startup JigSpace, which was among the first apps to support ARKit and LiDAR for iPhone augmented reality apps
“Creating and sharing knowledge in 3D should be simple, useful, and delightful. We’re on a mission to unlock the utility of augmented reality at massive scale and bring interactive 3D experiences into everyday life,” said Zac Duff, co-founder and CEO at JigSpace
Compared to the camera effects from Snapchat and Facebook, mobile AR apps built on ARKit from Apple and ARCore from Google haven’t had quite the impact we expected them to when Apple originally announced ARKit.
But the rationale that I find most disturbing—despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it’s rarely made explicit—is the idea that technology will increase our efficiency…at teaching the same way that children have been taught for a very long time. Perhaps it hasn’t escaped your notice that ed tech is passionately embraced by very traditional schools: Their institutional pulse quickens over whatever is cutting-edge: instruction that’s blended, flipped, digitally personalized.
We can’t answer the question “Is tech useful in schools?” until we’ve grappled with a deeper question: “What kinds of learning should be taking place in those schools?”
Tarting up a lecture with a SmartBoard, loading a textbook on an iPad, looking up facts online, rehearsing skills with an “adaptive learning system,” writing answers to the teacher’s (or workbook’s) questions and uploading them to Google Docs—these are examples of how technology may make the process a bit more efficient or less dreary but does nothing to challenge the outdated pedagogy. To the contrary: These are shiny things that distract us from rethinking our approach to learning and reassure us that we’re already being innovative.
putting grades online (thereby increasing their salience and their damaging effects), using computers to administer tests and score essays, and setting up “embedded” assessment that’s marketed as “competency-based.” (If your instinct is to ask “What sort of competency? Isn’t that just warmed-over behaviorism?”
But as I argued not long ago, we shouldn’t confuse personalized learning with personal learning. The first involves adjusting the difficulty level of prefabricated skills-based exercises based on students’ test scores, and it requires the purchase of software. The second involves working with each student to create projects of intellectual discovery that reflect his or her unique needs and interests, and it requires the presence of a caring teacher who knows each child well.a recent review found that studies of tech-based personalized instruction “show mixed results ranging from modest impacts to no impact” – despite the fact that it’s remarkably expensive.
an article in Education Week, “a host of national and regional surveys suggest that teachers are far more likely to use tech to make their own jobs easier and to supplement traditional instructional strategies than to put students in control of their own learning.”
OECD reportednegative outcomes when students spent a lot of time using computers, while Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) concluded that online charter schools were basically a disaster.
Larry Cuban, Sherry Turkle, Gary Stager, and Will Richardson.
Emily Talmage points out, uncannily aligned with the wish list of the Digital Learning Council, a group consisting largely of conservative advocacy groups and foundations, and corporations with a financial interest in promoting ed tech.
When do you believe technology enhances learning, and when do you believe
it does not?
How has technology impacted your own learning?
Does your school, library, or organization have a specific learning philosophy that guides ed-tech purchases and implementation? If yes, what is that philosophy?
More than 450 responses were received (those that agreed for their answers to be
shared publicly can be seen at http://www.modernlearning.com).
For the purposes of this report, “educational technology” (often abbreviated as “ed tech”) is assumed to refer principally to the use of modern electronic computing and other high-tech, mostly Internet-enabled, devices and services in education.
When it becomes a distraction.
● When there is little or no preparation for it.
● When just used for testing / score tracking.
● When used for consuming and not creating, or just for rote learning.
● When “following the education trends: everyone else is doing it.”
● When the tech is “an end rather than means” (also stated as, ”when I don’t have a plan or learning goal…”). We found this very significant, and it is the focus of Observation 6.
● When there is a lack of guidance in how to effectively use new ed tech tools (“when there is no PD”). This is the focus of Observation 4.
