Week 3 summary: virtual reality and TEL

IMG_0676.PNG

This week I explored the theme of virtual reality through the digital artefact. The video is about a robot who builds a virtual reality program, developing it from simple code, to abstract shapes, to projections to immersive experiences. It tries (admittedly quite hard in some instances) to reference Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto in several ways: literally through caricatures of animal-machine hybrids, stylistically through a playful, meandering narrative, and politically (though far more modestly) through its plea to apply a more imaginative approach to course design, which are also virtual environments.

This virtual environment is comprised not just of people but also non-human agents, like technology. Therefore it should be seen as an assemblage. The links I tweeted were related to this idea: a vision of the internet that allows communication with other species, and examples of memes that rely on animal metaphors. The latter is interesting because it shows how human communication is shaped if not directly by other species but by how we view them.

I am quite happy to have developed the video in a way that allows multiple interpretations. For instance, after I re-read Sian Bayne’s critique of TEL, I realised that a virtual environment, an online course even, is someone’sperspective. This imagined world reflects biases and prejudices, and if we are not careful may put some groups at a disadvantage. Bayne’s critique of TEL emphasizes a sensitivity to the context of technology adoption, and calls for an examination of its goals, especially because those goals are often unarticulated.

As a corporate trainer, I can see the instrumental view on technology in how elearning courses are developed: efficient delivery of training content is the primary focus. How a course impacts trainees (as people not just workers), work processes and other activities are often treated as secondary concerns.

Notes on Wk3 hangout

One of the things discussed at the Google hangout last night was the idea of learner autonomy in relation to Sian’s critique of TEL.

This is a short post to capture my notes on the hangout:
– Learnification tends to reduce learning as a market transaction, a commodity.
– Learnification talks about the role of learners but ignores the role of teachers and tutors. These two cannot be separated, nor can the power dynamics inherent in this relationship be ignored.

As I mentioned in the session, corporate training seems to value learner independence over collaboration. This can be seen in the prevalence of corporate self-paced e-learning courses. The idea of lifelong learning is sometimes misconstrued to mean that learning is the sole responsibility of the employee. The corresponding role of the organization and of managers in particular is often not discussed.

This came up as we talked about nanopills, how one day, all we’ll need is a pill, an implant or a plug to transfer learning from one container to another. While all this sounds futuristic, similar ideas already happen in different forms. Returning to corporate training, I often see (and have also been involved) in projects related to training the trainers, the goal of which is to reach a large number of trainees. Training other trainers is supposed to solve this problem through a multiplier effect.

As I write this, I realize I used to think about how introducing elearning courses helps solves this problem by providing consistent learning experiences, directly from a single source. In this sense, technology helps improve efficiency and reduces cost. The tricky part is how to make it not just efficient, but also effective: how to make corporate elearning courses sensitive to learners’ contexts and needs.