The table is a technology like headsets. Extended Reality relies on technologies, but the pedagogy is emerging in different ways. Reflections on yesterday's panel.
I've been looking at AR and VR products for years, and apart from two products that would bankrupt the average school, hardly any seemed to me to come out on the right side of a cost-benefit analysis. I thought the same thing about Second Life, and I think the same thing about the metaverse or whatever it's called. The tech is amazing, but I would say that nine times out of ten it's a solution looking for a problem!
I know that David Stein brought up the cost issue as a real impediment. It was a big reason why the applications he considered using had to be stricken from the list. The panelists who talked had pretty clear "use cases" that led them to using VR or AR profitably. Notably, they had strong need of visual components -- AR to augment the experience of a mural, for example, or an actual class in world designing or mapping, or visualization of otherwise invisible phenomena. In those cases, the powers of XR met the need, and the case is easier to make.
Amanda Randles noted the costs in a comment to me after the panel had disbanded and we were walking out the door. Part of the costs are tied up with a lack of organization and agreement on the preferred applications, etc. Researchers like their own stuff, so the diversity of vendors and apps mucks up any initiative to coalesce demand so that a "package" or multi-user license can be negotiated. Universities and schools are notoriously free-wheeling places sometimes, and that works against them sometimes.
I think that VR is a bit longer off when it comes to broad use in schools. But I think AR has real promise, because the essential equipment is already reasonably well established: smartphones (and, if we're inventive and willing to risk it) portable audio devices like ear buds and hearing aids. David's work with AR has made him a true believer, and he seems to have been successful in weaving AR into teaching school kids.
So-called "social VR" looks to me to be just a visually and aurally enhanced social media playground, with all its trollish downsides. I'm skeptical that it can be used for education. We still need people and human interaction. (The New Yorker article goes into an experiment with VR to link geographically distributed students. It sounds a bit Wild West-y.)
That photo of you an Rebecca was so heart-warming to see, Terry. A great way to start my weekend!
Thanks Mark. I can identify with these points, but I am still yet to be convinced. You're right about the hardware like smartphones already being available but in my experience once the person doing all the work and evangelism has left the school, it all collapses. Add to that the fact that in England our education Secretary thinks smartphones should be banned in the classroom, and it's really an uphill struggle. "The New Yorker article goes into an experiment with VR to link geographically distributed students" I haven't read the article, but I do remember that 20 years ago a local authority set up an online meeting between a classroom in one school and another a mile down the road. The event took time to arrange and the equipment cost a fortune, and all that happened was that the two sets of kids waved to each other and said hello, and watched a whiteboard demo. Almost the same thing could have been achieved with a $10 webcam.
Thanks 're @Rebecca Holden meeting and pic. My account appears tomorrow 😁
I've been looking at AR and VR products for years, and apart from two products that would bankrupt the average school, hardly any seemed to me to come out on the right side of a cost-benefit analysis. I thought the same thing about Second Life, and I think the same thing about the metaverse or whatever it's called. The tech is amazing, but I would say that nine times out of ten it's a solution looking for a problem!
I know that David Stein brought up the cost issue as a real impediment. It was a big reason why the applications he considered using had to be stricken from the list. The panelists who talked had pretty clear "use cases" that led them to using VR or AR profitably. Notably, they had strong need of visual components -- AR to augment the experience of a mural, for example, or an actual class in world designing or mapping, or visualization of otherwise invisible phenomena. In those cases, the powers of XR met the need, and the case is easier to make.
Amanda Randles noted the costs in a comment to me after the panel had disbanded and we were walking out the door. Part of the costs are tied up with a lack of organization and agreement on the preferred applications, etc. Researchers like their own stuff, so the diversity of vendors and apps mucks up any initiative to coalesce demand so that a "package" or multi-user license can be negotiated. Universities and schools are notoriously free-wheeling places sometimes, and that works against them sometimes.
I think that VR is a bit longer off when it comes to broad use in schools. But I think AR has real promise, because the essential equipment is already reasonably well established: smartphones (and, if we're inventive and willing to risk it) portable audio devices like ear buds and hearing aids. David's work with AR has made him a true believer, and he seems to have been successful in weaving AR into teaching school kids.
So-called "social VR" looks to me to be just a visually and aurally enhanced social media playground, with all its trollish downsides. I'm skeptical that it can be used for education. We still need people and human interaction. (The New Yorker article goes into an experiment with VR to link geographically distributed students. It sounds a bit Wild West-y.)
That photo of you an Rebecca was so heart-warming to see, Terry. A great way to start my weekend!
Thanks Mark. I can identify with these points, but I am still yet to be convinced. You're right about the hardware like smartphones already being available but in my experience once the person doing all the work and evangelism has left the school, it all collapses. Add to that the fact that in England our education Secretary thinks smartphones should be banned in the classroom, and it's really an uphill struggle. "The New Yorker article goes into an experiment with VR to link geographically distributed students" I haven't read the article, but I do remember that 20 years ago a local authority set up an online meeting between a classroom in one school and another a mile down the road. The event took time to arrange and the equipment cost a fortune, and all that happened was that the two sets of kids waved to each other and said hello, and watched a whiteboard demo. Almost the same thing could have been achieved with a $10 webcam.
Thanks 're @Rebecca Holden meeting and pic. My account appears tomorrow 😁