Author: Callan

Augmented Reality Glasses & The Media Debate

Written by Callan Williamson & Vince Ruffolo

AR glasses can profoundly impact education because they can provide a new way of learning that cannot be easily reproduced in other media. AR glasses are a highly immersive media technology that can allow students to explore content by projecting digital images and virtual screens directly into a field of view and use learning tools that provide interactive three-dimensional models or deep simulation models for new professionals. Using AR technology, teachers could interact with students during learning modules or help them when they might be struggling, resulting in better learning outcomes. (Mathewson, 2018; Rudra, 2025).

This helps to understand how the AR Glasses media form would impact learning through a Kozma perspective (1994) because he would contend that these features could not be considered merely as making instruction more proficient but that AR glasses could actually offer new methods of representing information. This means that instead of being merely a delivery system, AR glasses can fundamentally alter the learning experience for the student. AR glasses could, for example, aid in real-time teacher decision making which might enable more immediate interaction between teacher and student, potentially allowing for a more enhanced learning experience. AR glasses could also enable teachers to get real-time visual feedback on who is having difficulty with the material, while keeping an eye on the classroom (Mathewson, 2018). In addition, Rudra (2025) refers to AR glasses that can present 3D models and contextual information to students, representations that are educationally important to Kozma because students can engage with concepts in a way that traditional media cannot easily replicate. Kozma would say that these are examples of how AR technology would change the relationship between the teacher and student in the act of instruction thereby making AR media a learning experience unlike another form of media. 

On the other hand, Clark (1994) argues that if there is no single definable attribute of a medium that provides a unique effect on learning, then a medium serves as a proxy, or vehicle, for other variables that influence learning. AR glasses fall into this category, providing a vehicle to reach learning outcomes that may make an educator’s job easier, but do not necessarily produce learning themselves. Identifying struggling students, checking for understanding, and adapting instructional practices are all activities educators already use. The AR glasses may provide additional information that leads to higher efficiency, but it is the instructional method, rather than the technology itself, that Clark would identify as responsible for the resulting learning. An example of Clark’s (1994) stance can be inferred from Mathewson (2018), Mathewson notes that teachers already rely on students’ facial expressions and body language to determine when they may need assistance, this suggests that AR glasses may provide information that can enhance instructional practice that is already occurring, rather than introducing something new.

References:

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30218684

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30218683 

Mathewson, T.G. (2018, October 4). These glasses give teachers super powers: Augmented reality glasses for classrooms seem straight out of science fiction. The Hechinger Report. “Lumilo” augmented reality glasses give teachers super powers 

Rudra, S. (2025, March 5). How Augmented Reality Glasses Could Support Learning: Smart lenses create digital layers for a more immersive learning experience. EdTech Focus on K-12. How Augmented Reality Glasses Could Support Learning | EdTech Magazine 

Dr. Pamela R. Jeffries, Nursing Simulation & Experiential Learning

My experience in nursing education and the use of simulation in nursing led me to Dr. Pamela R. Jeffries, a nurse educator whose research has made significant contributions to simulation, experiential learning, and technology in nursing education (Pfrommer, 2024). As simulation technology becomes more sophisticated, I am interested in whether increasingly complex technology actually produces better learning.

Jeffries’ most important contribution to ed tech and nursing education is the development of the NLN/Jeffries simulation framework, which later developed into the NLN Jeffries Simulation Theory, a foundational framework for the development and evaluation of simulation-based learning, including elements such as learning objectives, educational practices, the simulation experience, and learner outcomes (Cowperthwait, 2020; Fentress et al., 2014). As the nursing education field continues to incorporate more technology, ranging from high-fidelity mannequins, virtual simulation, gaming, artificial intelligence, and others, her work remains relevant in the education technology field as it emphasizes that the value of these technologies is dependent on how effectively they support learning, rather than how technologically sophisticated they are.

Jeffries’ work reflects an experiential view of learning; students engage with simulation by participating in realistic situations, make decisions, receive feedback, and reflect on their experiences with their instructors and peers. The Faculty Simulation Toolkit (Hammond et al., n.d.) identifies simulation as an example of active learning and directly connects active learning with experiential learning, reflection, and knowledge construction. This perspective connects with Weller’s (2020) critique of the “year zero mentality” in educational technology. Rather than assuming technology represents improvement simply because it’s more sophisticated, Jeffries provides a way to consider whether technology enhances learning.  

Links:

Dr. Jeffries advocates for clinical nurse leaders to leverage AI tools in staffing. Nursing’s Digital Identity: Leveraging Unique Nurse Identifiers and Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools to Transform Hospital Nurse Staffing Models – ScienceDirect

Podcast Interview for Osmosis by Elsevier on the importance of simulation in nursing education. The Growing Importance of Simulation in Nursing Education: Dr. Pamela Jeffries, Dean of Vanderbilt University School of Nursing

Generative A.I. Statement:

This work was created through human effort, no A.I. was used in its creation.

References:

Cowperthwait, A. (2020). NLN/Jeffries Simulation Framework for Simulated Participant Methodology.    Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 42(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2019.12.009.

Hammond, C., Knoops, M., Morin, M., Peiravi, M., PIlla, J., Samwel, S., Stockdale, J. (n.d.). Faculty Simulation Toolkit. Open Library.

Fentress, H., Thomas, C., Gantt, L. (2014). The Educational Practices Construct of the NLN/Jeffries       Simulation Framework: State of the Science. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10(7), 345-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.04.006.

Jeffries, P., Russell, R., Lee, S.Y., Ivory, C., Aldritch, K. (2026). Nursing’s Digital Identity: Leveraging          Unique Nurse Identifiers and Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools to Transform Hospital Nurse   Staffing Models. Nurse Leader, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2026.102700

Pfrommer, M. (Host). (2024, December 12). The Growing Importance of Simulation in Nursing                Education: Dr. Pamela Jeffries, Dean of Vanderbilt University School of Nursing (514) [Audio   podcast episode]. In Osmosis+. Elsevier.                                                   https://www.osmosis.org/podcast/simulation-in-nursing-education-pamela-jeffries-vanderbilt

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.                https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

LRNT523 Activity 3 – Video, Social Media, & Nursing Education

Weller (2020) argues that the reduced cost of creating high quality video productions and the ease in which finding high quality video content made it much easier for educators to make multimedia courses (p. 88). This has held true for nursing education in my experience, I have personally made demonstration videos or recorded lectures for my students to provide instruction. What I find particularly compelling in Weller’s (2020) chapter on video though is his statement that video as a means of assessment is limited due to standards of how to evaluate a video, he states, “Perhaps the issue is more that educators know what a good essay looks like, and how to assess it, but are less sure what constitutes a video.” (p. 89). I have experimented with having students complete recorded assignments and I struggle with assessing them, primarily because video creation is not a learning outcome in my courses.

Weller acknowledges many of the risks of social media, including misinformation, trolls, bots, privacy, and corporate control, but he also emphasizes its potential to democratize academic discussion and research. What I struggle with is Weller’s take that social media can democratize academic research and discussion, I find it difficult to reconcile Weller’s optimism with current events, like the recent court case in the United States that accuses Meta of targeting children with addictive algorithms (Hays, 2026). Due to this I would be extremely hesitant to suggest social media to students as a trusted source of information without significant critical evaluation.

References:

Hays, K. (2026, August 18). Meta hooked children on Facebook and Instagram, US court hears. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5r7vr7q1o

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.https:/doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

Activity #2: Reflecting on Readings

As I read through the first eight chapters Martin Weller’s 25 Years of Ed Tech I couldn’t help being surprised at the many similarities between education technology and ‘Tech Bro’ culture. Weller argues that there is a year zero mentality in education technology, “…where any recognition of prior work undermines the myth of the individual creator.” (p. 6). This immediately made me think of Elon Musk, an investor who has at times been venerated as a genius despite the large teams of people actually developing the technologies associated with his companies. I draw this parallel to highlight something that I’m seeing in education, the promotion of technological solutions to ‘problems’ in education without spending the time to investigate if the solution is needed. In my field we see new simulation technology geared towards nursing education programs all the time; AI patients that students can interview that then provide real time feedback, medication administration simulations where a student must complete a medication order step by step, and high-fidelity mannequins that can do everything from talk, to bleed, to deliver a baby. While these technologies sound amazing at face value, they don’t always address real problems, technological sophistication doesn’t always translate to better learning. I have found that students get more out of interviewing a real person, medication simulation can be done with paper, a pen, and candy, while high fidelity mannequins are costly financially and in time required to train instructors in their use. Another point Weller made that I found surprising at first was that universities often feel pressured to adopt new technologies because they fear they may get left behind, but my experience in nursing education makes me question if this pressure actually results in better learning. This constant Silicon Valley style disruption, that doesn’t look at what came before I think can do more harm than good, especially when the companies producing the technology have a strong incentive to prioritize profits over education. Weller’s discussion of Shirky’s disruption narrative brought to mind Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Johnson, 2022), where Miles Bron and his sycophants call themselves ‘the disruptors’ and constantly pursue the next big idea without considering its consequences. While I don’t think all technology in education is bad, I do think it needs to be approached in a critical way that is always asking the questions; does the technology fill an actual need? Is the technology beneficial for learning? And/or is the technology addressing an actual problem in education?

References:

Johnson, R. (Director). (2022). Glass Onion: A knives out mystery [Film]. Netflix.

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.

               https:/doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

LRNT525: Unit 3 – Activity #2

Identifying the Problem and Implementing Change

            At Coast Mountain College’s Health Department, the process of tracking and managing Step 2 documents—a set of student requirements for clinical placements—needed significant improvement. Originally, these documents were collected and tracked by the registration and enrollment team, who handle multiple programs across campuses. Due to their heavy workload, follow-ups with students were inconsistent, often leading to delays in submission. As a result, students either forgot to complete their Step 2 requirements or waited until the last minute, creating a backlog of documentation that needed to be processed rapidly. Beyond the delays, the workflow itself was inefficient. The Health Department coordinators were responsible for submitting Step 2 documents to the local health authority, yet they had to collect them from the registration team first, adding an unnecessary step. The project aimed to eliminate these delays by transferring responsibility for document collection and tracking directly to the Health Department. The primary goals were to:

  1. Increase the frequency and quality of follow-ups with students to ensure timely completion of Step 2 documentation.
  2. Streamline document submission by centralizing the process within the Health Department.
  3. Ensure compliance with FOIPPA regulations while managing student records.
  4. Improve coordination with the Northern Health Authority by reducing delays in data submission.
  5. Standardize procedures through training and policy development, ensuring sustainability.

The implementation strategy was developed collaboratively between the Associate Registrar, and the Practical Nursing and Health Care Aide Coordinator and followed a structured sequence:

  • A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was developed and formalized.
  • Training sessions were conducted for staff on new responsibilities and workflow changes.
  • The Health Department took over responsibility for Step 2 document collection.
  • Affected Stakeholders were informed of the change.
  • A process for annual review and evaluation was introduced.

Although no formal project management framework was applied at the time, in hindsight, this project closely aligned with the Waterfall model. Waterfall is characterized by its structured, sequential approach, where each phase is completed before moving to the next (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021). Given that this project followed a clear progression from problem identification to planning, implementation, and review, a more formalized Waterfall framework would have further strengthened efficiency and accountability.

