Posted: February 20th, 2013 | Author: champika | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments »
The possibilities with AR are no doubt exciting and in some ways seem limitless. In particular what might be possible with head-attached or spatial devices is alluring because in both those cases the user is less aware of the technology/ hardware and thus interacting with it/ through it is less of a burden. That said, I’m more interested in AR through hand held devices. Though the limitations in usability are more obvious I am interested in the possibility of reaching a broader audience. Mobile phones are (currently) much more accessible, affordable and broadly used than other AR platforms and in terms of learning I think they could reach the audience that stands to gain the most. This idea is highlighted in van Krevelen and Poleman’s ‘A Survey of Augmented Reality Technology, Applications and Limitations’.
Connected to this idea of reaching a broader audience, one thing in particular that Lanier says that resonates with me (though I don’t share his emphatic skepticism/ criticism of most of these things) is the need to preserve the power of technology as tool for creation. He points to the move from desktop/ laptop computers to iPads and mobile phones as a move away from tools of creation to a tools of consumption. Though I agree with him that this is the state of the technology at the moment – I don’t feel it’s an inevitable trajectory. I’d like to think about how we can use AR to make these tools (iPads, mobile phones) better tools for creation – since I believe creation is a powerful means of learning. (Of course Lanier goes further down the path of the youth of today giving up wealth for the ability to share online…which I think is a valid consideration, but the statement is a bit black and white)
One passage in the Andy Clark interview that I thought was particularly relevant to the discussion of technologies for learning was this one:
‘One possible story locates the difference in a biological innovation for widespread cortical plasticity combined perhaps with the extended period of protected learning called “childhood”. Thus “neural constructivists” such as Steve Quartz and Terry Sejnowski depicts neural (especially cortical) growth as experience — dependent, and as involving the actual construction of new neural circuitry (synapses, axons, dendrites) rather than just the fine-tuning of circuitry whose basic shape and form is already determined. One upshot is that the learning device
itself changes as a result of organism-environmental interactions — learning does not just alter the knowledge base for a fixed computational engine, it alters the internal computational architecture itself.’
First – he implies some possible benefit of the extended period of learning in childhood, second he points out the importance of the act of learning as a means for altering not just the data but the ‘computational architecture’ (of the brain) itself. I think this is relevant when thinking about ‘just in time learning’. A question it raises is how can we create systems for ‘just in time learning’ that don’t merely present data/ information and thus possibly undermine the value of the act of learning itself.
Leave a Reply