What a tangled web we weave: How technology is reshaping pedagogy Wendy Caplan, Florence Myrick, Jayne Smitten, Wade Kelly PII: DOI: Reference:
S0260-6917(14)00116-6 doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.005 YNEDT 2710
To appear in:
Nurse Education Today
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
15 November 2013 25 March 2014 17 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Caplan, Wendy, Myrick, Florence, Smitten, Jayne, Kelly, Wade, What a tangled web we weave: How technology is reshaping pedagogy, Nurse Education Today (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.005
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9
WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE: HOW TECHNOLOGY
T
IS RESHAPING PEDAGOGY
NU
SC
RI P
Wendy Caplan, MEd, BA (Hons), BA Director eLearning Services, Faculty of Nursing University of Alberta, Edmonton Ph: 780-492-8705 Fax: 780-492-2551 email: [email protected]
ED
MA
Florence Myrick, PhD, MScN, BN, RN Professor & Associate Dean Teaching and Learning Faculty of Nursing University of Alberta, Edmonton Ph: 780-492-0251 Fax: 780-492-2551 email: [email protected]
CE
PT
Jayne Smitten, PhD MEd Dipl. Adult Ed BA Tutor, Health Administration Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Athabasca University, Edmonton, Alberta Ph: 780-466-7546 email: [email protected]
AC
Wade Kelly, MEd, BEd Instructional Designer, Learning Engagement Office Extension Faculty University of Alberta Ph: 780-248-1173 Fax: 780-4920627 email: [email protected]
RN CHSE
CHSE-A
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
1
RI P
T
What a Tangled Web We Weave: How Technology is Reshaping Pedagogy
SC
One does not have to look too far to witness the profound impact of technology on our world today, the way we function within it and the various ways in which we have
NU
reconceptualised and altered our language to accommodate our new realities. For it was not long ago that a community was a place where you lived, a place where you worked or
MA
played, and a place where friendships were developed and nurtured over time with people to whom you actually connected in person and on a regular basis. Now people are
ED
“friended” almost indiscriminately without concern for any type of commonality beyond a shared interest in the latest music trend. Indeed, becoming a member of a community does
PT
not actually necessitate participation in shared activities or even disclosing to anyone that
CE
you are there or virtually present. And while one could spend many hours debating the advantages and disadvantages of either of these set of circumstances, there is no doubt
AC
that our view of the world has been overwhelmingly altered in ways that are both beneficial and detrimental to our well-being. But, make no mistake there has been a major paradigm shift. The purpose of this paper is to generate discourse around the integration of technologies within the context of teaching and learning, a discourse often silenced by the glare of the “new.” Through this discourse we hope to provide space in which to view learning technologies from an authentic and critical perspective so that the best decisions about pedagogy- the art and science of teaching, in union with learning in nursing education can be made. THE PATTERN EMERGES As early as 1995 Neil Postman urged us to stop thinking about and accepting educational technologies as “unmixed blessings, gifts, as it were, from the gods” (Postman, p. 41). Rather, acceptance of learning
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 technologies by nurse educators must be assumed with a degree of skepticism, with our eyes wide open to ensure that our use of technologies authentically serves to enhance the student learning experience and our own pedagogical approaches to teaching. It would behoove us as educators to make conscious, reflective,
T
and deliberate choices lest we find ourselves looking regretfully toward a future in which we have
RI P
relinquished our responsibility for quality education to those who are more concernedwith efficiency and instrumentation rather than with the effectiveness and humanity that is the raison d’être of the educational
SC
process. With the growing importance and integration of technologies throughout the academy, it becomes paramount that we make a distinction between those technologies that function primarily to support
NU
administration and those that are designed to enhance pedagogy and the learning process. In the former,
MA
the use of the technologies themselves can be perceived to be on the vanguard of postsecondary education as they enable administrative processes to be streamlined and made more accessible to administrators, students and faculty alike. In the latter case, however, the technologies are secondary to authentic
ED
pedagogical practices, the driving force that should underlie decisions for their inclusion in the teaching
PT
and learning process. This undertaking is not easy to accomplish. In their book “The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education,”
CE
McCluskey and Winter (2012) identify three models of governance under which most post-secondary institutions are located. Penned the “BLT” model, the approaches include the “Bureaucracy-Centered” (B-
AC
model); the “Teacher-Centered” (T-model); and the “Learning-Centered” (L- model). While there can be combinations of each within any particular learning environment, there is usually one model that dominates and whose underlying philosophical tenets drive the decisions that are made. As universities become more and more dependent on technologies for administration, research and teaching, the authors note that there has been a corresponding shift in authority from an academy led and governed by the professoriate, to one that is increasingly bureaucratic with a leadership team comprised primarily of administrative or business oriented individuals. In the highest echelons of the academy, for example, it is now quite common to observe, sitting alongside the VP Academic and VP Research, a Chief Information Technology Officer or a VP of Information Technology whose primary focus is the acquisition and implementation of the various technological services required by the institution. And, unlike the more traditional university administrators, quite often these individuals are not academics, do not possess knowledge of pedagogy nor do they even have a genuine understanding of the teaching and learning needs,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT concerns and realities of faculty and students. Thus, the view here is evidence of the “B-model” of
3
governance dominating the ‘soul of higher education’ (McCluskey & Winter, 2012). Within this rapidly changing environment it becomes ever more important, therefore, to recognize that a balance is, more than
T
ever, required to protect the fundamental ideals that lie at the very heart of the educational institution and
RI P
the technological advancements that support administrative and pedagogical requisites, with the emphasis being on support.
SC
THE MOOC REVOLUTION
As we survey the current educational environment it is easy to see how this shift in focus has
NU
manifested itself within the academy. Take, for example, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), a
MA
phenomenon that has single-handedly sparked a renewed interest in online learning. Purported to have revolutionized higher education, MOOCs hold the promise of increased accessibility to those who are otherwise excluded from the realm of higher learning (China Medical Board, 2013). Thus, avid proponents
ED
profess MOOCs to hold the promise of democratizing education. For those who are unfamiliar with the
PT
MOOC trend, many top tier universities have already embraced the MOOC concept, which free of charge provides access to online not-for-credit courses to any and all who are interested from around the globe.
CE
These courses, frequently taught by prominent faculty members with international reputations, can
AC
accommodate registrations upwards of 100,000 and are habitually filled within days by individuals interested in learning more about a topic of interest to them. Delivered through online learning management systems (LMS) MOOCs consist primarily of video lectures, multiple choice quizzes and discussion boards that encourage participants to dialogue with one another. Assessment and feedback are invariably managed through a cadre of teaching assistants and, in some cases, peer interaction and review. Currently being offered through consortia of established universities that include MIT, Harvard and the University of California all of whom have poured millions of dollars into supporting this endeavor, and for-profit groups such as Udacity and Coursera who have yet to develop strategies to monetize their offerings, MOOCs have arrived on the educational landscape with a bang. Because MOOCs are so new, however, to date we have little or no experience with them as a teaching entity or evidence about their effectiveness as a learning tool; in other words, we have not determined whether they provide a positive or authentic learning experience (Goldschmidt and Ryan, 2014), and further we have no proof to support the underlying assumption that they will, in any way, democratize education.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 While MOOCs appear to offer a huge opportunity by which to provide knowledge to students, one must question how this process is considered education and, more importantly, its outcomes on the learner. For, is not education much more than imparting knowledge? Can the MOOC feasibly provide an
T
optimized environment for the pedagogical process, resulting in effective education of the masses? Will
RI P
the MOOC actually live up to its potential or do we need a reality check (Straumsheim, 2013)? Skiba (2012) asserts that the MOOC is not tailored for all learners, particularly in the pedagogical process that
SC
involves more structure. In response to examining what the MOOC means for the future of nursing, Skiba (2013a, 2013b) directs us to the Institute of Medicine Future of Nursing Report (2011), addressing the
NU
potential case for MOOCs. Recommendations include increasing enrollment to meet the projected
MA
workforce shortages in nursing- teaching the masses. Yet, Skiba further emphasizes there are challenges in the transformative pedagogical processes involving the MOOC- challenges that require more resolve and research. According to Nussbaum (2010), “Each student must be treated as an individual whose
ED
powers of mind are unfolding and who is expected to make an active and creative contribution to
PT
classroom discussion” (p. 55). This pedagogical principle, for example, might prove be an insurmountable challenge in such large group environments. Students need to be encouraged and facilitated to practice
CE
what they have learned through critical engagement with fellow students, and writing papers, a process
AC
which requires detailed feedback from the professor. It is through such a process that students can internalize the knowledge they have acquired. In an era when critical thinking has been promoted as being so integral to current professional nursing practice, one might ponder whether the MOOC actually promotes critical thinking or does it promote rote learning which invariably has been shown to promote docile individuals who follow authority and are reticent to ask questions (Nussbaum). Before we continue, let us address the notion of “big data,” another emergent trend. This term is a relatively recent one that has become part of our vocabulary in part due to the capacity of computers to capture more information and data than has ever before been possible. It has been some time since we realized that with the advent of Learning LMSs it has been much easier to track our students‟ activities and progress. Most of these learning software packages have at a minimum the capacity to record how long a student spends in a course site, the pages they viewed, the numbers of postings they created and how well they were able to respond to any given question in a quiz. An aggregate of student responses to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 assessments provides a readily accessible method for instructors to determine question validity and student learning outcomes. Nevertheless, eLearning professionals have always cautioned faculty to take these statistics with a measure of skepticism as they do not always adequately reflect reality and, since
T
they are invariably generated by a small set of students, they may not be generalizable to the overall
RI P
student population.
And then enter the MOOC. Housed within robust LMSs, institutions are able to track, click by
SC
click, massive amounts of data from massive numbers of student activities including the materials they absorb easily and the materials they find more challenging. Subsequently, this development has led many
NU
to conclude that all of these data will provide a better understanding as to how students interact with
MA
educational materials. Thus, such understanding, they purport, will increase our ability to make determinations as to where remediation is necessary and, if possible to individualize learning in such a way that each and every student will have their own unique learning experience. This perception is why in
ED
part those academics and researchers whose interests lie in machine learning have become champions of
PT
the MOOC. Moreover, it is their contention that, with the data garnered from courses, they will be able to create machines that do a better job of teaching than any particular professor can do. This in and of itself is
CE
not necessarily bad. If there are ways to make learning easier and more effective for students then we
AC
should be interested. The question becomes though to what extent are we to be misled by the data? Will we become so enamoured by MOOC generated statistics simply because they are available to us that we forget to be critical in our analysis thereby abandoning our vision for authentic higher education? In a recent talk at the O‟Reilly Strata Conference, Kate Crawford (2013) cautions that “big data” might not be giving us the entire picture. We would, therefore, be wise to consider the potential misconceptions. These misconceptions are particularly problematic, she maintains, when big data is used to guide our spending decisions, especially we would add, in times of fiscal constraint and scarce resources, when funds used to support one activity are being diverted from another. With each of these financial decisions we tend to abandon our philosophical perspective, which we would argue appears to be transpiring when traditional educational institutions decide to support MOOCs and the research therein owing to the perception that they will be left behind if they decide not to “ride the wave”. In her recent book “Alone Together” Sherry Turkle (2011) implores us to, in all cases consider the road we choose to travel. “We make our technologies and they, in turn, shape us. So, of every technology we must ask, does
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT it serve our human purposes – a question that causes us to reconsider what these purposes are” (p. 19).
6
Let us consider whether MOOCs serve our human purposes, and whether our investment in the potential of machine learning should circumscribe our commitment to education that relies on the interaction of
RI P
look around and discover that we are somewhere we never intended to be.
