How MOOC Reality Informs Distance Education, Online Learning, and Connectivism

In this paper, we draw from our experience as designers, instructors, and researchers in the second edition of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs) called Creativity, Innovation, and Change (CIC) 2.0 to discuss MOOC interactions. Since the CIC 2.0 MOOC was inspired by the tenets of connectivism, we employed connectivism and its four main conceptual components (autonomy, diversity, openness, and connectedness) to discuss these empirical findings from a theoretical perspective. We build our argument on the four levels of interactions (interactions with instructors, learners, course materials, and the interface) traditionally used in the field of distance education and online learning and look at the clashes between the original concepts of connectivism and cMOOCs on one hand and traditional educational concepts, particularly interactions and group work, on the other. This study discusses how MOOC interactions reveal that the four components of connectivism are more complex than originally conceptualized. This complexity can be summarized as follows: a) learner autonomy is more complex in MOOC reality; students are relatively more autonomous but not as originally conceptualized since the role of teachers remains unchanged when student interactions with course content and assessment are considered; b) diversity and openness are also more complex since peer interaction and open networks do not exhibit dynamics and importance as predicted, especially in certain participation behaviors and in MOOC pathways; and c) also, the four connectivism components are not mutually inclusive, and their interaction is not as predicted

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries