Virtual Reality - an expensive solution to unaddressed underlying problem     Permalink

I’m skeptical of consultancy reports. Consultancy firms need clients implementing new projects in order to survive. But, reading between the lines can be informative.

For corporate training, PWC examined the difference between classroom, elearning and virtual reality modes.

Today’s learners are often impatient, distracted and overwhelmed. Many learners will not watch a video for its duration, and smartphones are a leading cause of interruption and distraction.

Their research found that virtual reality was better than classroom learning and much better than elearning. But, their primary measures were self-reports of distraction and interviews to “capture the learner experience”. A stronger study would have evaluated how much better course participants were at completing tasks after compared to before their training.

This is another case where I agree with the problem and disagree with the cure, at least as we might think about the implications of this study for undergraduate education.

Dealing with distractions is important. There are two ways to do this:

  • make a more immersive experience, or
  • help students manage the distractions.

For undergraduates, the latter is more important because it means they can work, during their studies and after, in high distraction environments. Training them to work only when the task is fully immersive diminishes their capacity to engage effectively in the world.

Virtual reality has enormous potential in specialist scenarios. For example, in medical education where cadavers are expensive, in various science and engineering disciplines where getting things wrong can be hugely dangerous to students. But in lots of areas, we risk limiting our students’ imaginations, empathy and visualisation skills if we are always confronting them with hyperreality.

Unbundling undergraduate degrees: transform universities or double down on education?     Permalink

Ryan Craig is a thoughtful commentator on US higher education. In this article he argues that restrictions on lots of campus activities to minimise the risk of Covid-19 change the university experience, making the bundle of education, sports, societies, residences, etc., less valuable.

We agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution.

For the past decade, it’s been unclear how all the ancillary components of the higher education bundle serve the employment imperative. The next year will prove that – for the most part – they don’t. Colleges and universities will continue to award the same degrees as they did for the capacious bundles of yesteryear. Students will discover that dozens of deanlets don’t help them find a good first job. And graduates with three semesters of a one-dimensional higher education experience won’t be at a relative disadvantage in terms of employment, in large part because whether the modality is digital or in-person, schools continue to refrain from teaching the digital skills and business knowledge employers are seeking for entry-level positions. Not that there’ll be many entry-level jobs to be had.

Craig provides a list of the types of transformations that all but the most selective institutions must make to survive. The result are highly employment focused institutions, with much few “experience” components in their offering.

I see an alternative: double down on rigorous education.

For a long time we have known that the number of study hours and the educational outcomes from university study have been falling and students do not necessarily sufficiently invest time in their independent study. As a HEPI overview highlights, moving online will exacerbate this problem.

So, let’s use the time freed from a fragmented employability agenda and the on-campus experience and help students spend more time on their academic work, the work that develops their capacity to understand a complex world and act effectively in it. Lots of the basic employability skills emerge from this. Nothing encourages the use of tools (technology) like the kinds of repetition required to be good at academic work. It does not take too many evenings drafting and redrafting essays to become a wizz at Word. The same applies to working with numbers, iterating through complex group assignments (no possible because students are studying for 40 hours a week instead of 16).

Transcribing carefully written lectures is nuts     Permalink

As we move to online teaching for the new semester, lots of effort is going into ensuring that the material is accessible.

This means ensuring, at the very least, that visual material is available in an audio format for hearing impaired students and that audio material is available in text form for hearing impaired students.

But, because of our fixation with multimedia, we have tied ourselves in inefficient knots. Think of the workflow:

  • First, we carefully research, organise and draft (in writing) our lectures.
  • Second, we deliver them, as recordings, in lecture theatres or in online lectures. During our lecture, we draw students into discussion and activities at various points.
  • Third, the recording of our lecture is made available for students to watch (without the benefit of engaging in the activities and discussions).
  • Ideally, we should edit the recording to make remove any dead time and ensure the privacy of students who contributed.
  • Then, to ensure accessibility, a transcript of the recording is produced automatically (but which probably needs to be proof read carefully).

All of that work, results in a poor copy of the written notes we so carefully prepared in order to be able to deliver the lecture.

Which begs the question: Why not simply make the notes (and any visuals) available and use all that effort that went into producing the video for something else (such as small group teaching)?