The Pedagogy of Care and the Evolution of Critical Digital Practice in Higher Education
The landscape of higher education is currently undergoing a significant philosophical shift, moving away from traditional models of rigid authority toward a framework defined by empathy, flexibility, and what some scholars identify as a "pedagogy of care." This transition was recently highlighted in a detailed retrospective and podcast episode of Teacher of the Ear, which revisited a seminal panel discussion hosted by the University of Michigan in October 2021. The panel, centered on the theme of Critical Digital Pedagogy, featured prominent voices in the field, including Martha Burtis, Ruha Benjamin, and Sean Michael Morris, and was moderated by Jesse Stommel. The discourse sparked a broader conversation regarding the role of emotional labor in teaching and the systemic changes required to sustain both faculty and student well-being in a post-pandemic digital environment.
At the heart of this discussion was a vulnerable admission by Martha Burtis, a Learning and Teaching Developer at Plymouth State University with over two decades of experience in open pedagogy. Burtis expressed a desire to tell her students she "loves" them while simultaneously acknowledging a professional and personal hesitation to use that specific terminology. This tension serves as a microcosm for a larger debate within academia: how to balance the human necessity of care with the professional boundaries and systemic pressures of modern institutional life.
Chronology of the Critical Digital Pedagogy Movement
The roots of this specific dialogue trace back to the emergence of Critical Digital Pedagogy (CDP) as a distinct field of study. CDP is not merely the study of how to use technology in the classroom; rather, it is a critical examination of how power, identity, and social justice intersect with digital tools. The October 2021 panel at the University of Michigan arrived at a pivotal moment when universities were grappling with the long-term implications of "emergency remote teaching" necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Following the panel, the themes of vulnerability and care were further explored in the Teacher of the Ear podcast, hosted by Chris Friend, an Assistant Professor of English in New Media at Kean University. The podcast sought to unpack the "hesitance" Burtis felt, framing it not as a lack of affection, but as a complex negotiation of power. Since that 2021 meeting, the concepts discussed—such as ungrading, hybrid community building, and critical instructional design—have moved from the margins of pedagogical theory into the mainstream of faculty development programs across the United States and beyond.
The Philosophical Framework: Love as a Labor of Pedagogy
The invocation of "love" in an educational context is often met with skepticism due to its perceived lack of rigor or its potential to blur professional lines. However, the contributors to Hybrid Pedagogy argue that love in education is a form of political and social action. Burtis frames her thinking within a "pedagogy of care," which seeks to turn the traditional expertise-focused model on its head. In this view, teaching is not a unidirectional transfer of information from an authority figure to a passive recipient; instead, it is a collaborative relationship.
Burtis suggests that "loving" students involves granting them radical freedom and flexibility. This approach requires changing the nature of the work assigned in classes rather than simply offloading tasks onto students. For instance, instead of high-stakes testing that often measures a student’s ability to comply with a system, a pedagogy of care might prioritize "ungrading"—a practice where the focus shifts from a final letter grade to the ongoing process of learning and feedback.
Supporting Data: The Crisis of Burnout and the Need for Care
The shift toward a pedagogy of care is supported by alarming data regarding the state of mental health and professional satisfaction in higher education. According to a 2022 study by the Chronicle of Higher Education, nearly 70% of faculty members reported feeling stressed, and more than 35% reported feeling overwhelmed by their workload. Similarly, student mental health has reached a crisis point, with the Healthy Minds Study (2023) indicating that 44% of college students reported symptoms of depression and 37% reported anxiety.
These statistics provide a factual backdrop to the arguments made by Burtis and her colleagues. The "labor of love" in teaching is currently being performed in a system that often prioritizes efficiency and metrics over human connection. This leads to burnout, which Burtis identifies as a primary risk. She argues that care for students is inextricably linked to care for oneself; without setting limits and boundaries, the "labor of love" becomes unsustainable. The transition to a pedagogy of care, therefore, is not just a moral choice but a functional necessity to prevent the total collapse of the instructional workforce.
Redefining Instructional Design and Authority
A key component of this movement is the re-evaluation of instructional design (ID). Traditionally, ID has been used to create standardized, scalable courses that often prioritize institutional control over student agency. The pandemic revealed the flaws in this approach, as many rigid designs failed to accommodate the lived realities of students during a global crisis.
Critical instructional design, as advocated by figures like Ruha Benjamin and Sean Michael Morris, moves toward "designing for care." This involves acknowledging that students exist in a world of systemic inequality. Benjamin, a professor at Princeton University, has written extensively on how technology can reinforce racial and social biases. Her contributions to the panel highlighted that a pedagogy of care must also be an anti-racist pedagogy. It must recognize that "marginality" can be both visible and invisible, encompassing class background, sexuality, and disability.
By redesigning courses to be more inclusive and flexible, educators can reduce the friction between the institution and the individual. This includes adopting "hybrid teaching" models that use technology not just for content delivery, but for community building. The goal is to teach humanity rather than technology, ensuring that no student is left behind by the digital divide or by rigid academic structures.
Official Responses and Theoretical Foundations
The concepts championed by the Hybrid Pedagogy collective draw heavily on the work of Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator and philosopher. Freire famously described education as an "inescapable concern" and argued that the work of critical pedagogy must involve everyone—both the effort of it and its ends. This theoretical foundation is cited as a primary influence by the editors of the new collection, Critical Digital Pedagogy: A Collection, which represents the first peer-reviewed book centered on these practices.
While many institutions have begun to adopt "wellness" initiatives, critics within the Critical Digital Pedagogy movement argue that these are often superficial. They suggest that true institutional change requires more than just mindfulness apps or optional workshops; it requires a structural overhaul of how labor is valued and how students are assessed. The move toward "ungrading" is perhaps the most controversial of these changes. Advocates argue that "ungrading" is a present participle—an ongoing process of raising an eyebrow at grades as a systemic practice. It is not merely the absence of grades, but a deliberate effort to decouple learning from the "compliance-based" culture of traditional schooling.
Broader Impact and Future Implications
The long-term implications of this shift are profound. As more educators adopt a pedagogy of care, the traditional hierarchy of the university is being challenged. This has led to a democratization of the classroom, where students are treated as co-creators of knowledge rather than customers. However, this shift also places a higher emotional burden on faculty, who must navigate the complexities of being "vulnerable" while maintaining professional standards.
The work of Martha Burtis, Jesse Stommel, and their colleagues suggests that the future of higher education lies in the ability of institutions to foster genuine human connection in an increasingly digital world. As technology like generative AI continues to disrupt traditional teaching methods, the "human" element of education—the care, the empathy, and the "labor of love"—may become the most valuable aspect of a university degree.
Ultimately, the discussion initiated at the University of Michigan and continued through the Teacher of the Ear podcast serves as a call to action. It challenges educators to consider the heart of their work. If teaching is indeed a labor of love, then the systems surrounding that labor must be redesigned to support, rather than exploit, that care. The ongoing dialogue surrounding Critical Digital Pedagogy provides a roadmap for this transformation, emphasizing that care for the student, care for the teacher, and care for the community are all part of the same vital mission.
