Microsoft’s forthcoming AR headset, HoloLens, is at the forefront of this technology. The company calls it the first holographic computer. In AR, instead of being surrounded by a virtual world, viewers see virtual objects projected on top of reality through a transparent lens.
“With a computer or tablet, we always have to look at a screen. … The technology is always in between the people. With HoloLens, the technology very quickly becomes invisible, and we have seen groups of people have very intense interactions around models that are completely digital — they aren’t really there.”
According to them, you just “Follow their story and learn how the team at Clemson Online implemented RPNow, and how they’re planning to centralize remote proctoring to increase student convenience, faculty efficiency and reduce the costs of exam administration.”
step 5 of the five-step outline: “Take control of the payment model. Institutional payment (as opposed to student pay) creates a better experience for the student and cost savings for all.”
so, if the institution pays, then student don’t pay? I find this and illusion, since the institution pays by using students’ tuition. which constantly grows. so, the statement is rather deceptive.
As with the huge controversy around Turnitin (e.g., this 2009 article, and this 2012 article), “mechanizing” the very humane process evaluation is outright wrong. The attempt to compensate the lack of sufficient number of faculty by “outsourcing” to machines is en vogue with the nationwide strive of higher ed administration to create an “assembly line” type of education, which makes profit, but it is dubious if it teaches [well].
Pedagogically (as per numerous discussions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and similar sources), if the teaching materials and exams are structured in an engaging way, students cheat much less. The “case study” paper claims reduction of cheating, but it is reduction based on fear to be caught, not based on genuine interest in learning.
first: link to the Hospital Center, but not to the study; difficult to check the facts, which are discussed in the editorial.
title talks about “social media,” but it is not about social media, it is about texting. danah boyd and Eszter Hargittai are apparently not household names in the house of the managing editor
then the author jumps from one issue to another: mindfulness or contemplative computing, but h/she has no clue about these issues also.
the research, which claims that social media (which is not social media, but more like BYOD + texting) has a negative impact on academic performance is no different the research that shows very positive impact of learning with social media. It is NOT about social media, it is about how it is used (methodology).
D.Frank Smith
