Category: LRNT 528

AR and VR: New Horizons

  1. The learner reflects on their learning within the categories of “Here’s What” “So What” and “Then What” to complete their post.

    1. Here’s What – show understandings constructed about VR and/or AR Before taking this course I really knew nothing about augmented reality (AR).              I had heard of it, but was not clear  what it was or how it was useful in a learning setting. I came to realise that I did in fact know what AR was, but did not realise that this is what it was called. In fields beyond my expertise AR is helping to diagnose problems more quickly by providing real-time data on everything from mechanical engine repaire to ciruculatory problems. Google Maps, and various travel apps help make naviagating city streets, and in the case of the London Gatwick Airport app, it allows passengers to quickly and effieciently navigate what is likely a confusing space for people already under a great deal of stress. My week focussed more on AR than it did virtual reality (VR), but with virtual reality my previous experience using Google Streetview combined with the carboard app and a set of google cardboard glasses made me previously aware of the immersive and engaging potential of VR to make learning exciting for my students by taking them through museum and city tours.

    2. So What – provide an interpretation or new meaning to the new knowledge.     I think the potential for both of these technologies is going to grow exponetially over the next few years. As this the type of technology whihc supports these types of applications becomes more streamlined, lags less, and become increasingly realistic the immersiveness will transport us into a fourth dimention. Google Glass, and other wearable technology is already here, and in the not too distant future I think you will be able to walk down a street and have all kind of interactive inforkation bombarding you. TO me it is both a scary and exciting proposition.

    3. Now What – share a prediction, implication, or a question for VR/AR in the learner’s educational context.                                                                                    How invasive will this technology be, to what extent will privacy be an issue? These concerns notwithstanding, the ability to watch a real-lkfe event in the comfort of your living room and feel like you are actually there is an educational experience with limitness potential. And, and more real time events are recorded in full VR capacity the people of the future will be able to go back in time and experience events as if they were there. This may be the closest we ever come to time travel.

The Key to Facilitating in an Online Learning Environment

Please Click the image above to see the infographic in a higher resolution. (My attempts to embed HTML did not work 🙁 )

The most important tip for effective online facilitation is to create a sense of community. Online learning environments (OLEs) can be isolating. An effective online community can combat this issue and lead to enriching educational experiences. According to Boetcher (2013), community building should be equal parts social, teaching and cognitive/content presence. Creating small peer feedback groups, and having learners complete introductory identity activities can help to build this community, which can then serve as a support system once the course begins. In addition, the peer to peer and learner to facilitator relationships advocated by Boetcher help to build community, but also engagement.  This also helps to promote facilitator presence.

Continue reading The Key to Facilitating in an Online Learning Environment

LRNT 527 Unit 3 Activity 1 DLT Evaluating Framework

Evaluative Tool Overview 

Marshall Hartlen, Bobbi Donnison, Krista Frate, & Nicolette Young

Using the design thinking process (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016) and LORI (Leacock & Nesbitt, 2007) as guides, we decided to assess our assigned Digital learning tools (DLT) on criteria which we felt were fair representations of: design, flexibility of use, accessibility, user awareness, and problem assessment. The various descriptors are inter-related with some aspects being dependant on the successful representation of other aspects.

Excellent Proficient Satisfactory Limited
Design Digital tool design is engaging and facilitates understanding through intuitive design properties. Design choices effectively promote cognitive load distribution Digital tool design is effective and facilitates understanding through well chosen design properties. Design choices promote cognitive load distribution Digital tool design is adequate and facilitates understanding through simplistic design properties. Design choices may effectively promote cognitive load distribution Digital tool design is ineffective and does not promote understanding through inadequate design properties. Design choices do not promote cognitive load distribution
Usability and accessibility The DLT is intuitive and includes a variety of built in features that accommodate a wide range of users The DLT is fairly intuitive and includes some built in features that accommodate a wide range of users The DLT is effective and includes some built in features that accommodate  average users The DLT is counter-intuitive and built in features only accommodate the most basic range of users
User awareness (empathy) DLT is astutely designed with the needs of the end user in mind, and empathetic design features are clearly evident DLT is proficiently designed with the needs of the end user in mind, and empathetic design features are evident DLT is competently designed with the needs of the end user in mind, and empathetic design features are fairly evident DLT design is inadequate with the needs of the end user not clearly considered. Empathetic design features are not evident
Problem Assessment The DLT serves as a perceptive solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking. The DLT serves as an insightful solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking. The DLT serves as an adequate solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking. The DLT does not provide an adequate solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking.

Figure 1 Evaluative Rubric

Design

Design refers to more than just an aesthetically pleasing and functional tool, but should also work to make learning easier for the user by minimising cognitive load, while maintaining ease of use. Poor presentation design can lead to users being having their verbal, visual or both, channels overloaded (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). According to Leacock and Nesbitt (2007) incorporating text, conceptual diagrams, audio and other formats can lead to a more effective and functional design.

Usability and Accessibility

Usability and accessibility to the majority of users ultimately determines the viability of DLTs.  Most tools are designed by software experts and not people in the field of education (Nam & Smith-Jackson, 2017), this leaves the actual learning enabled via the tool suspect. It is difficult to design a tool that embraces constructivist learning (Martindale, Cates & Quan, 2005). Haderouitt (2010, emphasises the need to bridge technical and pedagogical usability that considers technical usability, as well as learning goals and theory. By considering both, the DLTs true educational impact is more easily measured.

User Awareness

Any successful digital tool should be designed around the needs of the user, not the whims of the design team. Empathetic design seeks to guide innovative efforts, discover and keep an awareness of human emotion, and discover needs that users have, but may not be aware of (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016). By keeping empathy at the core of any design, the design team is more likely to yield a purposeful product by improving usability since the user experience is paramount. In addition, adhering to principles of empathy, problem assessment should also be addressed.

Problem Assessment

Addressing user generated problems requires first understanding the user. Doing so in the empathy phase of design thinking, should lead to a problem assessment that provides focus for the problem, inspires creative design that recognizably addresses the user problem(s) (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016). Leacock and Nesbitt ( 2007) stress the importance of linking learning activities to the problem, and hold this to be a key feature of their framework. By focussing on the solving the problem, the DLT ultimately serves its purpose of facilitating user learning, and this determiner could be seen as the most important to the overall assessment.

 

References

Hadjerrouit, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school education. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 9, 53-79.

Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2).

Martinidale, T., Cates, W. M., & Qian, Y. (2005). Analysis of recognized Web-based educational resources. Computers in the Schools, 21(3), 101-117.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

Nam; C. S., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2007). Web-based learning environment: A theory-based design process for development and evaluation. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 23- 44.

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf