google expeditions: virtual reality and the classroom
TRANSCRIPT
Google ExpeditionsVirtual Reality, education and RUL classrooms
Dr Zoetanya SujonSenior Lecturer and Secondment to Academic Practice
@jetsumgerl | sujonz.wordpress.com
Overview
•Quick intro to VR
•VR and education
•Key findings
•Conclusions
Virtual reality introduction
• $30 billion by 2020
• VR = Immersive experience
• AR = Augmented reality
•MR = Mixed reality
VR and education
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600VR in the news
The Times, The Guardian, Sunday Times, Wall Street Journal (online),
The Independent, using Proquest
VR and news VR and education VR and classroom Google expeditionsin
Educational technology market: 2015
• One of the fastest growing sectors
• UK schools spend £900 million a year
• UK education exports industry is worth £17.5bn (£30bn by 2020)
• Global education technology sector spending at $67.8bn
• Global “e-learning” market worth $165bn
EDTECH: LONDON CAPITAL FOR LEARNING TECHNOLOGY (2015), http://www.ednfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/EdtechUK_LP_report.pdf
“London is a major European edtech hub and is breaking new ground in massive open online courses (MOOCs), corporate and e-learning, augmented reality and digital making”
VR and education
• Google Expeditions• Unimersiv• Immersive VR Education• Discovery VR• zSpace• ThingLink, Gamar, Curiscope,
Woofbert, Nearpod, EonReality, Schell Games, World of Comenius, AltSpace, Alchemy VR etc.
Google cardboard
• Engineers at the Google Cultural Institute on 20% time
• Open source
• Over 5 million cardboard viewers shipped (2014-2016)
• Over 1000 + VR/AR applications developed
“Field trips to virtually anywhere”• Content developed with
leading educational partners
• Toolkit designed for the classroom
• Lesson plans on TES
• Experiential, constructivist, immersive, blended and technology-enhanced learning
Key findings
1. Experimental, one-off, emerging technology
2. Exciting technology
3. Students see things differently
4. Implications for education
Observations• 3 student observers• 1 educator
Survey• N = 100 (396)• 25.2% Response rate
“The feeling of ‘being’ there”“Seeing the Syrian Refugee Camp as if I was a part of it”“The swimming pool at Chernobyl. Amazing visuals. Disorienting and interesting”“Feeling the space, being inside a never seen before space”“To see different cultures I have never seen before”
“A student led the second expedition which showed that the technology did not need to be teacher led as it contained the relevant information available for anyone. There was genuine wonder and enjoyment at the experience” (survey respondent).
2. Exciting technology: Dynamic users
2. Exciting technology: Use
• Some staff were reluctant/resistant to use the leader tablet
• Many complained of eye strain, headaches or nausea
• Difficult for some people who wore glasses
• Technical difficulties
• Issues of disabilities and inclusion ?
• Did you feel there were limitations to GE?
3. Students see things differently from staff
3. Different groups see different examples of success
4. Implications for education
• Clash of old vs new styles• Delivery vs interactivity, performance vs engagement,
structure vs flexibility
• Blended, experiential and immersive learning
• Experimentation and innovation
• Technology is an enhancement, not a replacement
“Learn about other cultures.” “Visit faraway lands without leaving the classroom.” “Guided tours of places school buses cannot go.”
“Pictures speak a universal language.” “This is science.” Educational Screen, 1924
Conclusions: Amazing potential with limits
Creative consumption Strategic support Joined-up practice
