Hosted by Nathan Bishop and Mary Hui
People learn through experience. Until recent history, our experiences were limited by space, time, and resources. But now, thanks to the rapid development of extended reality technologies, i.e. VR, AR, and MR, these borders and limitations are no more. We can virtually send students to the moon for exploration or teach them how to weld an underwater pipeline with zero danger.
Of all the industries that could be positively impacted by extended reality, education seems like it has the most to gain. Education has made great strides with the mainstream adoption of online learning in recent years; now it is time to take the next step.
The content for our OER can be found here. There are discussion prompts throughout the resource (look out for the red buttons); please respond to them below within this blog post. Since there are essentially five main topic areas/pages (not including the introduction, discussion prompt summary, or references), each with their own discussion prompt, we advise working through one each day (Monday to Friday) as a general guideline. Of course, you are free to respond to earlier prompts later in the week as you see fit. There is a Discussion Prompt Summary page where we have listed all prompts in one place, plus a bonus prompt to help tie the OER together. Please be sure to visit this page and look at the bonus prompt toward the end of the week.
Lastly, leave yourself some time to explore the activities on the Try It! page at the end. There is a DIY project you may be interested in, so we suggest having a look at that earlier in the week, if possible.
Enjoy!
I think in response to your first prompt, I’m most comfortable with AR in the classroom simply because I haven’t had the opportunity to use VR yet because of lack of headsets in the schools I’ve worked for. Therefore AR was more readily available to me and is my preference soley based on that and the age range I teach. I enjoyed using an AR app to coincide with an English unit I was teaching to kindergarten aged students at the time based on a book about an alien. I was able to create a crash landing site in the classroom where the alien had crashed it’s spaceshit and then created an AR based video of the alien in the classroom as superimposed on a video of the real classroom complete with movement and sound effects as well as a newspaper report. Needless to say the children loved it and I would certainly be open to exploring more AR and hopefully VR in the near future. MR may be a bit out of the age range of the primary students I teach however that being said if I were to teach adults or secondary students I think there is a huge possibility of engaging lessons and experiences to be had.
Hi Alexis,
it’s so good to hear about the positive experience in using AR in the classroom. You make an excellent point about accessibility. Not everyone will have access to a VR headset or will be able to purchase it for the classroom. I agree with your point as well about MR and how could be out of range for primary school students, given the amount of computer power it requires to run the programs. If VR headsets were as readily available as AR, do you think there be a higher chance of it being used in primary schools? or would AR still be more preferable? What are some of the other factors that makes AR more preferable for the primary school population?
Hey Mary,
Yes, if VR headsets were available I would love to use them in the classroom. I would probably use a mix of AR and VR as engage opportunities to introduce topics or to conclude units of study. I suppose the use of equipment for VR and its navigation makes it a bit trickier for primary students to grasp initially in comparison to AR and the age restriction requirements for most of the higher powered headsets.
I am involved with teaching students an Indigenous language called Secwepemctsín that it is currently being taught through Zoom, as the students are spread out across BC and one even in California, so I think that MR would lend itself best to remote learning. I especially like the potential of the project called Holoportation, mentioned in the MR video, because of the ability to interact with other students in the same “physical space” while wearing the headsets. The ability for language learners to interact with each other in a curated environment to help the students learn culturally relevant material would be so beneficial to help preserving a greater range of knowledge for endangered Indigenous languages. I think that each of the respective XR technologies has the ability to be the best fit for different types of classrooms depending on the age and experience of the learners, the material being taught and if the learners will be in the same room or not. As technology improves and these technologies become more broadly accessible, the potential for these technologies to transform how students learn and how material is taught will be truly exciting to see.
Hi Seth,
I really enjoyed reading your experience in teaching the indigenous language called Secwepemctsín to your students and how MR can potentially be implemented in your classroom for remote learning. Preserving a greater range of knowledge for endangered indigenous languages is so meaningful, and it is something I be grateful to have the opportunity to learn more about. In terms of curriculum development, how do see yourself implementing MR for language acquisition for other learner groups (i.e: K-12, higher education, and workplace) and what would that look like?
I think MR would likely have the most applicability to education as it seems to be the most interactive of the options, that being said, at this point in time I get the sense that VR is likely more accessible to students (and teachers’ budgets). I have created exercises for students on Cospaces, which creates 3D landscapes that kids can build and interact with, and there are now tonnes of free resources online that can either be viewed with or without the VR goggles. Perhaps I’m wrong though- is MR more accessible to schools than I think?
Hi Hayley,
I hear you about budget. While MR may be more immersive and interactive for students, VR may be more assessable to students because the equipment is cheaper. I think it depends on what the learning objective is for the class. For learners getting trained at a corporate setting (i.e.: firefighters), it may be helpful that they can immerse into a hybrid VR/Real world setting. This can ensure that staff are in a safe environment to practice the steps/procedures. Corporate may have a bigger budget to support that learning path. Other institutions, sometimes VR / AR can be just as interactive as a teaching medium than MR. Like you’ve mentioned, there are a lot of free resources teachers can use for free. As the VR/AR/MR technology develops and the equipment becomes cheaper, do you think there is an impact on hands-on learning using AR (tablet / desktop) verses VR/MR?
Hi Nathan and Mary,
I enjoyed reviewing your OER; the website was visually appealing with great deal of useful information. I particularly liked the survey questions; they complemented the literature quite nicely. With regard to the Bonus Discussion Prompt “i.e., can immersive experiences substitute hands-on learning?”, I would have to say that a well-rounded class would certainly require a hybrid approach. In other words, students would need both the face-to-face interactions as well as the immersive experiences provided by VR/AR/MR. Having said this, there are areas where I could see immersive experiences becoming more impactful. For instance, students with learning disabilities or on the autism spectrum who would find certain situations anxiety-provoking or overwhelming (e.g. touring a new school, etc…) would certainly benefit from immersive experiences.
Hi Hasssae1,
Thank you for your feedback on our site, I can definitely see that a hybrid approach is can make the immersive experience more impactful for students and for educators. I really like your focus on inclusivity and your focus on students with learning disabilities / autism spectrum. How can a curriculum developer cater their lesson plans to accommodate to student population? Are there adjustments needed for k-12 / Higher education / Corporate learner?
As for what form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) would lend itself best to the classroom, at this moment I’m inclined to go with Augmented Reality due to wider accessibility and lower cost barriers. AR is actually easily experienced through smartphones as we’ve seen with Ikea furniture catalogues, Pokemon Go and Google Maps. Students can simply bring their phones into lessons and participate in AR based lessons. Even if schools were to lend out phones or tablets, the costs involved would be much lower than renting out an VR headset. As for the teaching experience, AR’s ability to make visual objects pop out actually enriches the subject matter and as students can “visualize” what they’re being taught, it should lead to higher engagement and interactive user experiences. Even for boring business/departmental meetings, AR could definitely make them less boring to sit through!
I do acknowledge that VR has it’s benefits and it’s generally more immersive than AR. My concern is it’s harder to organize lessons based on VR. While headsets such as Oculus Quest are affordable, there might be potential budget issues. Furthermore, VR also requires more maintenance as each headset would need to be cleaned afterwards to ensure proper hygiene. Some students might experience motion sickness or eye strain. On a positive note, with VR, students can experience knowledge beyond the physical boundaries of the classroom as tailor made applications could be used to teach about unreplicable historical events or field trips which are impossible to organize (such as travelling into outer space, deep sea exploration or hands on VR experience with certain jobs). For Business courses, I’ve often wondered if VR could be used to replace company visits, used for practicing public speaking and engaging in Capstone Business competitions with other schools. The possibilities are endless, it’s definitely an exciting thought to see how VR/AR/MR develops in the near future.
Hi John,
Great point about the physical issues that comes with wearing the VR/MR headsets! Cleaning the device after each use is also not fun. AR definitely has it’s benefits since everyone has access to a tablet / phone – it’s also cheaper as well as you mentioned. Your point about business courses are interesting and it’s definitely something can be explored when the technology develops. Do you think learner will be more willing to be engaged in the immersive experience if the physical issues were eliminated? How might that look like?
I definitely think that more users will be more receptive towards VR if the physical issues are ironed out. There’s a classic image that shows an entire conference hall with VR headsets on which probably reflects the future of how education will look like. Furthermore, with developing aspects such as entire virtual worlds such as Meta, I have a feeling more people will be investing time into their “virtual” lives in conjunction with their real lives. Ultimately it depends on how attractive the VR content is whether it’s brings any positive changes into their work/education/social life etc
What form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) do you think lends itself best to the classroom? Do you have a preference? If so, why?
While I believe all of AR, VR, and MR will have a profound impact on education. If I had to choose one type I would have to go with augmented reality. The main reason is that is it more accessible, as it can be brought to students though a device they already have. Virtual reality, while having many advantages, requires its users to purchase a headset or special glasses which can be expensive. Augmented reality has a broader application, while learning trends continue to shift toward more learning happening outside of school walls, at home, or on the bus etc. smartphones and devices offer relatively inexpensive entry-level immersive experiences.
You make a key point here regarding device availability. One reason these technologies are becoming part of the conversation is the fact that many people have a ton of processing power in their pocket. This was simply not the case 10 years ago. For this reason, it seems like AR is an easy (and logical) first step for bringing XR into the classroom. If somehow, it was commonplace for everyone to just have a VR headset, or if schools just had tons of them on hand, do you think VR would overtake AR? Is it the device availability alone that puts AR ahead in this race, or is there something about AR in the way it functions that makes it more suitable?
Hi Nathan, I am only predicting here, but I would still say that even if headsets and equipment weren’t a concern, VR would still not take AR, simply because AR seems to have so many more applications. I also wonder how responsive students would be to wearing a headset over their masks!
Great point! Someone else had mentioned the physical issues that could be connected to wearing a VR headset. Is this accessible for all students? Could it cause motion sickness, for example? From this perspective, AR does seem to be a more universal choice!
I’ve experienced some VR apps where it was simulating a driving/racing game and it was way too intense, pretty much a vomit comet situation. Funny enough some other VR programs were fine so it’s probably hard to gauge what types of content would individual students be more sensitive towards (each person responds to VR differently I assume)
AR is certainly very effective, with a wide variety of applications in the classroom. Off the top of my head 3 assignments I’ve had students in the past month have some sort of AR component (but that’s just me, I have really bought into the applicability of the technology), but looking ahead, I am inclined to say VR will eventually surpass AR as an effective means to learning. Most comments here have aptly recognized the accessibility issue, mainly costs, with VR currently but we should note that there is certainly a downward trend in costs as more companies produce their version. We can use the computer/laptop as an example of how these costs might play out. The other current challenge with VR is effective pedagogy; this is an interesting one but over time as more educators become exposed to these technologies, the pedagogy will come with time and trial. We know from research that VR situates very nicely within many learning theories and so will find it’s way into the classroom when they become more accessible. A barrier that must considered, and may only be considered when cross industry collaboration happens is security, are these tools being built with the idea that students of all ages are using them and thus their needs to be strong security measures placed around them?
Hello Mary and Nathan, Excellent OER Presentation. To address your first prompt, I think MR can enhance the learning experience. The mixed reality allows students to collaborate with each other in a different learning environment. Mixed reality allows for experiential learning opportunities where they can dive deeper into a subject area and gain critical thinking skills. Mixed reality allows students to interact within the learning environment, increasing their understanding and retention. Does that mean VR and AR do not create fantastic learning opportunities? Most definitely, they do. I think MR allows for more interaction and collaboration when real and virtual worlds are merged to produce a new learning environment.
Hi Anna,
I am always in favour of mixing things! If someone asks me what the better of two things is, I usually say a combination of both. This is especially relevant in the classroom since we have so many different needs, preferences, etc. in one space. As such I like that you pointed out that both VR and AR offer a lot, but MR might be the leader in terms of increased interaction and collaboration since the real and virtual worlds are merged together. I encourage you to think about this idea as you get to the Applications section of our OER. Let us know if you feel the same way about the three sectors, K12, Higher Ed, and Workplace.
Thank you for your participation so far!
After day one, a number of you tackled the prompt: What form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) do you think lends itself best to the classroom? Do you have a preference? If so, why?
It looks like we have a nice mix of AR and MR promoters. Those of you that mentioned AR touched on the crucial element of device accessibility. One huge advantage for AR is that you only really need a smartphone. Depending on the age group you teach, it is likely that everyone already has the required device. MR proponents mentioned the higher levels of interactivity and collaboration that may be achieved since it mixes the real and virtual worlds. VR seems to have been left in the dust a little, which could be due to pricing/availability and the fact that is does not interact with the real world in the way that AR and MR do. Feel free to tackle the bonus prompt now or save it for later. The prompt on the hands-on learning section is quite similar, so it is kind of meant as a precursor to that larger conversation.
Keep up the great work, everyone!
I also noted that the majority of you (so far) rated yourselves a 4/5 in terms of comfort with the distinction between the different forms of XR. I am pleased to see that we will all be moving into the next section of the OER with a strong knowledge base. Speaking of which, the next page focuses on hands-on learning/experiential learning. This section is a little more theoretical. This page sets us up nicely for the bonus discussion prompt, so think about the theoretical benefits of hands-on learning and consider if these apply in the virtual/augmented world.
Immersive technologies afford us with the ability to experience sound, sight and the ability to see and experience 3D objects within realistic simulated environments. Therefore students can experience some of the sensorimotor developmental steps by use of these senses and their interactions within these immersive worlds. They are however limited as the sense of smell and touch cannot yet be replicated as far as I know and therefore they cannot fully experience the world exactly the same as they world in real life or interact with it and learn from it exactly the same. I think VR would probably be the closest way to experience learning according to Piaget’s theory due to its rich sensory content and the ability to practice practical things such as medical tasks or science experiments with complex matter such as atoms in a realistic way.
Prompt #2
Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR?
I think that immersive experiences, especially AR and MR, can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction that Piaget was referring to; however, I do not believe it can fully replace the real experience. For various types of training and learning, using VR or MR can provide valuable practice within a safe environment so that learners can reach a certain level of competence and expertise before trying their hand at the real thing. For example, a person learning to fly a plane could use VR or MR to practice the vast majority of required skills to be a pilot before actually stepping into the plane. This learning pilot should then have the confidence to perform a majority of what is required of a pilot in a real life scenario and would just need to focus on a much smaller set of skills and deal with certain stressors and consequences that only the real world can provide. Similarly to gambling when you are playing with fake money versus real money, your decision making process is different when there are real life consequences. This is less true of AR as I don’t believe that AR would lend much to sensorimotor interaction and learning.
I’d agree with your evaluation on this one, Seth. It’s probably a good thing too, to be able to practice these physical experiences in a safe area- to take your flying example, a VR experience could actually go beyond any real training, in that it could take emergency situations to a level that would not be possible in a real plane. I would hope that pilots don’t often get to truly experience what a plane completely failing would be like, but this way they could take a scenario to the extreme and see how a trainee might cope. So yes, I’d say that this is within the scope of Piaget’s concepts.
I love these analogies, Seth! There is something about the real-life situation that makes you act differently. The fact that you know there are no real risks, say in your gambling scenario, certainly alters the way you approach it. In some sense, a laid back attitude that is generally associated with virtual scenario might actually be better in the real scenario i.e. you might get nervous and ‘choke’. What is it exactly that makes us act differently in a real scenario? Is it the fact that the consequences are real? I wonder if VR could advance to the point where you could not tell the difference between the real and virtual worlds. I suppose, however, you might know which is which based on the fact that you know you put on the VR headset and thus are in a virtual world.
#1: I would go with MR for classroom learning, as it seems like a more sophisticated version of VR and AR, thus opening up more possible use cases. For instance, if you were teaching about animals, you could bring in a life size elephant, dinosaur, etc. and then even have the dinosaur eat a student to show that it’s a carnivore. For distance learning, I would go with VR, since it allows a class to meet up virtually in one space, so it makes more sense intuitively.
2: Yes absolutely, if research has shown that games like Mario Kart can make people better drivers, I’m sure this has similar implications on immersive experiences. However, in terms of experiential learning and learning through the construction of tangible objects, I’m not certain if the XR technology has reached a level that Piaget would approve of.
I had to see if this was true, and sure enough, I found this article! https://www.businessinsider.com/mario-kart-makes-you-a-better-driver-study-2016-7 There are a few out there. Apparently, we are practicing visuomotor-control skills which are crucial for driving.
Thanks for sharing this!
While Mario Kart probably isn’t the first racing game I would go to for learning how to drive, software such as Gran Turismo (which is marketed as a “real driving simulator”) would function better for that purpose. Here’s an interesting article which goes into detail about this phenomenon: https://www.topgearbox.com/cars/your-car/skills-learnt-in-racing-games-can-make-you-a-better-real-world-driver/
Quite right Aaron, when it comes to constructionist ideas I think XR falls short of what Piaget would expect. The idea of almost being able to put your hands on something changes that tactile relationship of learning ever so slightly, but enough that I think it needs to be classified in its own right.
Can we put our finger on exactly what that thing that is missing is (excuse the pun)?
Is it the tactile feedback alone? If so, would the development of enhanced haptic feedback completely solve this? There is a lot of work being done in this area; they call it 3D touch.
If we could create virtual touch to the point that it was indistinguishable from real touch, would we be missing anything? What about our knowledge of the real versus the simulated? I believe we touched on this topic in another post. We talked about how in the knowledge that you are in a simulated world changes the way you act. Does it then change the way you would learn too? These are some Matrix-level questions!
Great prompt Nathan.
Haptic is certainly a way to get around the lack of tactile feedback, but I think we also need to consider contextual learning as well. A lot of our learning is nuanced by context or environment in which we find ourselves both in the the learning process but also in the use of that prior knowledge. We can take this pretty far, but can we take it to the, and perhaps I’m leaning more to the Vygotskian approach to learning here, the intersection of context, culture and learning without disrupting one or more of those in the process?
Prompt 3 – K12: I would say the benefits and challenges are also dependent on the subject, as well as the judgement and technical savvy of the instructors. But more importantly, I can’t see a widespread adoption of XR in the K12 system, particularly public, unless there is a real incentive to change (e.g. COVID). I also think XR has more potential benefit in rural/impoverished locations around the world, and can contribute to levelling the educational playing field.
Hi Aaron,
My friend’s son (who is 5) just started kindergarten recently and was assigned homework that they have to complete using an iPad. My friend was complaining about her child being distracted whenever she leaves the room because the student would default to watching YouTube or play games instead of focusing on their homework. In fact, she asked the teacher for a paper version of the assignment instead. Have you heard of similar events happening in your own professional context? how did you or your colleagues deal with these types of comments from parents?
In response to the prompt: “What form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) do you think lends itself best to the classroom? Do you have a preference? If so, why?” I think all three can effectively lend themselves to the classroom. I think it depends on the subject area and within the subject area, specific learning activities. What we do in math, may be very different than what we do during a Science unit about the Black Holes, for instance. And then of course, there is the age group to which you apply VR, AR or MR. I think we need to be sensitive to the perceptions of primary school aged children (or children less than 12 years old) where their actual physical perception is still developing. One important thing I wonder about is how XR will be created and implemented for students with specific special needs, in ways that are 100% safe for them.
Hi Cindy,
I really enjoyed reading your post! I also had concerns about young students using VR at a young age. So I quickly searched up an article: https://opto.ca/health-library/are-virtual-reality-headsets-dangerous-for-our-eyes#:~:text=Most%20VR%20headset%20manufacturers%20have,%2C%20tracking%2C%20and%20depth%20perception. and I can see that there are labels that warn about “Cybersickness”. However, I can also see that there’s VR headsets that “enable vision development and improvement” and hand-eye coordination. You are right though, better to read the warnings that come with VR headsets. Thank you for pointing this out!
Thanks, Mary!
Prompt #4: Would you make an investment into XR for your school were in you in a position to do so? Why or why not? Would you invest in VR, AR, MR, all three, or a combination of them? If not now, would you invest 3, 5, 10 years?
I think I would approach an investing in XR like I would invest in a large-scale learning management system. As quickly as they are made, they are bought out or become obsolete. So, to invest in the newest shiny thing may be costly. Because we are still in the internet age/third wave of technology (Michiko Kaku), the fourth wave has yet to come where XR (and AI) will be much more prevalent. So, these first stage/first generation XR experiences that you invest in during the first three years may be obsolete in 5-10 years or even one year later!
Hi Cindy- these were my thoughts exactly on this prompt. At the moment there is no way to future-proof these technologies, as they are still changing drastically as the technology grows. It doesn’t seem like you could buy into a certain type of headset and assume that it would still be usable with what the future holds- in fact, a lot of XR technology at the moment is still in the “looks neat, but unpolished” stage, so it’s really hard to make a guess at the next big thing. I can see that there is an obvious future in this, but at the moment, unless the buy-in cost was incredibly low, I would likely not be investing at this time.
Hi Hayley! Exactly!
Hayley and Cindy
And very interesting that you are not alone in this thought. This cohort alone is 67% undetermined about this new technology, or would choose something else to invest in first. We know it’s efficacy, so I wonder what is the hesitation? And why hesitate?I feel as though we are in a similar situation as public schools were in with the computers. While the computer evolved rapidly, there were similar first generation issues: cost, development, time, resources. Now many public institutions are clambering to get technology, computers specifically, into the hands of teachers and students to work on over-arching curriculum criteria to prepare students for the 21st century.
Hi Kyle,
Well, I think that with some technologies and depending on the budget, some schools go ahead and purchase the latest or most decent/cost effective generation of devices. If they wait for the next best thing e.g. computers/laptop, they will be waiting forever. There is always the change that a technology becomes obsolete so trying to make the best decision as to which generation of devices will suffice, is something we have to live with. There are some things that we cannot control like how leading tech/media companies design and lead the industry. The latest issue that I was frustrated with in regard to the new Mac Air is the USB-C port. It looks like the USB may become obsolete in our new future and every time I buy a new device (which is, on average, every 6 years), my existing peripherals are totally out of date, not to mention the OS and apps.
At my elementary school, I saw three generations of computers go through my computer lab and my school had the best lab and computer teacher in the Vancouver district.
I wonder if we are, indeed, preparing students for the 21st century. I think it’s more like we are just having them within the confines of the 21st century. In other words, there’s not much to prepare. I think we can take the time and energy to prepare students for what hasn’t been “invented”or put out there yet. I think 15 years ago, some of us were preparing kids for jobs that didn’t exist yet and it’s only now that primary school aged children are learning to code because coding has become a language in itself.
Just some of my thoughts.
In response to Prompt #5. My experiences in XR have been amazing. The simplest form is the immersive art exhibitions. The most immersive experience I have had is no other than….Disney World where you can participate in AR and MR rides. It was actually quite shocking in regard to what they created. For two minutes, I was in a middle of a car wreck in Times Square in NYC with Jimmy Fallon! King Kong also jumped over me as I watched a battle in the jungle. The Simpson MR was amazing, too. I was actually lost in my actual physical space and couldn’t differentiate my immediate space with the 3D perception that was being created. Was it fun? It was totally fun but I felt bad for the teenage girl who cried during the ride because King Kong was too violent for her. I think she was just too overwhelmed with the stimulus which is an element you mentioned e.g. information overload.
Thank you for sharing your experience in XR with us, Cindy. I wish I could’ve joined you on your epic Disney adventure!! Sounds like a lot of fun! Going back to an education context, what can educators do to eliminate sensory overload for the younger k-12 audience? What types of XR technology works for learners (as you can observe) in your own professional context?
I think review of existing research and further research needs to be done regarding the impacts of XR on children. From an ethics point of view, this is difficult, if a sample/participants consisted of human beings because how do you test the potential harm of certain XR experiences in a safe way?
I also want to add that an “education context” can be almost anything, when intentionally applying the purpose of learning competencies and critical thinking. For example, I can take a context at Disney World, and create a learning activity that has a purpose, inquiry, competency outcome and voila, it becomes “education”.
Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR? The problem with AI and robotics is the two are missing one of Piaget’s basic assumptions. While these immersive technologies often can use their own experience to develop knowledge, and they can learn on their own, without being taught, both of which Piaget believes to be fundamental components of sensorimotor interaction, the one interaction that is missing is that unlike children AI does not have an internal motivation to learn.
PROMPT #2 – Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR? I think you would be hard pressed to make the argument that they CANNOT provide this type of interaction, but equally hard pressed to make the argument that VR, AR, or MR can be the ONLY way to provide this interaction. As a few others have alluded already, the technology, and moreso the purpose of these technologies, is not to ‘replace’ our physical experience but to lower the barrier for new experiences which may otherwise be out of reach due to cost, risk, or simple infeasibility. Of the example for simulator training: these technologies are great to learn basics, experience ‘failings’, and practice your skill with no risk. Similarly, a K-12 classroom can visit the Coliseum in Rome, Eiffel Tower in Paris, etc. without having to spend a fortune. The future will (hopefully!) continue to leverage these technologies to optimize or improve the learning experience.
Prompt # 1 What form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) do you think lends itself best to the classroom?
The explosion of Pokemon Go in 2016 exposed a lot of people the world of AR. The competitive nature of the game; placing game characters into your environment; and using your own mobile device, made the jump into AR easy for many people to experience. I think this is the most readily applicable experience in the classroom. Special equipment need not be purchased for you to include it into your teaching practice.
Great observation, Marie. I remember my students being so immersed with Pokemon Go when it first came out. Even the students who preferred to stay at home would go outside to catch pokemon. Gamification is one pedagogy that can definitely play a big part in the AR learning environment. Thank you for sharing your experience!
Prompt # 2 Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR?
I am just not as familiar with the technology to actually say yes. When I have worn a VR device, I agree that the visual aspect of the technology immersing you into the setting really affects the way your body and mind react, but it is the tactile process of the touch and feel of the objects that are missing, so perhaps it would limit the sensorimotor aspects Piaget talks about.
Great point about touch and feel; Piaget was talking about multiple senses, not just visual and auditory, so this is important. I do know that the next wave of updates to thees VR systems is focused heavily on haptics. This is sometimes referred to as kinesthetic communication or 3D touch. I don’t know a ton about this, but I know it has been used on phones for a while know. The simplest example I can think of is when you use the scrolling function on the side of the screen, you almost feel little bumps as you move your finger downward. These are basically just responsive vibrations that are meant to give the illusions of feeling something. I am not a gamer, but I think control systems have advanced a fair bit in this way. All this is to say there is work being done to address this sense as well!
Prompt 3
For K-12 I think the biggest challenge in implementing XR into the classroom is convincing the “buyers” for schools of the value that XR affords to learning and why it can give more than traditional learning methods currently used in the classsroom.
The benefits include realistic simulated learning contexts, the ability to explain complex concepts easier, gamification opportunities, motivated and engaged students and 21st century learning skills.
Whatever your professional context, what are the benefits and/or challenges you can foresee when integrating XR? Please identify your context (K12, Higher Ed, or Workplace) in your post to help your peers understand your experience.
I am a high school teacher. I teach online math and in-person business education courses. In my school we have 13 different programs, I can easily think of examples for many of the programs where XR would be greatly beneficial. For example, in the Electrical Trades program, XR would afford a measure of safety – students could simulate wiring a garage without being exposed to any real electrical dangers. They could tour worksites and view the wiring of commercial buildings without leaving the classroom. They could mix the hands-on tools experience with virtual projects! I, however, struggle a bit more to think of ways in which XR can help me in my online grade 11 and 12 math courses. Aside from any technical difficulties, learning curves, and cost challenges, I feel with courses that are content-heavy, primarily numeric, and text-based, there are fewer applications than those courses that are more hands-on and experiential. Maybe some of you have a few math XR applications you could share.
Prompt #3
For higher education, and most likely K-12 and workplace contexts, the biggest challenge will be affordability and establishing how much benefit from these technologies would be required to justify the upfront and ongoing costs. With how few, if any, studies have been done for higher education using VR or MR it would be difficult, but not impossible, to convince the “buyers” to be an early adopter of the technology with little to no data to aid in their decision making. The main benefit I can see from my professional context of teaching higher education remote learners learning an Indigenous language, is the potential to provide the remote learners a way to be virtually placed in the same environment so they can learn from each other and have a remote “hands on” experience they might not otherwise have the opportunity to do. For the short term, a VR environment where the language learners can interact with each other in the Secwepémc language rather than through zoom meetings could be very beneficial and relatively cost effective.
Prompt #4: If I were in the position to do so I would invest in all immersive technologies. I believe the potential value of XR outweighs the risks. While there would be a significant initial investment in the required equipment and licensing, there could also be some district-wide cost savings. Such as using simulations for trade-based programs versus purchasing consumable materials. In addition, in an Electrical Trades program, for example, XR would afford a measure of safety – students could simulate wiring a garage without being exposed to any electrical dangers. They could tour worksites and view the wiring of commercial buildings without leaving the classroom. They could mix the hands-on tools experience with virtual projects! Of course, teacher training and proper use would need to be addressed. As would ethical, and responsible application considerations. Overall immersive technologies can provide more engaging and equitable learning environments and can help students with learning disabilities, for these reasons alone I would invest now, rather than in years to come.
#4: In my K12 context, I would definitely make an investment into XR for the sake of professional development. I think the prevalence of this technology is inevitable, and teachers need to be proficient users before they can wisely incorporate XR into their curriculum. I would have teachers try various educational games/apps (across VR, AR and MR) as students; we could even go for a team-building XR game. At the end of the day, XR can be viewed as a teaching tool, and like any tool, its effectiveness depends on how it’s used; it’s not for everyone. That said, to address the immediate challenge of the ongoing pandemic, I would perform a trial run with a couple classes to see if they find online teaching (e.g. classroom management) is more effective over VR or traditional platforms like Zoom and Teams.
I am going to try to do a little summary prompt by prompt each day, even though many of you have kindly responded to multiple prompts (thank you!).
Prompt # 2: Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR?
I can see that most of you have a strong understanding of Piaget’s ideas, as you should! Most of you have rated the importance of hands-on learning as either 4/5 or 5/5, so that is great to see; we are in agreement. I have seen a lot of comments about XR being a valuable addition to hands-on learning, but certainly not being something that can (or should) be used to replace the real thing when it is available. Quoting Ally, “the purpose of these technologies, is not to ‘replace’ our physical experience but to lower the barrier for new experiences which may otherwise be out of reach due to cost, risk, or simple infeasibility.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. XR is a great supplemental tool but we should stick with real-world experiences when we can i.e. don’t do a VR trip to a simple park when there is one across the road. A VR trip to a famous landmark on the other side of the world that you wouldn’t normally be able to go to; that’s a great idea. Like many ed tech developments, XR is just one tool of many at the disposal of the educator.
Discussion Prompt 2: Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR?. I think VR/AR/MR can provide the users with “some” sensorimotor interaction but it’ll still be lacking when compared to the real deal/actual activity. I’ve tried piloting a plane through flight simulator programs (with the full controls and all). While the visual aspect felt real, the sense of inertia, weight and other sensory elements were missing. Even if I was a good pilot in VR, I definitely wouldn’t be confident enough to fly an actual plane in real life. The same goes for driving since it takes lots of on the road experience in order to improve, which is something VR can’t fully replicate. Immersive experiences are good for giving the users a “preview” of what a certain activity is like and serves as a safety net for developing certain skills. Perhaps the newer generation of VR headsets will be better in terms of sensorimotor immersion (with eye tracking, 3D audio, higher resolution and visual fidelity etc) as the current tech is still held back by low resolution, frame rate issues and other technical tidbits which makes the user aware that they’re not actually doing a real activity.
Discussion Prompt 4: Would you make an investment into XR for your school were in you in a position to do so? Why or why not? Would you invest in VR, AR, MR, all three, or a combination of them? If not now, would you invest 3, 5, 10 years? I think AR is the easiest one to convince schools/institutions to allocate budget towards since the only investment required is essentially buying the licence to AR programs/apps and a small backup supply of smartphones/tablets. VR/MR will probably be more difficult since the budget will need to include headset costs, an actual studio/spacious room to engage with VR and various accessories. If I had decisional making powers then it’s probably wise to invest in all three, though depending on the faculty, some might get more allocation for VR (eg: medical or engineering) so it’s pretty much a situational basis based on the curriculum and needs of each educator. That being said, it would be foolish NOT to invest in this area since the future of teaching will heavily rely on emerging forms of tech such as VR/AR/MR
Discussion Prompt 3: Whatever your professional context, what are the benefits and/or challenges you can foresee when integrating XR? Please identify your context (K12, Higher Ed, or Workplace) in your post to help your peers understand your experience. My context: workplace learning – more specifically, overseeing the training department for 2000+ staff sprinkled across North America (mostly Bike & Swim Instructors). In the spectrum of XR, I would most realistically use WebAR or WebVR in my workplace. The benefits I see in the full XR spectrum are: it would go hand in hand with the experiential learning we aim to create for our participants, the main demographic of our staff are youth and I could see them quite engaged in this style of learning (AR, MR, and VR), we could create a better understanding for our new staff on what to expect before starting their roles, and there is potential in creating low (no?) consequence safety training for our staff (learning road riding safety protocols, emergency procedures in our pools and more). Challenges I foresee are the following: access (I do not know how our staff access their paid online training currently since they do it asynchronously outside work hours – laptops? computer labs? their phone? Would they actually be able to access what we create them? Anything involving a headset would be out of the equation due to cost and logistics), cost (I recently got a quote externally for the creation of WebAR and WebVR experiences and it’s a lot of money, at this stage, I’d rather budget for another salary on the team to work on other projects), and staying current (if I paid for this external company, how often do they need to do updates to stay current from a technological standpoint, and how long before this tech seems outdated since it is evolving so quickly?).
PS. Amazing work Nathan and Mary on your OER!
Thank you for your post (and your kind words)!
You have hit on a very important point (among others) regarding the speed at which XR is evolving. You are certainly right to be concerned about the cost of maintaining this tech and ensuring that things remain up to date. I believe Professor Vogt mentioned in one of the earlier content pages that the sweet spot for ventures is in the middle of the development curve. Even though XR has been around for a while, it could be that we are still in the early stages of the curve and thus mass adoption is still tricky. We have to worry about the physical devices we purchase, the software we use, and the content we build all becoming outdated rather quickly.
Jump in early or wait and see? That is a big question!
Wait and see for my department’s budget! For now…
Discussion Prompt 4: Would you make an investment into XR for your school were in you in a position to do so? Why or why not? Would you invest in VR, AR, MR, all three, or a combination of them? If not now, would you invest 3, 5, 10 years?
I would make an investment but perhaps not a huge investment. The reason being is that new headsets seem to be upgraded and introduced quite often. For that reason I would perhaps order a small amount of headsets to be shared amongst the school to start with and teachers could sign them out or be allocated time tables for their use. Every year I would re-assess and do my due diligence on research to see if it is worth ordering more of the same headsets or going for newer models and comapring group costs to make my decision. I would likely invest in AR and VR right now because of the amount of games and sites using AR and VR that would give a good starting library from which to base lesson plans on.
Prompt # 1: What form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) do you think lends itself best to the classroom? Do you have a preference? If so, why?
I think currently that AR lends itself best to a learning environment. While I think that VR and MR have incredible opportunity for learning in the future but they feel less realistic as immersive experiences that could make an impact today. I think that AR would be incorporated through different learning apps and have also seen it done this past year as a way to change up virtual meetings and events on different platforms such as Airmeet and hopin.
Prompt # 2: Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR?
I do think that immersive experiences can provide sensorimotor interaction and that is what makes the technology so exciting! I think that VR or MR allow for a learner to experience a very similar simulation to a real life experience and that those sensorimotor skills can be activated or learned in a similar way. I think this technology opens so many doors for more accessible learning whether it be for people from more remote communities, in other countries or learners who may have physical barriers to being in a in-person learning environment.
I really enjoyed reading through your OER! I kind of combined the prompts together as my thought pattern connected the topics. As someone who frequently uses VR and AR technology, I really appreciated the connections that you made to the difficulty of functionally using VR technology in the classroom. My experiences have led me to believe that VR is the most impactful technology to use as AR technology that I tried was less developed. My main method of differentiating between them are to compare the effectiveness of the technology vs the same activity without XR. This means that for AR, the difference between doing activities using AR and laptops is smaller than with VR and laptops. That being said, my favorite activity to run with VR is either Beatsaber for PHE or Mission ISS for science. While I have done both activities in the past, it was with my own VR set with the games that I have purchased myself. The challenge there was to find the time and the place to run the activity and still give enough time to the student to really engage in the play. Often, I would play for around 30-45 minutes per session, but my students would only have around 10 minutes, which is not nearly enough to immerse themselves and explore their new virtual environment. The school district that I am with has one set of Oculus Go, which unfortunately has not been used whatsoever. Therefore, I would be very hesitant about investing in the technology, mostly from the high entry price point and the few people that would be able to run it. Once the technology advances more and becomes cheaper, I might consider doing it provided that the educational experiences are pre-loaded on the device. VR is definitely an area that I am looking into as it gives you experiences that you would otherwise not be able to get, and it provides a different feel for unique locations such as outer space. One of the top comments that I got was that they did not expect the ISS to feel so small and cramped, which is something that they could only have experienced by going onto the ISS or through VR. This makes this venture important as the technology improves to unlock more and better ways to utilize the tool.
First prompt:
I can honestly see AR and MR technology lending itself best to the classroom, especially when it comes to learning the world around oneself. I do think that developing and existing technology could work together with nature to show how sustainability and natural processes take place. In the future, students may even have the opportunity to augment skits and presentations with a virtual component. The future is still uncertain, but it has a lot of promise.
Second prompt:
I think immersive technology CAN eventually provide the same sensorimotor interactions Piaget refers to, but currently it may not. The main lacking feature I think of right now when it comes to this technology is down to the fingers. It’s obviously quite hard to program specific finger movements into VR, and interactions with fingers in MR and AR are limited at best. There are a lot of other bodily motor functions that have already been successfully shown via dance revolution games and more, but progress with finger motor movements is something I am looking forward to.
Summary of prompt # 3 – Whatever your professional context, what are the benefits and/or challenges you can foresee when integrating XR?
The poll tells us that we are mostly in the k-12 sector (although this is only based on 7 responses). A few of you mentioned cost as a challenge, and that makes a lot of sense, especially in k-12 where teachers don’t usually have a ton of say when it comes to how the budget is utilized. Even if teachers did have the ability to make this choice, it sounds like there are still other priorities that the budget would need to address. As such, it seems like XR is more of a ‘nice to have’ than a ‘must have’.
Kyle made an excellent point in his post when he compared the adoption of XR to laptops. In the early stages, it was rare to see someone with a laptop in a classroom (this certainly never happened when I was in k-12 school). Over time, however, the devices became cheaper, and now many schools have full laptop programs (a lot of them see to go with Chromebooks). Since we are still in the early stages of the development curve, I think the time will come where XR devices are commonplace and very affordable. How long precisely until this happens? It is hard to tell. I want to say within 3-5 years, but I could be very wrong. All this hype about the Metaverse could actually spur this forward.
Prompt #5: Did you try any of the immersive experiences above? Let us know in the discussion area on ETEC522 and tell us how it went? Was it fun? Could you see yourself using these basic versions in your learning context? I tried the Car Calculations, Space Quiz, and Anti-Gravity Room. The car calculation was my favourite. It was fun and engaging; my competitiveness came out, as I kept playing new games until I won! While I wouldn’t have a use for these exact immersive experiences in my classes I can see younger grades using them.
I also played those games, and while I enjoyed them on the first play-through, I didn’t play them anymore than that. I immediately started to think about the intersection of technology and education, and conversations we’ve had about what happens when a game is designed specifically for education. It usually falls flat, or students aren’t as interested, it isn’t as authentic so students lose interest or it doesn’t have the intended learning. I do however, think that XR goes much further than DGBL as we can actually create the content students are exploring, but I am wary that without strong collaboration between education and technology experts that they may fall into the same trap as DGBL.
Going to tackle the lovely BONUS discussion prompt! ——— Are immersive experiences a legitimate substitute for actual hands-on learning in the physical, real world sense? ———- I think yes, they are a legitimate learning substitute, even if we are not ‘all the way convinced’ yet. There’s two key points I think are worth making: 1. these technologies have been desired since the dawn of teaching, and 2. now that they’re here, they are not going anywhere. If I think back to a time BEFORE these immersive experiences were available, how often has a teacher/mentor lamented “if I could just SHOW you how it works/looks this would be so much easier” – and now we CAN, and sure it’s not “exactly” right, but it’s leagues better than a static image or the old method of “try and picture it.” I don’t think that the question “are immersive experiences legitimate for learning” is where we are at, but moreso: “how are immersive experiences going to augment how we teach/learn?” Since we know they will be around, and they are becoming more commonplace, I think instructors will need to start conceptualizing how to use them in their practice.
Prompt 3:
I can see a lot of potential to implementing XR. I primarily teach secondary school English and would love to use immersive technology to teach setting. I have dream lesson plans of having students build worlds in Unreal Engine and then having them experience each other’s worlds, writing down the senses and visual stimuli they could perceive. I feel like it could also be a great launchpad for character expression and creation.
One of the greatest challenges I see from this is public school uptake. I have talked to some computer studies teachers that assert any technology that IT and cleaning staff are not familiar with will not be cleaned or troubleshooted. This is especially true of items that are out of one’s wallet and not from official school funding. Even if I were to save up enough to implement this technology, there is a certain disdain or apprehension from certain technology staff to support these movements. In the off chance that I could pitch for this in public schools, I feel it would be a contentious battle of funding, which I don’t know if I have the gall to venture forth with.
Jackson
I think you touch on a sticking point here, that there is apprehension or reluctance to bring these types of technologies into the public education sphere. Whether it is a funding issue or a pedagogical one, it is certainly an uphill battle. The educator personal fund needs to be kept to the side for now because system-wide access needs to be the focus of a public education system in order to provide equitable opportunities for learning opportunities. Also because it isn’t a sustainable model that educators like you are forced to make these types of purchases in order to provide students with opportunities that you feel better equip them for the professional world they will one day enter. How do we create a culture or movement that emboldens educators like yourself who want to bring these types of tools into the system? Is it as simple as creating collaboration between industries (education and technology) or building capacity in professional development or does the decentralized system such as the one you outline the way forward until enough people buy in?
Prompt 4:
I feel being in a position that includes funding would have many immediate monetary needs to account for – things that I don’t know yet. I don’t think I would immediately invest in XR because of how COVID-19 has affected and disrupted the education sector. I also think a great time to get in the XR pool would be when MR has developed to meet more educational needs. I’m interested to see how the interaction between the reality and virtual world would play out; putting money into a particular immersive technology without knowing the full potential of other ones doesn’t seem fair to me.
Prompt 5:
I had the opportunity to try VR in my Digital Literacy class at UBC for the BEd. There were multiple games and programs installed: one about stacking blocks of different shapes by manipulating its size and properties, a virtual brain where one could click and see what each part does and more. I could see myself using these in my English learning context, but not until I have all the pieces ready, which include funding, the programs and a classroom that could facilitate the process.
Summary of prompt # 4 – Would you make an investment into XR for your school were in you in a position to do so? Why or why not? Would you invest in VR, AR, MR, all three, or a combination of them? If not now, would you invest 3, 5, 10 years?
Many of you seem to be conservative with your budget, which is a good way to be! The consensus seems to be that things are still too new in XR, so it is risky to invest in equipment, for example, that could be obsolete very quickly. Some also mentioned it is very hard to say what the budget would be needed for, especially with the disruptions of COVID, so making an investment would be a tough decision. Some also mentioned that it is also too soon to tell what the educational impact will actually be on this technology. Will it actually improve learning outcomes, or will it end up being seen simply as a distraction and rarely adopted by teachers?
On the hand, a number of you felt that the prevalence of this technology in schools is inevitable, and it would be foolish not to invest. Some suggested started with PD so that teachers and other staff members could start to learn how to use the technology, therefore preparing them for the days to come where they will need to develop content for it and use it in their classrooms.
The big question really is how far out we are from mass adoption and if this will actually take place. I suppose we don’t fully know this. This is why it is a venture!
I forgot to mention that 67% of you said you would not invest at this point. 17% would invest and another 17% were unsure. This is only based on 6 responses, however, so keep that in mind.
It is interesting to reflect on this, as a group of, very likely, biased educators when it comes to the inclusion of technology and yet 67% said they would not invest immediately in this technology. An interesting qualitative question to ask at this point is, why? What is it about the technology that despite all the benefits listed within this forum and across the literature is there so much hesitancy to invest in this? For me there are a few reasons why I wouldn’t. Firstly there are large equity issues within the system that I would put my focus and funds in order to avoid perpetuating them with the purchase of new technology such as XR. My second focus would be building capacity among staff in order to make use of the technology once it was brought in. I am curious what this cohort thinks?
Prompt #5: Did you try any of the immersive experiences above? Let us know in the discussion area on ETEC522 and tell us how it went? Was it fun? Could you see yourself using these basic versions in your learning context?: I tried the car, the space and the anti-gravity experiences, and I’ll admit it, I kind of enjoyed hitting the button in the anti-gravity room and watching stuff fall- although obviously this lost it’s appeal quickly. I could see how it might be fun if more stuff actually happened when you turned gravity on and off. Out of the 3 that I tried, the anti-gravity experience was the only one that I’d say had actual potential to be “immersive”, the other two felt like math/ solar quizzes, that happened to be located in a 3D venue. The anti-gravity one was intended to actually experience something and learning from experiencing it. I don’t see using basic stuff like this in corporate learning- I think adults would see through the 3D gimmick quickly. That being said, learning by experience IS important, so once these experiences become less basic, they definitely have potential! (Dealing with a hazardous material spill physically instead of just listing the cleanup steps for example).
Prompt 1: What form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) do you think lends itself best to the classroom? Do you have a preference? If so, why?
I think that while all XR has tremendous potential to enhance educational experiences, AR lends itself best to the classroom simply because of the prevalence of personal mobile devices capable of enabling AR applications. There is a definite distinction between “static” XR akin to an immersive panoramic photo and “interactive” XR with controllers of some kind to feel the impact of your presence in the virtual space, and although a mobile phone is a poor substitute for an advanced headset capable of hand and/or controller tracking it is nevertheless far more affordable for schools and classroom teachers compared to the huge overhead of hundreds of dollars spent per device.
Personally, my preference is wholly for VR/MR applications that DO afford that latter form of interactivity. While rendering an extinct dinosaur in AR or playing pokemon go might feel “neat”, the first time I tried a quest 2 headset I had such a “WOW” factor from how real it seemed ti interact with the virtual environment that my wife had to ask me to calm down from the next room. The interactivity inherently makes the experience more authentic, so while I love affording students similar experiences, I don’t see them being accessible enough yet for the average classroom teacher to make use of (perhaps it could be “reserved” like the “computer lab” in the 90s school library at best) though perhaps with a decade of cost-reducing innovations that might be possible.
Bonus discussion prompt: Are immersive experiences a legitimate substitute for actual hands-on learning in the physical, real-world sense? I wouldn’t call immersive experiences substitutes, but rather these technologies afford learning experiences that may otherwise be unattainable, due to cost, risk, or other factors. Space exploration as an example would be impossible without the use of XR. As accessibility and immersive capabilities improve, new pedagogies and connections with real-world situations will expand the learning opportunities of teachers and students. XR offers incredible possibilities when it comes to exposing students to places, events or training that otherwise would be impossible to simulate. Overall, immersive technologies can provide more equitable learning environments, leading to improved student engagement. Immersive technologies have incredibly broad and transformative applications for the education world but, in my opinion, they do replace hands-on physical learning (when possible).
I love this point about not looking at XR as substitutes for experiential learning but rather as tools to complement it, particularly to help achieve experiences that just simply would not be possible otherwise. I suppose we should look at this as a tool that should be used from time to time when appropriate.
Discussion Prompt 3 – I work in the k-12 sector, and like many people posting before me, cost wold be a big factor in implementing XR. Time would also be a big factor as I would need training, as I am unfamiliar with utilizing most of these tools.
Discussion Prompt 4 – With funding at schools the way it is, I would have to see large gains in learning outcomes to justify the purchase. I think you could have many of the same experiences in the physical world through guest speakers, online field trips or in person field trips. Of course if money is no object then I would want to open up any and even opportunity for my students.
Discussion Prompt 5 – I tried all three games posted but I do not have access to the Google Cardboard materials. I do not see implementing any of the games in my classroom. I think for children new to using computers for learning they may be beneficial as they are so basic, but they did not feel immersive as XR is supposed to be.
Bonus Prompt – I think there is definitely a place for XR in the education world. I think hands on activities activate all your senses, so I do not think XR is a perfect substitute, but when you can’t experience things safely (volcano eruption), because of geographical location ( ice fracking of an iceberg in the arctic) or sheer plausibility of actually experiencing it in person (watching open heart surgery) then XR would be a valuable tool to allow for am immersive experience.
Prompt #1: What form of immersive experience (VR, AR, or MR) do you think lends itself best to the classroom? Do you have a preference? If so, why?
AR or MR seem to be more accessible for classrooms. Based on the courses that I teach, I would personally prefer VR. It would allow for a greater range of experiences for my students.
Prompt #2: Do you think immersive experiences can provide the same type of sensorimotor interaction Piaget was referring to? Is this more or less true for VR, AR, or MR?
I think that all XR can provide some sort of sensorimotor experience. Even though the sights and sounds would be there, I feel that what would be lacking is the tactile experience, actually touching and interacting with real objects, particularly in VR and MR.
Prompt #3: Whatever your professional context, what are the benefits and/or challenges you can foresee when integrating XR? Please identify your context (K12, Higher Ed, or Workplace) in your post to help your peers understand your experience.
I teach senior high in a small grade 7-12 school in rural northern Alberta. The biggest challenge I can see in integrating XR is affording the technology. The budget for technology is small and purchasing a class set of any tech is pretty much impossible. Other challenges would be receiving IT support for the tech and teacher training for integrating it. The benefits would be allowing my students to have experiences they would never be able to have in real life, in connection to all subjects.
Prompt #4: Would you make an investment into XR for your school were in you in a position to do so? Why or why not? Would you invest in VR, AR, MR, all three, or a combination of them? If not now, would you invest 3, 5, 10 years?
Given the opportunity and the money to do so, I would definitely invest in XR. I would most likely invest in VR, just because of the unique experiences it would afford my students. As a science teacher, I can provide basic lab experiences, but there are some that are either too expensive or too dangerous to perform at school. Also, there are some experiences that would be impossible in real life, like exploring inside the human body or traveling to space, but would be possible with VR.
Prompt #5: Did you try any of the immersive experiences above? Let us know in the discussion area on ETEC522 and tell us how it went? Was it fun? Could you see yourself using these basic versions in your learning context?
Of all of the immersive experiences, I enjoyed the Google Cardboard the most. I am most likely to use that one in my classroom. My students are in high school and could easily build their own viewers, given the supplies. They would quickly lose interest in the other experiences as they are too similar to activities they do everyday on their chromebooks, with using the mouse and keyboard.
Summary of prompt # 5 – Did you try any of the immersive experiences above? Let us know in the discussion area on ETEC522 and tell us how it went? Was it fun? Could you see yourself using these basic versions in your learning context?
The poll shows that one user was able to try out the Google Cardboard option. This forum seems to confirm that; thank you, Terri-Lynn for giving this a shot!
It seems that many of you enjoyed some of the games/experiences we shared, but these weren’t really true examples of XR, or at least as we have been trying to discuss it. Had I the resources, I would have shipped a headset to everyone in this class to borrow and we could have built this whole OER out in a virtual world. Of course, that did not really seem possible. I suppose this very fact is an indication of the problem that we will have with getting this into our classrooms right now: the technology is just not prevalent enough nor do our budgets allow for it. When you had to make a choice, as you all did on the Try It page, you went with the easiest option due to resources. Even the little lenses for the Google Cardboard viewer are not super easy to come by. To be honest, this is what I expected. My hope, however, is that over the coming years, it becomes a lot easier to get our hands on XR tech and we can really get into it.
Summary of the BONUS PROMPT – Are immersive experiences a legitimate substitute for actual hands-on learning in the physical, real world sense?
A lot of you made some great points on this prompt. I liked the idea that “substitute” is probably not the right word; I full agree. It seems that hands-on learning is every important, and this includes engaging all the sense. As it stands, XR cannot quite do this (I would say the sense of touch is probably the biggest one that we are missing). I do think the tech is improving in this area, so we may think about it differently in 4 or 5 years. Many of you felt that nothing can really replace that true experience of a real-life moment, but made the very valid point that sometimes we just cannot create those events. I.e. some mentioned space travel, volcano eruptions, watching surgery, etc. If you actually had the option to get your students into one of these situations (while remaining safe), you would likely choose the real deal. However, this this is so often not feasible, an immersive experience is a pretty close second. A great question is, how effective is that close second? If it engages students and helps them solidify their understanding, I’d call it a success. However, if it does not achieve the learning goals, it is likely not worth it. So as with almost every learning tool, the key really is in the outcomes. Does it achieve what you intended? Does it actually work? These are great guiding questions for assessing any learning tool.
Thank you, everyone, for your discussion on this topic. I learned a lot working through this with you!
Prompt 3 + 4:
I work in higher education and the challenges I forsee when integrating XR is cost and time. I think that there would be a time constraint challenge for both staff and faculty to learn these new technologies and then have the interest/incentive to incorporate them into both curricular and co-curricular activities in higher education. Additionally with so many different options, cost would also be a factor in determining which technologies would get priority and how to ensure that budget is being properly distributed. As a benefit I see a huge opportunity to get ahead of technological advance and start to pivot away from traditional in-person learning, provide more accessibilty, different mediums and options for students to learn.
If I was in a position to invest in XR, I would invest in all three. I think that over these past two years our world has rapidly changed as we have shifted to a more hybrid model of learning, and the more opportunities to engage people in different ways (then just the classic model of in-person education.) the more likely that higher education is not going to get left behind. I know that smaller professional schools and skills-based learning schools will be incorporating this type of learning and I think the the benefits definitly outweight the challenges.
Bonus prompt time! Are immersive experiences a legitimate substitute for actual hands-on learning in the physical, real world sense? I wouldn’t view them as a perfect substitute since there are still many barriers which prevents VR from being inclusive and accessible to your target demographic. Depending on how advanced VR becomes, there could be a chance it’ll replace hands on learning but with our current technology, the answer is no. I would view immersive experiences as a fantastic supplementary tool in helping students learn and should be used to re-create situations which are impossible to create or explain. Immersive experiences can make students learn better as it provides an alternative view to the context but in the end, they will still need to gain real life experience in order to function properly within a social and professional context. Human interaction and feedback is key to improvement and virtual spaces (at this time) still lacks the emotional and tangible touch hands on learning provides.
Well said, John! You have landed right where I did after creating this OER. The emotional and tangible elements are still what is missing, and may always be missing. Thanks for your thoughts!