Investigating the reality of virtual reality

Team 1 – the Extendibles (consisting of Zac Macdonald, Katia Maxwell, Corie Houldsworth, and myself) have decided to investigate Jigspace (Jig) as our learning event. Jig claims to be an intuitive, user-friendly augmented reality platform that requires limited training or design experience to create and host virtual reality opportunities/presentations.  

I want to get this out of the way early: I have no experience with Augmented Reality (AR) or Virtual Reality (VR). I have never played video games that utilize these technologies, I never took up the Pokemon GO craze – so seriously, no experience. As such, the entire concept of AR/VR is overwhelming to me. I am intrigued by the fact that Jig claims to be user-friendly and requires little experience to design or build virtual experiences, but simultaneously curious if I am lacking in the foundational level of knowledge that is required to be successful in its use. I am curious about the level of technological literacy that was considered when the company claimed it was “quick and easy”.

Zac made some solid points on his blog about further investigating the privacy policy contained on Jig’s website – in theory, it looks like their stance on privacy are simple and “in the interests of the user”, but further investigation into the privacy framework that Jig relies on, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), leads me to questions about their true intent in regard to the custom asset or creative privacy. One weakness that has been identified about the GDPR is the lack of 1) the right to withdraw policies and 2) the right to be forgotten policies 9 (Politou, 2018).

Putting aside my concerns about the baseline level of knowledge that may be required to swiftly navigate Jig, and some of the privacy loopholes that may be existing under their current privacy and data collection framework, I have optimistic questions about the use of AR/VR in my own contexts. Questions like can AR/VR help to build a sense of presence in a remote learning environment? Chen et al. (2009) seem to have explored this issue, and their paper may be of value to me; and how can I effectively utilize AR in an aviation context, given the high-risk nature of the work compared to in-person learning. I ask my MALAT colleagues – have you experimented with AR/VR in your contexts? What were the benefits and what detractors have you identified?

Chen, Y. C., Wang, S. J., & Chiang, Y. L. (2009). Exploring the Effect of Presence in an AR-based Learning Environment. In 13th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education, Taipei.

Politou, E., Alepis, E., & Patsakis, C. (2018). Forgetting personal data and revoking consent under the GDPR: Challenges and proposed solutions. Journal of cybersecurity4(1), tyy001.

Final Reflections – On Leadership and Change

In reflecting on my initial post on leadership, like many of my MALAT peers, I find that my views have not changed. My thoughts on leadership may have solidified throughout the process of examining leaders, leadership styles, and implementing change in organizations.

Thinking back to my initial ranking of leadership qualities that I value (where I had ranked my top 3 as competent, cooperative, courageous), I see the list no longer as the finite ranking of qualities from most to least valuable and instead as a juggling act. I believe that all of the qualities are valuable and important to leading organizational change, but each has its place. For example, in a change that impacts jobs, a leader must be courageous AND caring. When implementing a software or technology change, a leader must be forward-looking yet ambitious. Learnings from this course have solidified to me that effective leaders must abandon any ‘storm-trooper leadership” (Insell, 2022) techniques and move toward adaptive situational leadership (Khan, 2017).

Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief ComparisonThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning18(3).

External Scan – Leading Change

My visual model for change represents what I found to be shared sentiments about successful change, based on my conversations with peers, an interview with a leader, the readings in unit two, as well as some established models of change. This post will review how my readings, conversations, and personal philosophies have shaped the visual depiction of a successful model for change. Continue reading “External Scan – Leading Change”

On Leadership…

The readings in Unit 1 of MALAT’s LRNT525 have affirmed my belief that digital leaders are those who cautiously strive to understand, embrace, and enact change to the digital landscapes in which they work. Technology is now ever-present in my context, however mindsets around technology are slow to catch up to the various digital opportunities presented to the business. Continue reading “On Leadership…”

Manifesto for Design Thinking

As part our final assignment, we have been tasked with creating a personal manifesto for design thinking. This manifesto is based on our experiences during the design thinking partners challenge, which you can view on Ben’s Blog. 

Below is a visual guide through the principles which make up my manifesto.

My Instructional Tools and Superpowers

This blog post was exciting and interesting because it caused me to think hard about the tools that I frequently use in my role as a learning advisor and freelance instructional designer.

I am constantly designing for a wide range of audiences, from C-suite leaders, to field or ground level employees. Below is a list of the physical tools that I use, and the arenas in which I use them. Continue reading “My Instructional Tools and Superpowers”

Examining Instructional Design Models… What have I been doing!

In unit 1, we are examining various models of learning design and instructional design as they relate to digital learning environments. It has been interesting to read and reflect on how more traditional Instructional Design Models (IDMs) like ADDIE, Blooms, and UDL have been used and/or adapted for use with online learning, and also how newer models like David Merrill’s “Pebble in the pond”, or Open Learning are emerging to meet the ever growing intricacies of online learning.

Working in corporate learning, my experience has been that many workplace learning solutions are designed haphazardly, without extensive consideration given to the model or method of design. With that in mind, many of the design processes that I have been witness to most closely resemble ADDIE or Blooms Taxonomy (perhaps, because they are two of the most well-known, and therefore assumed to be superior?). In reflection, I wonder how programs could have been improved, or learner experiences and performance objectives amplified if they were developed by following an intentionally appropriate IDM.

As I continue on the readings, I am further of the opinion that no one design model is “better” than another, and that a combination of factors must be considered when choosing the model that is most appropriate for the task or problem at hand. For example, a K-12 environment following a mandated curriculum should of course consider the individual learners needs or cultural dispositions, but primarily must focus on what is to be learned and therefore is less able to be agile or flexible in the design process. Conversely, a performance based learning objective is more flexible, and can be designed with the learner at the centre (like the pebble), and then built outwards, with the ability to be more flexible and less prescriptive.

In my practice, I have typically taken a ‘learner first’ approach to designing learning – Who are they, what do they need to know, why do they need to know it, and what are their barriers to learning. Again, this is because I have worked almost exclusively on performance improvement, and as such the Kemp Model most closely aligns to what I have followed to date. The more I read about IDMs, the more I realize how little I know.

Speculative Futures in Education and Technology – Assignment Three – LRNT 523

In LRNT 523 we examined histories and futures surrounding education, technology, and their moves towards convergence. Our final assignment was a social-science fiction look at the very near future, 2030. I chose to dovetail off of assignment two, where Karen McMurray and I examined personalized learning, and the opinions on both sides of the debate.

Happy Reading!

Continue reading “Speculative Futures in Education and Technology – Assignment Three – LRNT 523”

The future is near, but not all is bright.

In the year 2030, the k-12 learning landscape will be entirely focused on ‘options’. Options in educational delivery and options in learning methodology. In 2021, educational programs in Calgary, Alberta provide its learners and their families with options in relation to school focus, or learner area of interest. Examples of this include Junior high schools that are sports specific, fine arts specific, STEM focused, and more. Learners and their families are able to move outside of their designated school area if they demonstrate a higher level of interest in these specialties. My children, for example have attended an elementary/junior high school that markets itself as a Fine Arts school (with heavy emphasis on theatric arts and music). My reasoning for choosing this school is simply proximity, as it doubles as my neighborhood designated school.