T
one human with another. If we do not pause to answer this question then just possibly one day we may
UNTANGLING THE WEB THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE
SC
Perhaps we are closer to that “somewhere” than we realize. Witness for example, the pervasive use of high fidelity human patient simulation as a legitimate approach to teaching and learning in nursing
NU
education. Forty years ago, using Mrs. Chase, students would practice various procedures including, but not
MA
limited to catheterizations, dressing changes, and injection administration. While the experience was designed to augment theory, there was no mistaking Mrs. Chase for a human being unlike today’s simulated learning environments, which are considerably more sophisticated. Today, technologically advanced
ED
simulators impart an increased capacity and functionality to mimic the human physiological condition and, as
PT
such much time is spent programming true to life scenarios that replicate and often substitute for actual human-to-human contact. Witness again, the more recent emergence of the nurse robot, more affectionately
CE
referred to as the “Nursebot” (Turkle, 2011, p. 120) who, in some jurisdictions has begun to permeate the provision of care for both the elderly and the very young. The earlier in life we are socialized into believing
AC
that machines are acceptable substitutes for the human, the less we will differentiate between the “real” and the “unreal” and the easier it will be to accept machines as replacements to human interaction. In the words of Turkle, “I think of how little resistance this generation will offer…”(p. 125). In light of these developments then, is it conceivable that one day, in the not too distant future, the clinical preparation of nursing students may take place solely within the simulated learning environment and that they will, in fact, graduate without ever having encountered or interacted with a human patient? According to Skiba (2014), we do know that the role of ‘personalized education’ is transforming and that there are “forces that are converging to change the landscape of higher education” (p.63.) Pedagogically, technology prevails by its use in the classroom, in experiential learning environments, and in its ubiquity throughout postsecondary education. Recently, the president of Stanford University was heard to say that a technology "tsunami" is about to strike higher education. Well, we would argue that day has arrived. In light of its arrival, we would, therefore, offer a cautionary note. Over
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7 the last decade we have witnessed the technological dismantling of two great institutions within our democratic society vis-à-vis journalism and publishing (Hieronymi, 2012). We would be wise to register this development as we are swept up by this technological tsunami. We would be wise to remember that
T
education is not merely the transmission of information, knowledge or ideas. Rather, education is a
RI P
rigorous process required to make sense of information, knowledge, and ideas preferably with input from and engagement by both educator and learner. Education is a social process. There is no disputing that
SC
technology can improve education. It will do so, however, by compelling us to reflect on what education is and ensuring a process of critical discourse and dialogue that is open, transparent and reflective, one
NU
that does not confuse technology with teaching, one that views technology simply as an instrument of
AC
CE
PT
ED
MA
pedagogy that emanates from theory, philosophy and critical reflection.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8 References
T
China Medical Board (2013, December). MOOCS transforming health professional education in China. Retrieved from: http://chinamedicalboard.org/news/moocs_transforming_health_professional_education_china_0
RI P
Crawford, Kate (2013). “Algorithmic Illusions: Hidden biases of big data.” O’Reilly Strata Conference, Santa Clara, California http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=irP5RCdpilc
SC
Goldschmidt, K. & Greene-Ryan, J. (2013). A “mini MOOC”: Outcomes of a gateway introductory course for online learners. INTED 2013 Proceedings, 2220-2227.
NU
Goldschmidt, K. & Greene-Ryan, J. (2014). MOOCs in nursing education. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, DOI:10.1016/j.pedn.2013.12.001
MA
Hieronymi, Pamela. (2012) “Don’t confuse technology with teaching.” CAUT Bulletin 59-8. Martin, N. (2012). MOOCs are massive. Training & Development, 39, 32-33.
PT
ED
McCluskey, F.B. & Winter, M.L. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Westphalia Press: Washington, DC Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for Profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
CE
Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. Knopf: New York.
Skiba, D. (2012). Disruption in higher education: Massively open online courses (MOOCs) [Emerging Technology]. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 416-417.
AC
Skiba, D.J. (2013a). On the horizon: The year of the MOOCs. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(2), 136137). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-34.2.136 Skiba, D. (2013b). MOOCs and the future of nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34 (3), 202-204. Skiba, D. (2014). The connected age: Implications for 2014. [Emerging Technologies Center]. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35 (1), 63-65. Straumshein, C. (2013, December). A plea for close learning: Confirming the MOOC myth. [Tomorrow’s Professor eNewletter: 1307] . Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/6/moocresearch-conference-confirms-commonly-held-beliefs-about-medium#ixzz2mibalZVa Turkle, S. (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Press: New York.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 0 Highlights
T
RI P SC NU MA ED PT CE
Technologies have had a profound effect on the ways we conceptualize our world (79 characters) A shift in academia authority from the professoriate to administrators has occurred (84 characters) There is minimal evidence of the effectiveness of MOOCs as a teaching entity (76 characters) The integration of technologies in education demands a critical discourse (74 characters)
AC
S0260-6917(14)00116-6 doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.005 YNEDT 2710
To appear in:
Nurse Education Today
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
15 November 2013 25 March 2014 17 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Caplan, Wendy, Myrick, Florence, Smitten, Jayne, Kelly, Wade, What a tangled web we weave: How technology is reshaping pedagogy, Nurse Education Today (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.005
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9
WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE: HOW TECHNOLOGY
T
IS RESHAPING PEDAGOGY
NU
SC
RI P
Wendy Caplan, MEd, BA (Hons), BA Director eLearning Services, Faculty of Nursing University of Alberta, Edmonton Ph: 780-492-8705 Fax: 780-492-2551 email: [email protected]
ED
MA
Florence Myrick, PhD, MScN, BN, RN Professor & Associate Dean Teaching and Learning Faculty of Nursing University of Alberta, Edmonton Ph: 780-492-0251 Fax: 780-492-2551 email: [email protected]
CE
PT
Jayne Smitten, PhD MEd Dipl. Adult Ed BA Tutor, Health Administration Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Athabasca University, Edmonton, Alberta Ph: 780-466-7546 email: [email protected]
AC
Wade Kelly, MEd, BEd Instructional Designer, Learning Engagement Office Extension Faculty University of Alberta Ph: 780-248-1173 Fax: 780-4920627 email: [email protected]
RN CHSE
CHSE-A
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
1
RI P
T
What a Tangled Web We Weave: How Technology is Reshaping Pedagogy
SC
One does not have to look too far to witness the profound impact of technology on our world today, the way we function within it and the various ways in which we have
NU
reconceptualised and altered our language to accommodate our new realities. For it was not long ago that a community was a place where you lived, a place where you worked or
MA
played, and a place where friendships were developed and nurtured over time with people to whom you actually connected in person and on a regular basis. Now people are
ED
“friended” almost indiscriminately without concern for any type of commonality beyond a shared interest in the latest music trend. Indeed, becoming a member of a community does
PT
not actually necessitate participation in shared activities or even disclosing to anyone that
CE
you are there or virtually present. And while one could spend many hours debating the advantages and disadvantages of either of these set of circumstances, there is no doubt
AC
that our view of the world has been overwhelmingly altered in ways that are both beneficial and detrimental to our well-being. But, make no mistake there has been a major paradigm shift. The purpose of this paper is to generate discourse around the integration of technologies within the context of teaching and learning, a discourse often silenced by the glare of the “new.” Through this discourse we hope to provide space in which to view learning technologies from an authentic and critical perspective so that the best decisions about pedagogy- the art and science of teaching, in union with learning in nursing education can be made. THE PATTERN EMERGES As early as 1995 Neil Postman urged us to stop thinking about and accepting educational technologies as “unmixed blessings, gifts, as it were, from the gods” (Postman, p. 41). Rather, acceptance of learning
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 technologies by nurse educators must be assumed with a degree of skepticism, with our eyes wide open to ensure that our use of technologies authentically serves to enhance the student learning experience and our own pedagogical approaches to teaching. It would behoove us as educators to make conscious, reflective,
T
and deliberate choices lest we find ourselves looking regretfully toward a future in which we have
RI P
relinquished our responsibility for quality education to those who are more concernedwith efficiency and instrumentation rather than with the effectiveness and humanity that is the raison d’être of the educational
SC
process. With the growing importance and integration of technologies throughout the academy, it becomes paramount that we make a distinction between those technologies that function primarily to support
NU