Challenges and Overcoming Barriers

            One of the most significant barriers was scope management. Initially, multiple programs within the Health Department wanted to be included in the change, each with unique requirements. However, expanding the project beyond a manageable scope would have introduced additional complexity and delays. To address this, the pilot project focused exclusively on the Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN) and Health Care Aide (HCA) programs, as their Step 2 requirements are identical. This decision allowed for streamlined implementation while providing a scalable model for potential expansion. Time constraints were another major challenge. Coast Mountain College policy dictates that enrollment changes cannot be made while recruitment is active. Because LPN and HCA programs have very short breaks between recruitment cycles, sometimes only a few weeks, this meant the project had to be completed rapidly. Addressing this required close collaboration between the Health Department and the registration department, ensuring that adjustments were made efficiently without disrupting enrollment. Looking forward, using a formalized Waterfall-based project management approach would be beneficial. Waterfall is highly effective for projects with well-defined goals, structured processes, and regulatory compliance requirements (Watt, 2014).  Incorporating a formalized change management strategy, such as early stakeholder engagement and structured risk assessment, would further strengthen future implementations. Conway, Masters, and Thorold (2017) emphasize the importance of systems thinking in overcoming barriers to change, suggesting that institutional projects should consider stakeholder buy-in, policy alignment, and adaptability to ensure long-term success.

Moving Forward: Project Management in My Practice

            Future projects involving administrative process changes would benefit from a more structured application of a project management method, such as Waterfall. Because this approach emphasizes defined phases, detailed documentation, and clear handoffs between steps, it aligns well with institutional projects that require compliance, process standardization, and interdepartmental coordination (PMI, 2021), like the one I’ve described.

Key methods I plan to incorporate:

  1. Formal project planning and documentation – Clearly outlining project scope, objectives, and responsibilities from the outset.
  2. Stakeholder alignment – Engaging key stakeholders earlier in the process to address potential concerns before implementation.
  3. Defined evaluation mechanisms – Implementing structured post-project evaluations to assess effectiveness and inform future improvements.

            From the readings Waterfall seems to be the most effective framework for initiatives where compliance, documentation, and process stability are critical (Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, Midler, & Silberzahn, 2016). However, integrating systems-thinking principles can further enhance adaptability and stakeholder engagement, ensuring successful implementation. By applying a structured, sequential project management approach, future initiatives at within the Health Department at Coast Mountain College could be executed more efficiently while maintaining institutional compliance and alignment with stakeholder needs.

References:

Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Midler, C., & Silberzahn, P. (2016). Contributions of design thinking to project management in an innovation context. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21577

Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – 7th edition. PMI.

Watt, A. (2014). Project management. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/projectmanagement/

Leadership Reflections

In the rapidly evolving digital landscapes we all experience, effective leadership must adapt to new challenges, including technological advancements, shifting educational paradigms, and the need for inclusive strategies. Drawing from my personal perspectives on leadership, readings, and my experiences at Coast Mountain College, I believe the most critical attributes of a leader in digital learning environments include adaptability, resilience, competence with digital mediums, academic knowledge, capacity building to remove barriers for those they lead, and sustainability.

Adaptability & Resilience in a Rapidly Changing Educational Landscape

               Shenigner (2022) highlights that digital leadership involves a significant shift in traditional leadership approaches. Leaders in digital learning environments need to embrace technology not as just a tool but as an enabler of change, this requires resilience in leaders to recover from challenges and setbacks, and ambiguity. Huggins (2017), highlights in their research on leadership among principals that resilience and adaptability are intertwined allowing leaders to navigate problems and maintain momentum. During the Covid-19 pandemic, we rapidly transitioned to in person to online delivery of Practical Nursing programs, this experience underscored the importance of adaptability, not only in implementing new technology but also in ensuring staff and students could successfully transition to remote learning. Leaders must be prepared for such shifts and capable of guiding their institutions through similar transitions in the future.

