sequence of videos -that are let’s call it 15 or 30 seconds long, depending on what platform we’re talking about- that give the user an exact sequence of videos that you find the most compelling. And if you’re trying this on your own for the first time, it’s not going to work on your phone when you’re trying this out. What you need to do is go to someone who is already doing them -often someone younger, not necessarily. But if you sit down with a 15-year-old today, and you say show me reels on Instagram or Tik Tok, you’re going to learn more about that child than you could in any other circumstance because that reel is perfectly designed to be the most interesting possible to that person. And there’s nothing you can do as a parent, as a teacher, as a friend, as a lover anything that’s going to be as compelling as that sequence of videos. Not because the person  has a problem or is addicted or whatever, it’s that it’s perfectly designed to that. And the more they do it, the more it’s designed. Where it’s particularly problematic is if you have one turn of the mind towards an eating disorder, or any sort of things that that can end up becoming problematic, those reels will continue to reinforce them. And I think I’m not sure that there’s a more dangerous thing in our culture right now than the way reels are designed.

Will Brehm  15:27
When you say designed, this is what we mean by the algorithm. These companies that have these equations, basically, that are crunching all of the data that the user is providing by how much time you spend on certain content, your scroll patterns, your click patterns, your posting patterns, all of that gets fed into some equation that then spits out other content that it thinks is most relevant to you.

Dave Cormier  15:51
Yeah. So, for instance, recently, I have been fascinated by raccoons. And if I say raccoons, or I search for raccoons, then suddenly I’m getting advertisements for raccoons. So, there’s remarketing in the sense that that happens as well. But this reel business is particularly insidious, and delightful. Like, I like it too, right? So, if I’m not careful myself, because I do so much stuff online. If I even pause over a video, as I scroll by it, it recognizes that I slowed down and will then reinforce the process. And again, when we’re talking about stuff we’re doing in our classrooms, you can’t be that specific to a student, you can’t be that identified, you can’t be that compelling. We’re fighting against something that we’ve never seen before.

Will Brehm  16:32
So, what would you do then, right? I mean, and maybe there’s no real answer to this yet. But, in that world, where, in a way, it’s like a new power, and I think back to a philosopher named Byung-Chul Han, he talks about this shift recently, between what Foucault would call biopolitics where the control of the body was saying, you have to do this, you should do this, you can’t do that. And we’re being policed. And there’s the panopticon, and there’s all these different ways to sort of force people to do things that maybe would be against their will. But they do it because of the biopolitics at play in that whatever society. Yong Chol Han goes to this notion of psychopolitics, where it turns from, you should do something to I can do something. It’s this really positive attitude. And he talks about it as measured in likes, but I think he probably was thinking of Facebook, I think you’ve updated it to the reel, right? And it’s sort of the power is operating in a totally different way here. And it just makes it very difficult to then think how in particularly say, education, how do educators operate in that world that we live in now?

Dave Cormier  17:37
On just the transition that you talked about: In the last 5,6,7 years, we’ve moved from being worried about the jump of being able to get a like, and sort of that social interaction to it being completely personal, right? That’s the last couple of years. So, my kids don’t post on Instagram, they put the temporary sort of messages on Instagram, but not a post, because that’s too intense. You wouldn’t want someone to see that, and engage that much inside that process. And both of my kids are theater kids. It’s not that they lack for desire for attention, it’s that it’s just not done anymore. Whereas five years ago, it totally was, right? So, that that idea that I’m reaching out to engage and in order to get the like for it is now I’m going through, I’m not doing anything, all I’m doing is rubbing my thumb up my telephone, and I’m getting more and more customized and more and more directed. So, watching particularly my younger child try to come up with practices to break out of that pattern, how can I not end up like two hours later, I just found out that I’m still on my floor. How can I break out of that pattern so that I can do other things with my life? And I think when we look to bring this back to learning, say what we can do in our classrooms; we have for generations had leverage over the students in our classroom to be able to make them work. Mainly, they had nothing else to do. And so, if you look at that same university student that I was -and I was a bad university student, particularly at the front end- I was trying a lot of different things to fill up my time. Like I’d go to the bar, and I played a lot of pool but there’s still a lot of interstitial time there that has nothing to do in. My students don’t have any free time that they need to fill. They need an excuse to do the work. Not that their free time, their boredom, their whatever is never an excuse to do the work. They have to carve out the time to do it. And so, we also used to be able to force them to do the work based on the fact that there was no other way to generate it, and how they can generate it too. So, they can use any of the gen AI systems to generate a lot of the homework that we’ve traditionally thought is through. The same thing with the Ctrl F thing about searching and citation I was talking about earlier. So, they can get away without doing it and they have no reason to do it. So, to me, the sort of transformational space we need to go to is, we need to do what Pestalozzi would have told us to 200 years ago, which is have students care about their learning first and then get into the process after. As a 20-year constructivist, it’s weird to have one this way. This is not what I was imagining would have happened. Whereas now I’m apologizing to people from sort of cognitive science and the people who are coming at this sort of education space as a memory is important -the sort of Daniel Willingham position where we need to have memory, and you need to put things into long term memory. My response is no longer I disagree with you for these reasons. It’s, I get what you’re saying but you can’t. Even if you wanted to. Even if you’re right, we can’t do it the way that you’re talking about. We don’t have that leverage over the students anymore. We don’t have the power over them we used to have.

Will Brehm  20:32
So, the question really is about how do you get students to care? Of course, there’s no right answer to that. But that’s where we need to be putting our intellectual energy.

Dave Cormier  20:40
Yeah, that’s exactly where I think we need to be. We need to figure out how those students are going to care. And I mean, we used to say that -I used to do retention in universities like 10, 15 years ago- and we used to have a chart with an invisible dotted line on the top was “Do they care at all”. And if we can’t compete this, none of the other stuff, we do actually matters. So, I used to do New Student Orientation, and stuff like that. And the drive was always to get them to care. But then we still had the leverage to get them to do the work anyway, even if they didn’t want to. We have the complicating factor that we’ve spent the last 20 years telling students that universities are going to help them get a job. So, we’ve got a more task-oriented approach, a more sort of credentialized approach to our universities at the same time. And so, they’re all complicating factors that all kind of come together at the same time.

Will Brehm  21:24
So, in your book, you talk, and I think it’s even in the subtitle, you talk about how the community is the curriculum. And I think that’s a really nice phrase to think about this world of sort of abundant information that you’ve been describing. So, what do you mean by this idea of the community is the curriculum?

Dave Cormier  21:45
It’s funny, it’s an expression I’ve been using for a long time. I think I first published something with it in 2008. For me, it was a way of trying to understand the internet initially. It was about trying to understand how coming to know happened outside of structure. So, how you can engage in a community of learning seemingly learn something without any of the things that we normally think are add-ons to the learning process. And as I’ve come to think of it over the years, it’s that this has always been what we’re trying to do when we learn. We’re trying to get to the point where we can speak inside of a community of knowing and be understood, be accepted, be able to decide, being able to maybe solve problems inside of that community. Whether that’s the community of chemistry, the community of people working on poverty inside of your city, or like in my new case, now, theater construction, which is something that I do in my local town here. I’m slowly acquiring enough of the language, enough of the expertise, enough of the experience, enough of all those things, to be seen as a member of that community and to act as a part of that community of knowing, which is kind of what we’ve always wanted in the things that we’re doing. It’s just that we had it sort of atomized into little pieces and courses and things like those degrees, which we needed to try to understand and try to put markers up. But for me -for a lot of people, I think- those have become synonymous with the work itself, with learning itself. And I think one of the things we’re forced to do right now is take a step back and go, what do we actually want? What is the thing we want, and what I want my students to be able to do -my Bachelor of Education students, for instance- is be able to be seen as teachers. To understand themselves, to be able to be understood, to be able to operate as teachers, to be able to make decisions as teachers. And I think that’s true for people in every field.

Does the internet -does this abundance of information that we’ve been talking about- does that change the meaning of community? Because if you’re talking about building sets, you know, that sounds like it’s something in-person, physical. You’re interacting, you’re learning it while you’re doing it. But as we said earlier, a lot of students and children today, they’re just engaged on a screen and maybe it’s quality screen time, and they’re actually building these connections. So, is there this digital community that we’re part of as well, that’s also part of the curriculum?

Oh, yes. So, I’m actually in a Facebook group of 56,000 other set constructors. And so a lot of the learning I’m doing -so, one of the things that I found is me trying to build stuff inside of a theater only goes so far, because there’s lots and lots and lots of things that the community of learning, that community of set builders who I don’t know, personally, locally, have already learned that I really don’t need to discover on my own. I could just take their knowledge and move forward with it. And that was the foundation of MOOCs to begin with, right? So, back when we ran those first MOOCs in 2008, 2009, 2010, like through there, what I was looking at certainly was a way to start community and stop it. So, I’ve been running communities online, but communities online spread and they wander, and they get bigger or smaller, but they’re hard to contain. And those MOOCs were an attempt to try to draw on that broader community of knowers, which in something physically constructed like theater construction is one thing but when you’re talking about cultural ways of knowing, when we started getting people from other continents who were coming into our learning communities, that really did change what that community looked like for the better, because suddenly we had people from the Global South, who were going, “No dudes like, seriously, like you’re thinking about this tiny little portion of the population, do you know India exists”. And so, really broadening what it meant to know, because it used to mean that as long as I was talking about the community of old white men, and what they knew, knowing was what they knew. Whereas now knowing is broadened to a larger community, that community has expanded. And what it means to know has changed based on the expansion of that community.

