Eleni Kaldoudi and a few of her 'School of Medicine' colleagues in Greece authored the 2010 book chapter Web 2.0 Approaches for Active, Collaborative Learning in Medicine and Health. Their work is special in that it is one of the more recent works within medical informatics and Web 2.0 educational pedagogy. Unlike other similar works, they acknowledge the shrinking of the web, as opposed to what most would categorize as a growing web. The overwhelming dissemination of mass information to a society-at-large is being replaced with a "knowledge society" (2) seeking specifically-needed, and more valuable, knowledge. While their definitions and applications of telemedical Web 2.0 affordances are accurate, this is one work among many that actually discusses active peer-to-peer learning at the "point of care" (11). Until recently medical learning, and even PBL, have experienced a delay, delays anchored in technological problems. Teams would leave to discuss patients in what Barton would call a "back stage", and then re-present themselves to the patient with answers in a manner consistent with the "front staging". This changing of roles reminded me of Brooke's "underlife" variations.
However, with real-time, collaborative learning via newer mobile devices, a merging of these different personality genres is experienced, and patients feel more included and talked "to" and not "about". They conclude their work by recounting the ways in which technological advancements are also advancing learning paradigms.
Very interesting point. The urge to conceal "back stage" talk is obviously akin to the traditional top-down mode of instruction-an attempt to hold tightly to expert status and in so doing maintain the power disparity between teacher and student (or doctor and patient, in your example). I suppose it isn't any shock that people of all walks of life want to preserve that disparity, nor is it really any surprise that including other voices, even non-expert voices, can add substantially to the quality of the product (Bruffee's abnormal discourse). I think in teaching, though, the second part of this this is even more essential. The patient might add to the quality of a diagnosis, but I think it is possible to diagnose a patient without her/his input. In teaching this is impossible, and I suppose that's why even rather traditionalist approaches have relied on interaction (going back to Socrates). I suppose one key question then is how much impact (likely negative impact) it has when the instructor holds on to power. Can real interaction happen in such an environment? I don't think so; mostly what happens is students learn, but they learn to please the teacher rather than learning the material. (Come to think of it, I bet the same thing happens in hospitals, with patients silenced by the situation learning to offer the "right" answer instead of the real answer.)
ReplyDeleteI suppose knowledge is power, and there will always be those with knowledge who want to disseminate it and those who feel threatened and want to cling to it.
ReplyDeleteIt's my belief that in today's 'knowledge society' it is far more conducive to intrinsic motivation to bridge the power distance. Yes, sometimes we have to demonstrate authority on occasion, which my students seem to accept (otherwise chaos would reign). It is interesting to note that as I write this, I discern between my Tech Writing students, whom I consider older, a little more mature, from my Freshman Comp students. It feels like the collaborative, interactive aspect is more conducive in the former and less in the latter. Depending on the maturity level of my Comp students, I suppose I use less collaboration than I do in my other classes. Perhaps that also has something to do with the lower level of writing skills and lack of exposure to university life that newer students have in comparison with the 'seasoned' population.
How many students really care about learning? How many teachers really care that their students learn? Both of you have provided a lot for me to think about, especially with students only learning to please their teachers and patients being silenced. Sadly enough, I believe both are quite rampant, and I've experienced them myself.
Dear Joseph,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you recognize the need to demonstrate authority on occasion. I struggle with this concept, as I my first tendency is to resist authority and I have the very romantic belief that power-distance levels are redundant at best and harmful to ingenuity at worst. Traditional pedagogy is top-down one-to-many communication...I'd like to see this change to a collaborative methodology in the future, but recognize that a certain level of maturity has to be present for collaboration to occur.
Deb and Joe,
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as a power brokerage, but a real solution in a real-world scenario. Collaboration is great, and I am truly an advocate for it; however, without some measure of decision-making, we could collaborate all day and night without ever helping the real-world patient or producing a real-world report. Most of this semester's authors toil to produce a utopian pedagogy, but disappointedly, they fall short on the logistics of their agenda. RB