Breathe Deep: Bringing Humanity Back to Tech-Enhanced Learning
What if the future of feedback in education wasn’t about algorithms but about breathing? In a world obsessed with speed and efficiency, we often forget the value of slowing down. The Critical Response Process (CRP), created by choreographer and MacArthur Genius Grant recipient Liz Lerman and artist John Borstel, offers a fresh way to inject mindfulness into feedback loops in education — especially where new or complicated technology is concerned.
Originally developed in the performing arts, Critical Response Process (CRP) offers a structure for feedback that fosters creativity, collaboration, and growth. As someone who’s traveled from the world of performance art into the realm of tech-enhanced learning, I’ve found that CRP isn’t just for dancers or artists — it’s a powerful tool for transforming how we give and receive feedback in educational settings, especially with AI and tech in the mix.
From Pirouettes to Pixels: Or, How I Accidentally Became an AI Educator
Like many creatives, I never expected to end up in the world of educational technology. My background was steeped in performing arts and education, where feedback was all about nurturing creativity (and occasionally surviving a tough critique). But as I transitioned into learning design and found myself working with AI, I realized that the same thoughtful feedback processes I’d used in the arts could bring something radically human back into tech-driven learning environments.
Feedback in education, particularly when tech is involved, often happens in rushed cycles — whether it’s during course evaluations, peer reviews, or assessments of new edtech tools. But what if we approached feedback with more intentionality, like the CRP offers? This is where my journey gets interesting: adapting CRP to fit educational settings and helping create more reflective, tech-enhanced learning environments.
Feedback with Feeling: Why CRP Belongs in Your EdTech Toolbox
CRP is more than just a feedback framework — it’s an antidote to rushed, transactional feedback sessions. In education or tech, where the pressure to “get things done” often overshadows the need for thoughtful reflection, CRP introduces something we’ve been missing: time to breathe.
By integrating CRP into classrooms or edtech evaluations, we create a feedback rhythm that mirrors the act of breathing: it sustains, grounds, and creates space for clarity. This process is especially useful when bringing new technologies, like AI, into teaching and learning environments. CRP helps us slow down, engage, and reflect before diving headfirst into critiques or evaluations.
Let’s break down CRP’s stages through the metaphor of breath — and explore how each step can reshape feedback in education, making it more human-centered and constructive.
Step 0: Set the Scene — The Breath of Intention
Before feedback begins, the CRP facilitator invites the educator, learner, or creator (henceforth to be broadly defined as the “maker” of the content) to take a moment, breathe, and discuss their intentions for the session. This isn’t about bracing for criticism — it’s about thinking clearly about what you want from the feedback.
In education, this could mean pausing before a tech tool review to consider the real questions. Do you want to know how students are engaging with an AI feature? Or are you curious about how well the tech supports personalized learning? The “breath of intention” helps focus feedback sessions and brings clarity to the conversation. This also gives the maker the chance to define what they want as well as what they do not want in terms of feedback at this time.
Quick Focus: Take a beat and think about what you want to learn or improve — what is in-bounds and what is out of bounds — before anyone says a word. This breath gives feedback purpose.
Step 1: Observe the Meaningful, Provocative and Intriguing Stuff — The Breath of Reflection
The first step in CRP invites responders to share what felt meaningful, evocative, or striking about the work. This “breath of reflection” isn’t about giving praise or critique, but rather focusing on the aspects of the experience that resonated — whether broad or detailed. It’s an opportunity to reflect on what moved, intrigued, or captured your attention, allowing both the maker and responders to explore the work from different perspectives.
In a tech-enhanced classroom, this might look like observing how students interacted with an AI tool — noticing if it sparked curiosity, raised questions, or shifted the learning environment in unexpected ways. The focus is on what stands out and why, rather than rushing to judgment or critique.
Find the Meaning: What elements of the experience — whether large or small — stood out to you as meaningful or evocative? Share what left an impression and why.
Step 2: Your Questions, Your Focus— The Breath of Control
After observations are shared, it’s the maker’s turn to take control of the feedback. In this step, the maker — the one who created the course, designed the AI tool, or developed the edtech-based assignment, whatever the creation might be — asks specific questions to guide the feedback toward the areas they want to explore. This “breath of control” ensures that the feedback is targeted and meaningful, helping the maker gain insight into the aspects that matter most to them.
For example, a teacher who developed a new AI-enhanced learning tool might ask, “How clear was the flow of the assignment using this tool?” or “How did the technology support deeper engagement with the material?” These questions invite truthful, thoughtful responses from the group, ensuring that the feedback is both honest and constructive.
The role of the responders here is critical — they must be generous in their honesty, offering feedback that is truthful without being hurtful or dismissive. The goal is to give the maker the clarity they need to refine their work.
The Maker Owns the Conversation: The maker leads with questions about specific elements they want feedback on. This step keeps the dialogue focused and ensures that the feedback addresses the maker’s priorities.
Step 3: Go Off the Beaten Path — The Breath of Curiosity
Now comes the most intriguing part: asking neutral questions. This step isn’t about giving answers or offering solutions — it’s about tapping into curiosity. Neutral questions open up the conversation, allowing the responders to ask and the maker to explore their own intentions, choices, and possibilities from fresh perspectives.
In a tech-enhanced educational setting, instead of jumping in with opinions or solutions, responders might ask, “What inspired you to use this AI tool in your lesson?” or “How do you think students might react differently if the tool provided feedback in real-time?” These kinds of questions spark deeper thinking without leading the maker toward a specific answer.
This step isn’t about interrogation — it’s about igniting ideas. The goal is to prompt reflection and new insights, helping the maker see their work from angles they might not have considered. The right neutral question can challenge assumptions and lead to breakthroughs. Instead of saying, “I think this would work better if…” ask, “What led you to structure the AI tool’s feedback this way?” or “How does this approach align with your original learning goals?”
Open the Door: Neutral questions open doors, allowing the maker to explore new possibilities without the pressure of critique. They’re less about fixing something and more about expanding horizons.
Step 4: The Power of Permission — The Breath of Invitation
This is where the magic of CRP truly shines. In the final stage, opinions are offered, but only with permission. Responders can suggest ideas, thoughts, or opinions, but they must first ask, “I have an idea/thought/opinion about (this specific aspect of the work) — do you want to hear it?” The maker, who has the final say, has the option to accept or decline. This step is all about agency — the maker decides what opinions they are ready to hear or are useful for their process.
For example, imagine an instructional designer has developed a new AI-driven tool that provides personalized feedback to students. A responder might say, “I have an idea about how the AI could offer more nuanced feedback for different learning styles — do you want to hear it?” The instructional designer (the maker) has the choice to accept this feedback if it aligns with their current goals or decline if it’s not helpful at this stage of development.
This “breath of invitation” creates a feedback environment rooted in respect and consent. Instead of unsolicited advice being thrown at the maker, they are given the power to filter the feedback, choosing what will help them at that moment. It’s about making feedback a collaborative process rather than a free-for-all critique session.
The maker controls what opinions enter the conversation. This is not about shutting down ideas or perspectives but about ensuring that the feedback shared is welcome and productive. By asking for permission, responders show that they are considerate of the maker’s process and needs.
Offer, Don’t Impose: The magic of this step is in the question, “Would you like to hear this…?” and respecting the answer of “Nope!” Offering opinions in this way turns feedback into a gift rather than a demand. The result? A more focused, intentional exchange where opinions are shared when they’re most likely to be helpful.
As AI and edtech take center stage in education, we need feedback processes that match their complexity. CRP helps us balance the breakneck speed of innovation with the thoughtful, human-centered reflection necessary to ensure that technology truly enhances learning.
CRP isn’t about slapping a grade or assessment onto an experience. It’s about creating space for deep conversations about process, learning, and growth. It reminds us that feedback isn’t a one-way street — it’s a conversation. By incorporating CRP into our classrooms and edtech strategies, we ensure that our technology serves the people it’s meant to support: educators and learners.
Next Time You Teach with Tech, Breathe
So, how do you bring this breath-filled approach into your own feedback loops? Whether you’re an educator, instructional designer, or someone building the next great edtech tool, it’s time to inject a little CRP into your process. Let feedback be less about ticking boxes and more about sparking real, reflective dialogue.
By giving agency to the maker, you create a space where trust can flourish, and feedback becomes a collaborative act, not a critique. This process invites new perspectives into the circle, opening the door for deeper insights and more innovative solutions. When feedback feels less like a task and more like an opportunity for growth, the energy shifts — and so does the work.
Who knew the future of edtech feedback could be this… zen? Time to breathe deep and get back to creating.