Will Brehm  25:38
And then I guess my final sort of question is to think about, you know, if we’re expanding ways of knowing, and I think that’s probably the most positive way to think about it, and it can happen, but equally, there’s moments online, and maybe this is something more recent is about disinformation and misinformation and how ways of knowing sure can be different and differentiated, and we can celebrate different ways of knowing and being, but equally, people in power for whatever reason, they can manipulate ways of knowing as well to meet certain ends.

Dave Cormier  26:12
They sure can. I mean, anytime you start talking about changing any epistemic framework, we always end up back at relativism, right? “So, are you saying that everything can be right”? No, I’m not saying that everything can be right. I’m saying that the things that there are more things that can be right, maybe. I’m comfortable with things being wrong. And often whenever I’m explaining -so, for instance, one of the things I talk about with my students is while I don’t believe in firmly defining something like with a definition, I’m more than happy to talk about what’s not part of it. So, I don’t think I have an authority or power to be able to fully define the thing. I think that’s an expression of arrogance but I’m more than happy to say that that thing is not part of that thing. And I think it requires us to be a little bit more humble. And I think that one of the big themes of the book is I think the most important 21st century literacy is humility. Like, we need to be able to approach things in half ways of knowing. And I think for a long time, it was really, really important that we clearly defined the things that we knew so we could keep them. We don’t want to lose the knowledge of the moldboard plow, right? You’re not going to be able to farm that field in a way that allows you three times as much wheat or whatever, it is a lot more, but the moldboard plow does over little spiky plow, so we needed to clearly define them so we can easily memorize them. Whereas I think now we’re able to take on a little bit more nuance and need to take on a little bit more nuance, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t taps that are leaky that aren’t leaking anymore. It’s not that there aren’t problems that can be solved. It’s that the vast majority of the really important problems in our societies -whether that be things like poverty, whether it be questions of the climate- these are not things that are solved. They’re not things that one person’s ideas are gonna win on, they are things that every time you put a heat pump in your house, you’re putting more weight on the local electrical system. And then you get a car and it’s a little harder locally for the electrical system. It’s not that overall, maybe we’re not better off doing that. And I’m not saying we aren’t -I think we are- but they’re not yes or no things. And I think that idea that knowledge is just information, that it’s just true or false, that it’s just about problem solving, is the thing that leads to the divisiveness that we end up with because we see all of these different perspectives. And we feel just like that Senator who suddenly doesn’t know what the right way to use the telephone is. We retreat, and then we hold on to a really firm position, because it’s the safest place for us to go. And that’s the trap I think that we run into with all this abundance. It’s not just abundance of information, abundance of connection, abundance of perspective, we retreat because somebody will ask us a question. And we feel like well, they asked us the question, we should be able to answer it. No… a little bit more humility. Look to our values, like what do we care about, what do we think is important, and then apply that to the information around us to try to make decisions. It’s way harder. And I’m not saying it isn’t. But it’s not a choice that we have. Retreating is a choice. But we’re retreating from the important work of our society. I think we need to bring on some new skills for ourselves, we need to learn how to handle this. So that like when we’re talking about Bachelor of Education students, we can teach them and then they can teach the next generation. Slowly, we start to adapt to all of this abundance in a way that uses some of the valuable stuff that it really, really has without trying to approach it with the scarcity skills that we were taught, which were totally important, then maybe not as important now.

Will Brehm  26:33
Well, Dave Cormier, thank you so much for joining FreshEd. Congrats on your new book. I think it’s a really important read that can tell us about humility, that can tell us and teach us about care, and sort of living with that uncertainty and being okay not in control of everything.

Dave Cormier  29:47
Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

Want to help translate this show? Please contact info@freshedpodcast.com

Related Guest Publications/Projects

Learning in a time of abundance: The community is the curriculum

Learner agency and the learner-centred theories for online networked learning

The MOOC model for digital practice 

Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum

Mentioned

Senators balk at dial telephones

Does television hurt the head? The plug-in drug

Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power – Byung-Chul Han

Recommended

The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains

Teaching and learning with the net generation

How the internet of things is changing our colleges, classrooms and students

Growing up with Google

Lifelong learning and the internet: Who benefits most from learning online

Attached to “the Algorithm”: Making sense of algorithmic precarity on Instagram

Preparing teachers to teach in a digital age

Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to info@freshedpodcast.com