administration and those that are designed to enhance pedagogy and the learning process. In the former,
MA
the use of the technologies themselves can be perceived to be on the vanguard of postsecondary education as they enable administrative processes to be streamlined and made more accessible to administrators, students and faculty alike. In the latter case, however, the technologies are secondary to authentic
ED
pedagogical practices, the driving force that should underlie decisions for their inclusion in the teaching
PT
and learning process. This undertaking is not easy to accomplish. In their book “The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education,”
CE
McCluskey and Winter (2012) identify three models of governance under which most post-secondary institutions are located. Penned the “BLT” model, the approaches include the “Bureaucracy-Centered” (B-
AC
model); the “Teacher-Centered” (T-model); and the “Learning-Centered” (L- model). While there can be combinations of each within any particular learning environment, there is usually one model that dominates and whose underlying philosophical tenets drive the decisions that are made. As universities become more and more dependent on technologies for administration, research and teaching, the authors note that there has been a corresponding shift in authority from an academy led and governed by the professoriate, to one that is increasingly bureaucratic with a leadership team comprised primarily of administrative or business oriented individuals. In the highest echelons of the academy, for example, it is now quite common to observe, sitting alongside the VP Academic and VP Research, a Chief Information Technology Officer or a VP of Information Technology whose primary focus is the acquisition and implementation of the various technological services required by the institution. And, unlike the more traditional university administrators, quite often these individuals are not academics, do not possess knowledge of pedagogy nor do they even have a genuine understanding of the teaching and learning needs,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT concerns and realities of faculty and students. Thus, the view here is evidence of the “B-model” of
3
governance dominating the ‘soul of higher education’ (McCluskey & Winter, 2012). Within this rapidly changing environment it becomes ever more important, therefore, to recognize that a balance is, more than
T
ever, required to protect the fundamental ideals that lie at the very heart of the educational institution and
RI P
the technological advancements that support administrative and pedagogical requisites, with the emphasis being on support.
SC
THE MOOC REVOLUTION
As we survey the current educational environment it is easy to see how this shift in focus has
NU
manifested itself within the academy. Take, for example, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), a
MA
phenomenon that has single-handedly sparked a renewed interest in online learning. Purported to have revolutionized higher education, MOOCs hold the promise of increased accessibility to those who are otherwise excluded from the realm of higher learning (China Medical Board, 2013). Thus, avid proponents
ED
profess MOOCs to hold the promise of democratizing education. For those who are unfamiliar with the
PT
MOOC trend, many top tier universities have already embraced the MOOC concept, which free of charge provides access to online not-for-credit courses to any and all who are interested from around the globe.
CE
These courses, frequently taught by prominent faculty members with international reputations, can
AC
accommodate registrations upwards of 100,000 and are habitually filled within days by individuals interested in learning more about a topic of interest to them. Delivered through online learning management systems (LMS) MOOCs consist primarily of video lectures, multiple choice quizzes and discussion boards that encourage participants to dialogue with one another. Assessment and feedback are invariably managed through a cadre of teaching assistants and, in some cases, peer interaction and review. Currently being offered through consortia of established universities that include MIT, Harvard and the University of California all of whom have poured millions of dollars into supporting this endeavor, and for-profit groups such as Udacity and Coursera who have yet to develop strategies to monetize their offerings, MOOCs have arrived on the educational landscape with a bang. Because MOOCs are so new, however, to date we have little or no experience with them as a teaching entity or evidence about their effectiveness as a learning tool; in other words, we have not determined whether they provide a positive or authentic learning experience (Goldschmidt and Ryan, 2014), and further we have no proof to support the underlying assumption that they will, in any way, democratize education.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 While MOOCs appear to offer a huge opportunity by which to provide knowledge to students, one must question how this process is considered education and, more importantly, its outcomes on the learner. For, is not education much more than imparting knowledge? Can the MOOC feasibly provide an
T
optimized environment for the pedagogical process, resulting in effective education of the masses? Will
RI P
the MOOC actually live up to its potential or do we need a reality check (Straumsheim, 2013)? Skiba (2012) asserts that the MOOC is not tailored for all learners, particularly in the pedagogical process that
SC
