Search

Multimodal data have the potential to explore emerging learning practices that extend human cognitive capacities. A critical issue stretching in many multimodal learning analytics (MLA) systems and studies is the current focus aimed at supporting researchers to model learner behaviours, rather than directly supporting learners. Moreover, many MLA systems are designed and deployed without learners' involvement. We argue that in order to create MLA interfaces that directly support learning, we need to gain an expanded understanding of how multimodal data can support learners' authentic needs. We present a qualitative study in which 40 computer science students were tracked in an authentic learning activity using wearable and static sensors. Our findings outline learners' curated representations about multimodal data and the non‐technical challenges in using these data in their learning practice. The paper discusses 10 dimensions that can serve as guidelines for researchers and designers to create effective and ethically aware student‐facing MLA innovations. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Many MLA systems are designed without learners' involvement.Understanding of how multimodal data can support learners' authentic needs is needed.MLA have the potential to enable the automated generation of models to provide real‐time feedback. What this paper adds: Understanding how learners perceive multimodal data and the learning context.The findings outline the soft challenges in using multimodal data in the learning practice.Ten dimensions were identified to serve as guidelines for researchers and designers.The paper reports learners' perspectives describing new, intriguing, and under‐developed ideas about potential uses of multimodal data in educational context.The discussion on the need for human‐centred design approaches for educational technologies has been presented. Implications for practice and/or policy: Relevant pointers for what is appropriate and ethically necessary when designing learning technologies.Change in perspective among educators, on how they address progress and engagement in learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper examines parents' legal argumentation in 15 appealed care order (child removal) cases in one Norwegian district court, asking on what grounds parents appeal their case. I investigate the pragmatic, ethical, and moral bases in arguments by applying a discourse ethics framework, viewing argumentation as either justifications or excuses of the parenting in question. The analysis reveals complex reasons for appealing, displaying parents both justifying and excusing both specific situations and the totality of their parenthood. Parents primarily apply pragmatic and ethical adversarialism, followed by pragmatic blaming and claims of change, moral justifications about due process, and ethical excuses about age and own life histories. Interestingly, normalization emerges as a third strategy, where parents explicitly aim to widen the scope of parental normality and adequacy, challenging the common defense dichotomy. The study provides new insight into an important and sensitive field, and indicates that parents engage in similar concrete strategies when, most often unsuccessfully, defending their parenthood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In three experimental studies, with managers and students as participants, we explore in this paper the relation between two kinds of responsibility judgments, called Responsibility 1 (R1) and Responsibility 2 (R2). Decision makers can be viewed as being more or less responsible for their choice and its consequences (R1). Their actions can also be evaluated, from a normative point of view, as instances of more or less responsible behavior (R2). Experiment 1 showed that managers who depart from the default or 'normal' course of action, by choosing a new (versus familiar) alternative, changing (versus sticking to) an initial decision, or going against (versus following) the advice of a management team, are rated as more responsible (R1) for the outcomes of their decision. At the same time, they are perceived to act in a less responsible way (R2). Experiment 2 compared decision makers choosing between more or less risky options. High risk takers were held more responsible (R1) for their choice and for its consequences, but were again viewed as behaving in a less responsible way (R2) than low risk takers. In Experiment 3, participants judged decision makers who followed or opposed others' advice by choosing either a high or a low risk option. Opposing others' advice led to higher R1 and lower R2 scores, especially when choosing the high risk option, moderated by outcome (successful decisions appearing more responsible than those that went wrong). Thus R1 and R2 judgments should be distinguished as having different and sometimes even opposite determinants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical ethics committees have recently been established in nearly all Norwegian hospital trusts. One important task for these committees is clinical ethics consultations. This qualitative study explores significant barriers confronting the ethics committees in providing such consultation services. The interviews with the committees indicate that there is a substantial need for clinical ethics support services and, in general, the committee members expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for the committee work. They also reported, however, that tendencies to evade moral disagreement, conflict, and ‘outsiders’ are common in the hospitals. Sometimes even the committees comply with some of these tendencies. The committees agree that there is a need to improve their routines and procedures, clarify the committees' profile and field of responsibility, to make the committees well-known, to secure adequate operating conditions, and to develop organizational integration and support. Various strategies to meet these challenges on a local, regional or national level are also explored in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients’ experience of going through the diagnostic phase in hospital is apt to be overlooked by nurses and physicians; most of their inner preparative work for receiving the diagnosis is hidden because of the vulnerability of the situation. This paper discusses findings from a grounded theory study, of 18 in-depth interviews of 15 patients going through medical investigation at a gastric ward in a Norwegian university hospital. The interviews were conducted in 2002–2003. The generated ‘Preparative Waiting Theory’, which accounts for how patients in the diagnostic phase work to prepare themselves for receiving a diagnosis, is discussed in relation to the Danish theologian and philosopher Løgstrup’s writings about the ethical demand and life utterances of trust, openness and the untouchable zone. The ethical demand from patients going through medical investigations is silent and radical, and thus challenging for nurses and physicians to judge how to best fulfil. Examples from the interviews are used to illustrate patients’ vulnerability as they prepare to face the conclusion about their case. To the extent trust develops between patients and nurses/physicians, patients can reveal what is at stake in their lives without feeling exposed or embarrassed. Because of the power nurses and physicians have in the healthcare system, and because of laws, morals and conventions guiding practice, we have a professional responsibility to develop a culture that fosters the ability and willingness to take care of our patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with aspects of responsibility in Norwegian public health nursing. Public health nursing is an expansive profession with diffuse boundaries. The Norwegian public health nurse does not perform ‘hands on’ nursing, but focuses on the prevention of illness, injury, or disability, and the promotion of health. What is the essence of ethical responsibility in public health nursing? The aim of this article is to explore the phenomenon based on the ethics of responsibility as reflected upon by the philosopher Emanuel Levinas (1906–1995). From an ethical point of view, responsibility is about our duty towards the Other, a duty we have not always chosen, are prepared for, or can fully explain; but it is nevertheless a demand we have to live with. Interviews with five experienced Norwegian nurses provide the empirical base for reflection and interpretation. The nurses share stories from their practice. In interpreting the nurses’ stories, the following themes emerge: personal responsibility; boundaries; temporality; worry, fear, and uncertainty; and a sense of satisfaction. As the themes are developed further, it becomes apparent that, despite their diversity, they are all interrelated aspects of ethical responsibility. Responsibility for the Other cannot be avoided, ignored, or transferred. The nurses’ responsibility is personal and infinite. Levinasian ethics can help nurses understand the importance of accepting that being a responsive carer can involve not only contentment in the predictable, but also the fear, worry, and uncertainty of the unpredictable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]