Competence with Digital Mediums & Academic Knowledge

               Leadership in a post-secondary institution like Coast Mountain College requires both competence in digital mediums and a strong foundation in academia. Khan (2017) contrasts adaptive and transactional leadership, emphasizing that adaptive leadership is better suited for dynamic educational environments. This is particularly relevant in post-secondary education, where leaders must balance subject matter expertise with the ability to navigate digital learning tools effectively. Competence with learning management systems, digital collaboration platforms, and emerging educational technologies ensures leaders can make informed decisions that benefit both staff and students. Our group discussion identified competence and knowledge as highly valued leadership traits.  

Capacity Building & Barrier Removal

               I believe that one of the most important aspects of digital leadership is the ability to remove barriers for staff and students who struggle with technology or lack of resources. Batliwala (2011) stresses the importance of intersectionality and power sharing in leadership arguing that true transformation requires redistribution of authority. In contrast Khan (2017) prioritizes adaptive leadership, where leaders retain centralized decision-making authority but will adjust to evolve with challenges. Both perspectives emphasize responsiveness but their approaches diverge: Batliwala critiques top down hierarchies, advocating for grassroots empowerment, while Khan views institutional adaptability as the key to effective leadership. In digital environments a strict power sharing approach may slow down urgent decision making. Conversely adaptive leadership allows for quicker responses but may overlook systemic inequities. The most effective digital leaders must balance both models, leveraging adaptability while ensuring that decision making remains inclusive. Leaders must actively work to bridge divides by advocating for accessible learning tools, providing digital literacy training, and ensuring equitable access to technology. In addition, effective digital leadership should involve empowering staff with the skills and confidence to integrate technology into their teaching practice, this could include professional development, mentorship, and promoting a culture where innovation and experimentation is encouraged. Leaders must also be willing to listen to staff and stakeholders needs and ideas to drive change. In our group discussing ideal leadership we could not come to consensus but the group did rate supportiveness and caring highly which is directly related to capacity building and barrier removal. Cleveland-Innes & Workman (2012) emphasize that leaders of the future must view the future as discoverable rather than predictable, meaning leaders should embrace uncertainty and innovation and encourage those they are leading to embrace. By fostering this mindset and actively removing barriers, leaders not only ensure that technology enhances education equitably but also establish the groundwork for sustainable digital transformation. However, to sustain long-term success, leaders must go beyond immediate problem-solving and adopt a visionary approach—one that anticipates future trends while maintaining inclusivity and accessibility in digital learning.

Visionary Thinking for Sustainable Digital Transformation

               To sustain success in digital learning requires sustainable approaches which requires visionary thinking. Visionary leaders can anticipate future trends, advocate for digital literacy, and shape policies that ensure technology serves pedological goals rather than pedological goals serving technology. Leaders should encourage educators to explore new tools and methodologies without fear of failure fosters innovation while maintaining accessibility. At Coast Mountain College, particularly in the Practical Nursing program, our experiences with rapid digital transformation during the pandemic reinforced the need for a leadership approach that balances innovation with inclusivity. Leaders must not only drive technology adoption but also ensure that digital learning strategies are designed to support all learners particularly those who may struggle with access or technical proficiency.

Conclusion

               Effective leadership in digital learning environments requires adaptability, competence with digital tools, academic expertise, and a commitment to capacity building, barrier removal, and sustainability. As technologies continue to reshape education, digital leaders must navigate change while maintaining a focus on accessibility, engagement, and innovation. As digital landscapes continue to evolve, how can educational leaders ensure that technological advancements serve all learners equitably rather than creating new barriers?  

References

Batliwala, S. (2011). Feminist leadership for social transformation: Clearing the conceptual cloud. CREA.

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Workman, J. (2012). The complexity of online learning: Digital learning in post- secondary education. Journal of Distance Education, 26(2), 1-14.

Huggins, K. S. (2017). Developing leadership capacity in school principals: The impact of leadership training programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(4), 613–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17696556

Khan, H. (2017). Adaptive vs. transactional leadership: Contrasting approaches in educational settings. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ- 05-2016-0111

Shenigner, E. (2022). Pillars of digital leadership. Retrieved from https://www.ericsheninger.com/pillars-  of-digital-leadership/