involves more structure. In response to examining what the MOOC means for the future of nursing, Skiba (2013a, 2013b) directs us to the Institute of Medicine Future of Nursing Report (2011), addressing the
NU
potential case for MOOCs. Recommendations include increasing enrollment to meet the projected
MA
workforce shortages in nursing- teaching the masses. Yet, Skiba further emphasizes there are challenges in the transformative pedagogical processes involving the MOOC- challenges that require more resolve and research. According to Nussbaum (2010), “Each student must be treated as an individual whose
ED
powers of mind are unfolding and who is expected to make an active and creative contribution to
PT
classroom discussion” (p. 55). This pedagogical principle, for example, might prove be an insurmountable challenge in such large group environments. Students need to be encouraged and facilitated to practice
CE
what they have learned through critical engagement with fellow students, and writing papers, a process
AC
which requires detailed feedback from the professor. It is through such a process that students can internalize the knowledge they have acquired. In an era when critical thinking has been promoted as being so integral to current professional nursing practice, one might ponder whether the MOOC actually promotes critical thinking or does it promote rote learning which invariably has been shown to promote docile individuals who follow authority and are reticent to ask questions (Nussbaum). Before we continue, let us address the notion of “big data,” another emergent trend. This term is a relatively recent one that has become part of our vocabulary in part due to the capacity of computers to capture more information and data than has ever before been possible. It has been some time since we realized that with the advent of Learning LMSs it has been much easier to track our students‟ activities and progress. Most of these learning software packages have at a minimum the capacity to record how long a student spends in a course site, the pages they viewed, the numbers of postings they created and how well they were able to respond to any given question in a quiz. An aggregate of student responses to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 assessments provides a readily accessible method for instructors to determine question validity and student learning outcomes. Nevertheless, eLearning professionals have always cautioned faculty to take these statistics with a measure of skepticism as they do not always adequately reflect reality and, since
T
they are invariably generated by a small set of students, they may not be generalizable to the overall
RI P
student population.
And then enter the MOOC. Housed within robust LMSs, institutions are able to track, click by
SC
click, massive amounts of data from massive numbers of student activities including the materials they absorb easily and the materials they find more challenging. Subsequently, this development has led many
NU
to conclude that all of these data will provide a better understanding as to how students interact with
MA
educational materials. Thus, such understanding, they purport, will increase our ability to make determinations as to where remediation is necessary and, if possible to individualize learning in such a way that each and every student will have their own unique learning experience. This perception is why in
ED
part those academics and researchers whose interests lie in machine learning have become champions of
PT
the MOOC. Moreover, it is their contention that, with the data garnered from courses, they will be able to create machines that do a better job of teaching than any particular professor can do. This in and of itself is
CE
not necessarily bad. If there are ways to make learning easier and more effective for students then we
AC
should be interested. The question becomes though to what extent are we to be misled by the data? Will we become so enamoured by MOOC generated statistics simply because they are available to us that we forget to be critical in our analysis thereby abandoning our vision for authentic higher education? In a recent talk at the O‟Reilly Strata Conference, Kate Crawford (2013) cautions that “big data” might not be giving us the entire picture. We would, therefore, be wise to consider the potential misconceptions. These misconceptions are particularly problematic, she maintains, when big data is used to guide our spending decisions, especially we would add, in times of fiscal constraint and scarce resources, when funds used to support one activity are being diverted from another. With each of these financial decisions we tend to abandon our philosophical perspective, which we would argue appears to be transpiring when traditional educational institutions decide to support MOOCs and the research therein owing to the perception that they will be left behind if they decide not to “ride the wave”. In her recent book “Alone Together” Sherry Turkle (2011) implores us to, in all cases consider the road we choose to travel. “We make our technologies and they, in turn, shape us. So, of every technology we must ask, does
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT it serve our human purposes – a question that causes us to reconsider what these purposes are” (p. 19).
6
Let us consider whether MOOCs serve our human purposes, and whether our investment in the potential of machine learning should circumscribe our commitment to education that relies on the interaction of
RI P
look around and discover that we are somewhere we never intended to be.
T
one human with another. If we do not pause to answer this question then just possibly one day we may
UNTANGLING THE WEB THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE
SC
Perhaps we are closer to that “somewhere” than we realize. Witness for example, the pervasive use of high fidelity human patient simulation as a legitimate approach to teaching and learning in nursing
NU
education. Forty years ago, using Mrs. Chase, students would practice various procedures including, but not
MA
limited to catheterizations, dressing changes, and injection administration. While the experience was designed to augment theory, there was no mistaking Mrs. Chase for a human being unlike today’s simulated learning environments, which are considerably more sophisticated. Today, technologically advanced
ED
simulators impart an increased capacity and functionality to mimic the human physiological condition and, as
PT
such much time is spent programming true to life scenarios that replicate and often substitute for actual human-to-human contact. Witness again, the more recent emergence of the nurse robot, more affectionately
CE
referred to as the “Nursebot” (Turkle, 2011, p. 120) who, in some jurisdictions has begun to permeate the provision of care for both the elderly and the very young. The earlier in life we are socialized into believing
AC
that machines are acceptable substitutes for the human, the less we will differentiate between the “real” and the “unreal” and the easier it will be to accept machines as replacements to human interaction. In the words of Turkle, “I think of how little resistance this generation will offer…”(p. 125). In light of these developments then, is it conceivable that one day, in the not too distant future, the clinical preparation of nursing students may take place solely within the simulated learning environment and that they will, in fact, graduate without ever having encountered or interacted with a human patient? According to Skiba (2014), we do know that the role of ‘personalized education’ is transforming and that there are “forces that are converging to change the landscape of higher education” (p.63.) Pedagogically, technology prevails by its use in the classroom, in experiential learning environments, and in its ubiquity throughout postsecondary education. Recently, the president of Stanford University was heard to say that a technology "tsunami" is about to strike higher education. Well, we would argue that day has arrived. In light of its arrival, we would, therefore, offer a cautionary note. Over
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7 the last decade we have witnessed the technological dismantling of two great institutions within our democratic society vis-à-vis journalism and publishing (Hieronymi, 2012). We would be wise to register this development as we are swept up by this technological tsunami. We would be wise to remember that
T
education is not merely the transmission of information, knowledge or ideas. Rather, education is a
RI P
rigorous process required to make sense of information, knowledge, and ideas preferably with input from and engagement by both educator and learner. Education is a social process. There is no disputing that
SC
technology can improve education. It will do so, however, by compelling us to reflect on what education is and ensuring a process of critical discourse and dialogue that is open, transparent and reflective, one
NU
that does not confuse technology with teaching, one that views technology simply as an instrument of
AC
CE
PT
ED
MA
pedagogy that emanates from theory, philosophy and critical reflection.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8 References
T
China Medical Board (2013, December). MOOCS transforming health professional education in China. Retrieved from: http://chinamedicalboard.org/news/moocs_transforming_health_professional_education_china_0
RI P
Crawford, Kate (2013). “Algorithmic Illusions: Hidden biases of big data.” O’Reilly Strata Conference, Santa Clara, California http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=irP5RCdpilc
SC
Goldschmidt, K. & Greene-Ryan, J. (2013). A “mini MOOC”: Outcomes of a gateway introductory course for online learners. INTED 2013 Proceedings, 2220-2227.
NU
Goldschmidt, K. & Greene-Ryan, J. (2014). MOOCs in nursing education. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, DOI:10.1016/j.pedn.2013.12.001
MA
Hieronymi, Pamela. (2012) “Don’t confuse technology with teaching.” CAUT Bulletin 59-8. Martin, N. (2012). MOOCs are massive. Training & Development, 39, 32-33.
PT
ED
McCluskey, F.B. & Winter, M.L. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Westphalia Press: Washington, DC Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for Profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
CE
Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. Knopf: New York.
Skiba, D. (2012). Disruption in higher education: Massively open online courses (MOOCs) [Emerging Technology]. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 416-417.
AC
Skiba, D.J. (2013a). On the horizon: The year of the MOOCs. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(2), 136137). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-34.2.136 Skiba, D. (2013b). MOOCs and the future of nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34 (3), 202-204. Skiba, D. (2014). The connected age: Implications for 2014. [Emerging Technologies Center]. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35 (1), 63-65. Straumshein, C. (2013, December). A plea for close learning: Confirming the MOOC myth. [Tomorrow’s Professor eNewletter: 1307] . Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/6/moocresearch-conference-confirms-commonly-held-beliefs-about-medium#ixzz2mibalZVa Turkle, S. (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Press: New York.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 0 Highlights
T
RI P SC NU MA ED PT CE
Technologies have had a profound effect on the ways we conceptualize our world (79 characters) A shift in academia authority from the professoriate to administrators has occurred (84 characters) There is minimal evidence of the effectiveness of MOOCs as a teaching entity (76 characters) The integration of technologies in education demands a critical discourse (74 characters)
AC
