Of course the obvious challenges are making sure that all students have an AR capable device, that the device has enough storage, and that they are willing to commit the resources of their phone to the app. Second is all the time it takes to tag everything and organize it. It's a great tool, but definitely time consuming up front. Then there is also school policy to deal with. Students are unable to use phones of any kind on school premises within my school, and all schools I'm aware of in my city. As such, we must rely on the iPads that do not have access to internet and no way of signing them out. It seems like Aurasma allows overlays on a device, which means that if a teacher set them all up in a room with WiFi it could work in a classroom with students, which is interesting for me, if policy permitted me to set it up in that way.
top of page
Now you have completed your learning on Augmented Reality, please take a moment to complete a post-assessment survey
bottom of page
I agree there are many logistical considerations, and they are well worth solving. The more time is spent on adminstrative and technical issues, the less is being devoted to achieving learning objectives. BYOD can be a major pressure on parents, either financially or in terms of values, and it is so easy to become distracted by everything else on a device and stray in our learning. Even if the infrastructure is set up and all systems are go with plenty of storage, etc., there is no guarantee that the tools will be implemented in a helpful way. Teacher PD is essential to train and deliver programs in a timely fashion and before upgrades are necessary. Trendy or newer technologies could serve very well as pilot projects for feedback and early evaluation until they are implemented on a larger scale.
That's interesting. When a technology is seen as the wave of the future then it's not just a teaching tool, it's what needs to be taught. Students need a chance to touch and experience it to imagine what to do with it. Of course no one truly knows what will fuel growth and be a necessary skill in the future work place, but it's a great reminder that teachers need to consider these things as well when evaluating technology.
So we have both the hardware and the content issue. It is time consuming to create content and teachers would, of course, need training and support. While I was a bit skeptical on how the education sector is reacting to AR with issues around cognitive overload and privacy as well, it was surprising to find that France has already given a go ahead to introduce AR in the middle school curriculum. The idea really is two fold: 1) to teach and use AR in education but also 2) to produce next generation of AR workforce, entrepreneurs and technology evangelists. Here is a nice articles that talks about initiatives by other governments: http://www.augment.com/blog/govt-investing-arvr-education/
BYOD and hardware processing may not lead to all students being able to participate either. Would that suggest that time is still needed for this technology to be truly embraced? Time for technology to advance to the point where even budget phones are able to keep up.
Robert and Edric both make excellent points. I particularly agree that BYOD principles are critical to the success of AR in schools, and I am surprised to hear that entire districts are still against this idea (although, I do see both sides of the argument for or against BYOD). The most compelling argument I have encountered in favour of BYOD is that technology costs are such a black hole in school budgets already, and obsolescence only adds to this problem, that offloading these costs with BYOD would help tremendously. A school is much more likely to implement AR if it just needs to cover the expenses of AR headsets such as Google Cardboard, rather than having to also supply the most expensive elements of this technology, such as the devices themselves. The challenge for students (and parents) is that BYOD may be unfeasible from either a value standpoint (many parents do not wish their children to have a smartphone) or financial perspective, particularly in low-income schools. I agree with Edric regarding the potential of distraction and alluded to this in my response to question 3. If teachers become too dependent upon flashy technology, there is an illusion of student engagement that may not reflect meaningful learning.
I agree with those challenges. However, I think that if we want to experience a full AR school in the future, hardware processing power is a requirement for the future mobile devices. Furthermore, I think AR could become a distraction for some students, especially primary school students. They would see more the "fun" side of the tool rather than learn from it. I find it difficult sometimes to even keep some of the students on track with class just by using a short youtube film as introduction. I'm worried that if they start playing with AR, it might be harder to keep them focused on the information we need them to learn.