● Finally, when it “gets in the way of real time talk / sharing.” Forgetting that the tech “cannot mentor, motivate, show beauty, interact fully, give quality attention, [or] contextualize.” Also: ”outcomes related to acquiring the skills and attitudes cannot be enhanced by technology.” As mentioned in the introduction, this would be missing the “human factor.” One respondent
captured this as follows: “3 reasons tech innovation fails: Misunderstanding Human Motivation, Human Learning, or Human Systems.”
reduced their isolation by helping them to connect with their peers;
● allowed them to feel part of larger educational movements;
● afforded them opportunities to become contributors.
Networked information technology has rendered the words “teacher” and “student” more ambiguous. YouTube tutorials and social-media discussions, just to cite a couple of obvious examples, have made it abundantly clear that at any given moment anyone—regardless of age or background—can be a learner or a teacher, or even both at once.
an August 2017 working paper, “Education Technology: An Evidence-Based Review,” published by the National Bureau of Economic Research with clear tables on which technology improves learning and which doesn’t.
1. Computers and internet access alone don’t boost learning
Handing out laptops, providing high-speed internet access or buying most other kinds of hardware doesn’t on its own boost academic outcomes. The research shows that student achievement doesn’t rise when kids are using computers more, and it sometimes decreases.
2. Some math software shows promise
math programs such as SimCalc and ASSISTments. One popular program, DreamBox, showed small gains for students, as well. Only one piece of software that taught reading, Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy (ITSS), showed promise, suggesting that it is possible to create good educational software outside of math, but it’s a lot harder.
One commonality of the software that seems to work is that it somehow “personalizes” instruction. Sometimes students start with a pre-test so the computer can determine what they don’t know and then sends each student the right lessons, or a series of worksheet problems, to help fill in the gaps. Other times, the computer ascertains a student’s gaps as he works through problems and makes mistakes, giving personalized feedback. Teachers also get data reports to help pinpoint where students are struggling.
3. Cheap can be effective
a study in San Francisco where texts reminded mothers to read to their preschoolers. That boosted children’s literacy scores.
David Kent Director VOLSHOP (official bookstore) U of Tennessee, Knoxville
Lisa Kiefer, Managing Director Wakefield ResearchCindy Clarke Vice President Marketing, Vital Source Technologies
students want formally taught life skills: interview for a job, balance checkbook and do taxes, how to take out and pay for student loans
Tennessee:
traditional 4 year school. cost is part of the program, not charged as a course fee. all materials avaiable first day of school and available in perpetuity. way below rental books prices. via LMS (BB). no printed textbooks. few books through websites, for books, which do not subscribe for the program. ebooks offered at the store. increasing titles selection. cost, learning outcomes. the outlook for digital in the future: already digital, but open for further development. expand courses offered, launching more programs with materials bundled and online course.
digital is easier to work with, deliver to customer,
business partnership (this is different now from https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/07/29/mn-esummit-2015/ David Wiley, MN Learning Commons). working closely with provost, cio, vital source. working with publishers to make sure that content is available>
business model: program bundle all the content and deliver to students and advertise periodically to students
the course fee model: charged to student account semester by semester bases. also student-paid method. all access model is better for everyone.
ebooks are important for the interactivity, collaboration
Q and As:
what was the students’ reaction moving to digital books. how traditional faculty are accepting the change. A: pilot group of several faculty and gradual roll out. early adopters influencing others.
does the content open on all devices? A: yes, device-agnostic. dedicated apps for iOS, Android, and Windows
disability? A: enhanced apps, migrate all PDF format to proprietory platform. epub and PDF content. user added epub content. Center for accessible material innovation, American Foundation for the blind, Tech for All etc
libraries do not provide course materials for students. clean division between campus store and library
BB admin is loading the codes in the LMS, but the idea is to load the information straight into BB. cio in charge. helpdesk support for vital provided by the cio department.
cost savings in percent for students digital to print. student pay model, ebooks can vary to new book price. ebooks even more expensive. with the course fee, 70% off rental. 3rd party operator may add 30%. all parties must be looking for reasonable margin. greater digital adoption results in lower costs for students.
digital alleviates dropout rate.
what course which don’t fit digital materials. life sciences and mathematics, science and engineering is landing itself well
how much interactive content and links to social media is incorporated.