at a session on the umbrella concept of “mixed reality” (abbreviated XR) here Thursday, attendees had some questions for the panel’s VR/AR/XR evangelists: Can these tools help students learn? Can institutions with limited budgets pull off ambitious projects? Can skeptical faculty members be convinced to experiment with unfamiliar technology?
Yale has landed on a “hub model” for project development — instructors propose projects and partner with students with technological capabilities to tap into a centralized pool of equipment and funding. (My note: this is what I suggest in my Chapter 2 of Arnheim, Eliot & Rose (2012) Lib Guides)
Several panelists said they had already been getting started on mixed reality initiatives prior to the infusion of support from Educause and HP, which helped them settle on a direction
While 3-D printing might seem to lend itself more naturally to the hard sciences, Yale’s humanities departments have cottoned to the technology as a portal to answering tough philosophical questions.
institutions would be better served forgoing an early investment in hardware and instead gravitating toward free online products like Unity, Organon and You by Sharecare, all of which allow users to create 3-D experiences from their desktop computers.
XR technologies encompassing 3D simulations, modeling, and production.
This project sought to identify
current innovative uses of these 3D technologies,
how these uses are currently impacting teaching and learning, and
what this information can tell us about possible future uses for these technologies in higher education.
p. 5 Extended reality (XR) technologies, which encompass virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), are already having a dramatic impact on pedagogy in higher education. XR is a general term that covers a wide range of technologies along a continuum, with the real world at one end and fully immersive simulations at the other.
p. 6The Campus of the Future project was an exploratory evaluation of 3D technologies for instruction and research in higher education: VR, AR, 3D scanning, and 3D printing. The project sought to identify interesting and novel uses of 3D technology
p. 7 HP would provide the hardware, and EDUCAUSE would provide the methodological expertise to conduct an evaluation research project investigating the potential uses of 3D technologies in higher education learning and research.
The institutions that participated in the Campus of the Future project were selected because they were already on the cutting edge of integrating 3D technology into pedagogy. These institutions were therefore not representative, nor were they intended to be representative, of the state of higher education in the United States. These institutions were selected precisely because they already had a set of use cases for 3D technology available for study
p. 9 At some institutions, the group participating in the project was an academic unit (e.g., the Newhouse School of Communications at Syracuse University; the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University). At these institutions, the 3D technology provided by HP was deployed for use more or less exclusively by students and faculty affiliated with the particular academic unit.
p. 10 definitions
there is not universal agreement on the definitions of these
terms or on the scope of these technologies. Also, all of these technologies
currently exist in an active marketplace and, as in many rapidly changing markets, there is a tendency for companies to invent neologisms around 3D technology.
A 3D scanner is not a single device but rather a combination of hardware and
software. There are generally two pieces of hardware: a laser scanner and a digital
camera. The laser scanner bounces laser beams off the surface of an object to
determine its shape and contours.
p. 11 definitions
Virtual reality means that the wearer is completely immersed in a computer
simulation. Several types of VR headsets are currently available, but all involve
a lightweight helmet with a display in front of the eyes (see figure 2). In some
cases, this display may simply be a smartphone (e.g., Google Cardboard); in other
cases, two displays—one for each eye—are integrated into the headset (e.g., HTC
Vive). Most commercially available VR rigs also include handheld controllers
that enable the user to interact with the simulation by moving the controllers
in space and clicking on finger triggers or buttons.
p. 12 definitions
Augmented reality provides an “overlay” of some type over the real world through
the use of a headset or even a smartphone.
In an active technology marketplace, there is a tendency for new terms to be
invented rapidly and for existing terms to be used loosely. This is currently
happening in the VR and AR market space. The HP VR rig and the HTC Vive
unit are marketed as being immersive, meaning that the user is fully immersed in
a simulation—virtual reality. Many currently available AR headsets, however, are
marketed not as AR but rather as MR (mixed reality). These MR headsets have a
display in front of the eyes as well as a pair of front-mounted cameras; they are
therefore capable of supporting both VR and AR functionality.
p. 13 Implementation
Technical issues can generally be divided into two broad categories: hardware
problems and software problems. There is, of course, a common third category:
p. 15 the technology learning curve
The well-known diffusion of innovations theoretical framework articulates five
adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and
laggards. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003).
It is also likely that staff in the campus IT unit or center for teaching and learning already know who (at least some of) these individuals are, since such faculty members are likely to already have had contact with these campus units.
Students may of course also be innovators and early adopters, and in fact
several participating institutions found that some of the most creative uses of 3D technology arose from student projects
p. 30 Zeynep Tufekci, in her book Twitter and Tear Gas
definition: There is no necessary distinction between AR and VR; indeed, much research
on the subject is based on a conception of a “virtuality continuum” from entirely
real to entirely virtual, where AR lies somewhere between those ends of the
spectrum. Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino, “A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays,” IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, vol. E77-D, no. 12 (1994); Steve Mann, “Through the Glass, Lightly,” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 31, no. 3 (2012): 10–14.
For the future of 3D technology in higher education to be realized, that
technology must become as much a part of higher education as any technology:
the learning management system (LMS), the projector, the classroom. New
technologies and practices generally enter institutions of higher education as
initiatives. Several active learning classroom initiatives are currently under
way,36 for example, as well as a multi-institution open educational resources
(OER) degree initiative.37
p. 32 Storytelling
Some scholars have argued that all human communication
is based on storytelling;41 certainly advertisers have long recognized that
storytelling makes for effective persuasion,42 and a growing body of research
shows that narrative is effective for teaching even topics that are not generally
thought of as having a natural story, for example, in the sciences.43
p. 33 accessibility
The experience of Gallaudet University highlights one of the most important
areas for development in 3D technology: accessibility for users with disabilities.
p. 34 instructional design
For that to be the case, 3D technologies must be incorporated into the
instructional design process for building and redesigning courses. And for that
to be the case, it is necessary for faculty and instructional designers to be familiar
with the capabilities of 3D technologies. And for that to be the case, it may not be necessary but would certainly be helpful for instructional designers to collaborate closely with the staff in campus IT units who support and maintain this hardware.
Every institution of higher education has a slightly different organizational structure, of course, but these two campus units are often siloed. This siloing may lead to considerable friction in conducting the most basic organizational tasks, such as setting up meetings and apportioning responsibilities for shared tasks. Nevertheless, IT units and centers for teaching and learning are almost compelled to collaborate in order to support faculty who want to integrate 3D technology into their teaching. It is necessary to bring the instructional design expertise of a center for teaching and learning to bear on integrating 3D technology into an instructor’s teaching (My note: and where does this place SCSU?) Therefore, one of the most critical areas in which IT units and centers for teaching and learning can collaborate is in assisting instructors to develop this integration and to develop learning objects that use 3D technology. p. 35 For 3D technology to really gain traction in higher education, it will need to be easier for instructors to deploy without such a large support team.
p. 35 Sites such as Thingiverse, Sketchfab, and Google Poly are libraries of freely
available, user-created 3D models.
ClassVR is a tool that enables the simultaneous delivery of a simulation to
multiple headsets, though the simulation itself may still be single-user.
p. 37 data management:
An institutional repository is a collection of an institution’s intellectual output, often consisting of preprint journal articles and conference papers and the data sets behind them.49 An institutional repository is often maintained by either the library or a partnership between the library and the campus IT unit. An institutional repository therefore has the advantage of the long-term curatorial approach of librarianship combined with the systematic backup management of the IT unit. (My note: leaves me wonder where does this put SCSU)
Sharing data sets is critical for collaboration and increasingly the default for
scholarship. Data is as much a product of scholarship as publications, and there
is a growing sentiment among scholars that it should therefore be made public.50
Our survey polled 232 faculty members across the country about their use of technology in the classroom, their likes and dislikes, their predictions for the future and more. The majority of respondents (68 percent) come from public institutions, with 28 percent from private nonprofits and 4 percent working at for-profit schools. Seventy-two percent work at four-year colleges or universities; 26 percent are at community colleges (the remaining 2 percent designated their institutional level as “other”).
Respondents represent institutions of a range of sizes, with about one-third (32 percent) working in colleges or universities with 2,500 to 9,999 students. Just under half (45 percent) of respondents are from institutions with 10,000 students or more.
Our respondents are veterans of higher education: The largest group (47 percent) has more than 20 years of experience, with 81 percent logging at least 11 years in the field.
The top three most common school and college types among our respondents are education (22 percent), business/business administration (17 percent) and liberal arts (12 percent). But overall, respondents work in a wide range of disciplines, from engineering and medicine to humanities and fine arts. The top 10 states with the most survey respondents are New York, Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
Untether instructors from the room’s podium, allowing them control from anywhere in the room;
Streamline the start of class, including biometric login to the room’s technology, behind-the-scenes routing of course content to room displays, control of lights and automatic attendance taking;
Offer whiteboards that can be captured, routed to different displays in the room and saved for future viewing and editing;
Provide small-group collaboration displays and the ability to easily route content to and from these displays; and
Deliver these features through a simple, user-friendly and reliable room/technology interface.
Key players from Crestron, Google, Sony, Steelcase and Spectrum met with Indiana University faculty, technologists and architects to generate new ideas related to current and emerging technologies. Activities included collaborative brainstorming focusing on these questions:
What else can we do to create the classroom of the future?
What current technology exists to solve these problems?
What could be developed that doesn’t yet exist?
top five findings:
Screenless and biometric technology will play an important role in the evolution of classrooms in higher education. We plan to research how voice activation and other Internet of Things technologies can streamline the process for faculty and students.
The entire classroom will become a space for student activity and brainstorming; walls, windows, desks and all activities are easily captured to the cloud, allowing conversations to continue outside of class or at the next class meeting.
Technology will be leveraged to include advance automation for a variety of tasks, so the faculty member is released from duties to focus on teaching.
The technology will become invisible to the process and enhance and customize the experience for the learner.
Virtual assistants could play an important role in providing students with a supported experience throughout their entire campus career.
In September 2015, the back-then library dean (they change every 2-3 years) requested a committee of librarians to meet and discuss the remodeling of Miller Center 2018. By that time the SCSU CIO was asserting the BYOx as a new policy for SCSU. BYOx in essence means the necessity for stronger (wider) WiFI pipe. Based on that assertion, I, Plamen Miltenoff, was insisting to shift the cost of hardware (computers, laptops) to infrastructure (more WiFi nods in the room and around it) and prepare for the upcoming IoT by learning to remodel our syllabi for mobile devices and use those (students) mobile devices, rather squander University money on hardware. At least one faculty member from the committee honestly admitted she has no idea about IoT and respectively the merit of my proposal. Thus, my proposal was completely disregarded by the self-nominated chair of the committee of librarians, who pushed for her idea to replace the desktops with a cart of laptops (a very 2010 idea, which by 2015 was already passe). As per Kelly (2018) (second article above), it is obvious the failure of her proposal to the dean to choose laptops over mobile devices, considering that faculty DO see mobile devices completely replacing desktops and laptops; that faculty DO not see document cameras and overhead projectors as a tool to stay.
Here are the notes from September 2015 http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/25/mc218-remodel/
As are result, my IoT proposal as now reflected in the Johnston (2018) (first article above), did not make it even formally to the dean, hence the necessity to make it available through the blog.
The SCSU library thinking regarding physical remodeling of classrooms is behind its times and that costs money for the university, if that room needs to be remodeled again to be with the contemporary times.
Lee, S.-H., Yeh, S.-C., Chan, R.-C., Chen, S., Yang, G., & Zheng, L.-R. (2016). Motor Ingredients Derived from a Wearable Sensor-Based Virtual Reality System for Frozen Shoulder Rehabilitation. BioMed Research International, 2016, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7075464
Dvorkin, A. Y., Shahar, M., & Weiss, P. L. (2006). Reaching within Video-Capture Virtual Reality: Using Virtual Reality as a Motor Control Paradigm. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(2), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.133
Zeng, N., Pope, Z., Lee, J. E., & Gao, Z. (2018). Virtual Reality Exercise for Anxiety and Depression: A Preliminary Review of Current Research in an Emerging Field. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7(3), 1-N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7030042
Kramer, M., Honold, M., Hohl, K., Bockholt, U., Rettig, A., Elbel, M., & Dehner, C. (2009). Reliability of a new virtual reality test to measure cervicocephalic kinaesthesia. Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology, 19(5), e353–e361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.05.005
the International Society for Technology in Education to publish a book, titled Learning Transported: Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Reality for All Classrooms, to offer practical insights, lesson plans, and classroom examples so educators can make the most of these experiential worlds.
Augmented reality superimposes a digital layer on the world around us, often activated by scanning a trigger image or via GPS (think Pokemon Go!). Virtual reality takes users away from the real world, fully immersing students in a digital experience that replaces reality. Mixed reality takes augmented a step further by allowing the digital and real worlds to interact and the digital components to change based on the user’s environment.
DEVICES: iOS, Android, COURSE: English Language Arts, Speaking and Listening, GRADES: K-1
Augmented and Virtual Reality with EON
DEVICES: iOS, Android, COURSE: Earth and Space Science, GRADE: 4, 45 minutes
Scavenger Hunting as a Classroom Activity
The app offers teachers a unique way to create a scavenger hunt by designing AR messages and leaving them in specific places for students to “discover.”
The Waypoint App also allows for creation of educational scavenger hunts using augmented reality. Educators can easily add questions that address lesson objectives, set specific locations where the questions are hidden, and then have students hunt for questions by following the map. The hunt is easily shared with students on a variety of platforms, including text messaging and email.
Breakout EDU has become a popular game in education. Driven by creativity, teamwork, and problem-solving, the game provides a fun learning experience as it challenges students to compete in solving puzzles. The game centers on a series of questions; each solved question unlocks the next part of the activity. Students work in groups, competing against other groups to open all the locks first.
Session Title: Measuring Learning Outcomes of New Library Initiatives Coordinator: Professor Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS, St. Cloud State University, USA Contact: email@example.com Scope & rationale: The advent of new technologies, such as virtual/augmented/mixed reality, and new pedagogical concepts, such as gaming and gamification, steers academic libraries in uncharted territories. There is not yet sufficiently compiled research and, respectively, proof to justify financial and workforce investment in such endeavors. On the other hand, dwindling resources for education presses administration to demand justification for new endeavors. As it has been established already, technology does not teach; teachers do; a growing body of literature questions the impact of educational technology on educational outcomes. This session seeks to bring together presentations and discussion, both qualitative and quantitative research, related to new pedagogical and technological endeavors in academic libraries as part of education on campus. By experimenting with new technologies such as Video 360 degrees and new pedagogical approaches such as gaming and gamification, does the library improve learning? By experimenting with new technologies and pedagogical approaches, does the library help campus faculty to adopt these methods and improve their teaching? How can results be measured, demonstrated?
Over the past year, interest in eXtended reality (XR) technologies (such as virtual, augmented, immersive, and mixed reality) has surged. New and more affordable XR technologies, along with voice activation and sophisticated visual display walls, provide promising directions and opportunities to immerse learners in the curriculum, offering deeper and more vivid learning experiences and extending the learning environment. But what’s the curricular reality with respect to these technologies? What is hype and what is substance? Specifically:
What practical applications do “XR technologies” have for teaching, learning, and research?
How are these technologies being applied to engage learners as consumers and creators of XR experiences?
What evidence is there to support XR technologies as effective tools in the learning environment?
How can these technologies be integrated into learning spaces?
What are the ethical questions we should consider as we explore XR?
Open Discussion: VR in Education | Тема: Виртуалната реалност в образованието
Where | Университет Пловдив https://goo.gl/maps/bLBYXkp5S1S2 and online ( виртуално) When | Кога: 3. май, 2018, 15 часа | May 3, 2018, 3PM local time (Bulgaria) Who | Кой: преподаватели и суденти | faculty аnd students How | Как: използвайте “обратна връзка” за споделяне на вашите идеи | use the following hashtag for backchanneling #BGtechEd
Виртуална реалност в учебния процес – теория и практика- 1-1, 1/2 час продължителност Virtual reality in teaching and learning – theory and hands-on
Уточняване на понятията относно различните видове реалност: виртуална реалност, video 360 ; разширена реалност; смесена реалност. VR/AR/MR in education.
Подход и усвояване на различните видове реалност в образованието. Връзка между трите вида реалност в образованието и конструктивизма като теория на преподаването. Връзка между трите вида реалност в образованието и игровия подход и игрофикацията на образованието. Оценяване на обучението базирано на различните видове реалности.
Дискусия относно методиката на приложение в учебния процес
2 min video from the entrance of your University is viewable through Google Cardboard and your laptops. Study the video and seek answers to the following questions:
– what are the advantages of Video 360 to all other known-to-you media formats?
кои са предимствата на Видео 360 в сравнение с всички други медийни формати, които познавате?
– what would you do better in terms the video footage?
какво бихте заснимали, което да подобри видео материала за преподавателски и учебни цели (например: както друго място бихте избрали)
– how is / can be this medium advantageous to implementing core learning / teaching techniques
как този медиен формат може да се използва за да се подобрят съществуващите условия за успешно преподаване и обучение
По избор – разговор с Марк Гил от Щатския университет Сейнт Клауд и демонстрация на виртуална реалност в учебния процес – 10-15 мин
Open Discussion: Instruments and Methods for Formative Assessment: by invitation of teachers from Plovdiv region | Тема: Инструменти и методи за актуални училищни занятия
Where | Къде: СУ „Димитър Матевски“ https://goo.gl/maps/rojNjE3dk4s and online ( виртуално) When | Кога: 2. май, 2018, 14 часа | May 2, 2018, 2PM local time (Bulgaria) Who | Кой: преподаватели и педагози | teachers and faculty How | Как: използвайте “обратна връзка” за споделяне на вашите идеи | use the following hashtag for backchanneling#BGtechEd
Intro | Представяне – 5мин. Who are we (please share short intro about your professional interests) | Кои сме ние: споделете накратко професионалните си интереси (използвайте “comment” section под този блог) http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/faculty/
Reality Check (before we do tech) | минута за откровение (преди да започнем с технологии):
who is our audience | кого учим/обучаваме? http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/21/in-memoriam-avicii/ http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/04/17/edtech-implementation-fails/
why technology application fails | защо се проваля използването на технологии в обучението?
Understanding Purpose | какъв е смисълът
Insufficient Modeling of Best Practices | недостатъчен или несподелен опит
Bad First Impressions | лоши първи впечатления
Real-World Usability Challenges | ежедневни проблеми
The Right Data to Track Progress | кои данни определят успеха
Share your thoughts for the fails | Сподели твоите мисли за провала
Тема1. Сравняване на Kahoot, Edpuzzle и Apester – 1-1, 1/2 час продължителност Topic 1: A comparison of Kahoot, Apester and EdPuzzle
Дискусия, относно методиката на използване. Споделяне на опит кога и как го използват колегите от България и САЩ (други страни?).
Short demonstration and discussion regarding methodology of use. Sharing experience of use.
Споделяне на опит | ideas and experience exchange.
Comparison to other tools (e.g. flipped classroom advantage to Kahoot; difference from EdPuzzle, similarities to EdPuzzle) | съпоставяне с други инструменти: например, обърната класна стая – предимство пред Кахут; разлики и прилики с ЕдПъзил и тн)
Създаване на акаунт | account creation and building of learning objects
Comparison to other tools (e.g. flipped classroom advantage to Kahoot; difference from EdPuzzle, similarities to EdPuzzle) | съпоставяне с други инструменти: например, обърната класна стая – предимство пред Кахут; разлики и прилики с Еиптстър и тн)