READING REFLECTIONS |
Week 4 – Reading Reflections
This week’s readings focus on virtual reality worlds and their dynamic role in education. This of course, brings in more complications in teaching curriculum and the ethical limits of VR. The articles explore what VR has to offer in the world of education and how students and teachers can use them in an effective manner to constitute learning. Darvasi, P. Mindshift (2016) VR and 5 Ethical Considerations In this article, Darvasi suggest how “VR may have unprecedented value to education, but that very same power must be managed responsibly.” This highlights how entering VR is often unchartered territory, and teachers must be mindful of the content and activity they are going to emerge their students in. The scope of VR is becoming quite extensive, thus, making the need to be prudent that much more necessary. As well, Darvasi writes, “technology is advancing faster than legal systems and legislation can keep up, and pervasive VR use will only widen the gap” – so how might that change laws in education? How will the diversity of students and families impact the role of VR and the simulations it has to offer? I think that as Darvasi examples the various forms, a sense of awe and exciting arises, but is paralleled with a notion of concern. The world of virtual reality is definitely innovative and immersive classroom practice, but a teacher now takes a new role – one that is constantly being redefined and calls into question the teacher’s own understanding of VR. Personally, I think the VR in the classroom is an incredible tool to have, allowing students and teachers, as co-learners to explore and examine curriculum from a completely new and intimate perspective. Dede, C. (2014). The Role of Digital Technologies in Deeper Learning. Harvard Education: White Paper. Dede’s work focuses on how deeper learning is attainable by means of digital teaching platforms (DTP). These platforms enable multiple discourses on classroom learning and can be imbedded into curriculum in a much more innovative manner. As Dede asserts, this is essential to achieve deeper learning such as “case-based instruction, the use of multiple representations, collaborative learning, and the use of diagnostic assessments” (p. 13). These are currently applicable in a classroom, but with DTP they become much more multi-dimensional and offer students new methods of learning and expressing understanding. In addition, Dede (2014) states that “applying academic insights to the real world—and translating real-world experience into academic insights—is an essential feature of deeper learning” (p. 16). This is an aim for all teachers, finding ways to connect curriculum to real life applications and helping students to see the true practicality of their learning. With MUVES, this becomes a greater possibility and allows students to experience ‘first hand’ what their learning will lead to. Dede reveals how “MUVEs and AR also can provide rich interdisciplinary and experiential types of learning, which are unusual in traditional education”. Dede has a quotation that states how technology “empowers teachers to make better use of [deep learning] instructional strategies such as: case-based learning, collaborative learning, self-directed learning, the use of multiple representations and the use of diagnostic assessments” (p. 2). A question that arises for me is how the real-world experiences will be monitored. Will students be given access to all VR modes or will they have constraint based on age and understanding – decided by the teacher? Does a teacher have the liberty to involve students in higher level simulation modes if he or she feels the class is ready or will this be something regulated under education laws? Bailenson et al (2008). The Use of Immersive Virtual Reality in the Learning Sciences: Digital Transformations of Teachers, Students, and Social Context. The Journal of Learning Science. 17: 102–141, 2008. Bailenson’s article delves in to the use and capabilities of virtual reality environments. The transformative practices that are the outcome of VR worlds can be seen and described to “improve learning” (103). In transforming learning and communicating the understanding of concepts, teacher and students enter a new dimension of learning through experiential forms. Of course, it is important to notice and remember that this advanced form of technology is not readily available to all, making it a luxury in some cases and ultimately, disadvantages other students’ learning due to absence of VR. The article explains how when students are in a “one-on-one tutorial” context (p. 128), they have much more opportunities to learn and critically think about their curriculum. This raises the question of peer feedback for me. How does less interaction in group and pair settings impact student learning in VR context? The one-on-one learning may offer more time for reflection on learning, but reduces social skill and learning skills development (etc. collaboration). The overarching benefits of it are incredible, but I believe that the individualist aspect of VR in this article is something to be remodeled.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |