In this episode, we sit down with Dr. Robert Gray, Associate Professor of University Pedagogy at the University of Bergen in Norway, to explore a fundamental question about the purpose of higher education: should learning be an act of consumption or production? Maybe the best learning experiences don't simply ask students to absorb information—they invite students to actively re-write and co-create knowledge with the teacher.

Dr. Gray's research draws on Roland Barthes' concepts of "readerly" and "writerly" texts, arguing that valuable learning happens when students are encouraged to "re-write" their classroom materials and become active producers of meaning. We discuss how students bring diverse perspectives and contexts to shared texts and lectures, creating something new and innovative from the materials we provide. As educators, we are challenged to foster an active, collaborative campus culture where learning becomes genuinely additive and co-creative.

Learn more about Dr. Gray’s research in his article: “Learning Is [Like] an Act of Writing: The Writerly Turn in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education”

Other materials referenced in this episode include:

Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text (R. Miller, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1973).

This week, we have two guests on the podcast. We’re joined by Gene Flenady, Lecturer in Philosophy at Monash University, whose research concerns the structure and social conditions of human rational agency, including the implications of new technologies for meaningful work and tertiary pedagogy. Our second guest is Robert Sparrow, Professor of Philosophy at Monash University. His research interests include political philosophy and the ethics of science and technology with an eye towards real-world applications.

Flenady and Sparrow argue that GenAI systems are "constitutively irresponsible" because their algorithms are designed to predict what "sounds good" - not necessarily what is true or contextually appropriate. Our guests suggest that it's unfair to expect learners themselves to determine when AI is wrong or misleading. Doing so puts students in an impossible position and gets in the way of building meaningful relationships with their human teachers and the pursuit of lifelong learning.

Learn more about Drs. Flenady and Sparrow’s work in their article: “Cut the bullshit: why GenAI systems are neither collaborators nor tutors”

Other materials referenced in this episode include:

Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton University Press.

In this episode, we talk with Dr. Phill Dawson about how and why college students “cheat.” Phillip (Phill) Dawson is the Co-Director of the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE) at Deakin University. His research focuses on cheating, AI teaching assessments, and academic feedback tools.

What counts as cheating? How does cheating shortchange students in their learning journeys and professional development? And perhaps most pressingly, how is AI changing our definition of “cheating” in higher education? Tune in to hear our thoughts on these and other questions in our conversation with Dr. Dawson.