Category Archives: Diversity

Shared Interests: “Community of Inquiry”

Undertaking the subject “Facilitating Online Education” (EDUC99070), one of the key elements was to develop a “Community of Inquiry”. In the first instance, we were a diverse group of staff working across different specialist/discipline areas with the University of Melbourne. We were generally all interested in (further) developing skills to better adapt to the changes due to the impacts of the Covid pandemic that enforced the necessity for online teaching and learning. I was the only one with an Education background, and working with the MGSE (Melbourne Graduate School of Education).

Over the first few weeks, we were introduced to a number of different platforms in which to build and share our own ePortfolios using edublogs.org and to join numerous free platforms/apps easily available through linking up online.

Some of these included:

and a number of other platforms… I found myself lost amongst numerous open tabs on my computer, not quite knowing which ones would be most useful for my needs, logging on through email address (I have a few) Google, Facebook, Outlook, UniMelb … all different passwords and login processes. At one point I noticed I had over 80 tabs open across two web browsers.

Today’s open Tabs…

And then it was finding the time to ‘play’ (that is, ‘learn how to use’), linking it appropriately with the necessary ongoing teaching work and family/home responsibilities, rediscovering a range of sites I had joined and built up over the previous ten years or so, and to absorb new information with rapid and brief outlines. And then there were the new acronyms: EOR, COI, SOTEL, DBR, AR, VR, MMR … and masses of links to readings that I couldn’t find time for, and when I did, just couldn’t absorb it due to the language, content, terminology, and way(s) they were written.

So back to our Community of Inquiry (COI)…

There are many outlines, descriptions, and examples of this popular framework to be found. (Refer to my previous Post: https://abelspace.edublogs.org/2021/06/01/university-of-melbourne-online-study/ ). This key statement is derived from Dewey’s work (1938) on a community of inquiry – requiring three interdependent elements: a cognitive presence (the learner), a social presence (the learning community) and a teaching presence (the professor).

“An educational community of inquiry is a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding” http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/coi

In my experience, although we had the essential elements of a COI, I found myself feeling further and further disconnected – not so much any missing elements from the above triad, but lacking a sense of common purpose, of active collaboration, actively supporting each other, and personally, of being further out on the periphery, and falling way behind. I don’t believe I was the only one however, but found myself activating the inevitable self-critique – fraudster, can’t keep up, over-stressed, can’t remember all these passwords/login procedures/acronyms … I could no longer even stand to have my camera on during our weekly meets.

My on-screen presence – I couldn’t even work out how to upload a photo for my profile!

Our first ‘assessment task’ was to populate our ePortfolios, most of us choosing to share via ‘edublogs’ platform. I was quite excited about this as I’ve had a WordPress blog for a number of years (https://abelspace.wordpress.com/), I enjoy writing and illustrating, and I am one for constantly questioning what is around me. However, I did not do this for recognition, career advancement, lots of followers or fame, I did it partly to document my journey and thoughts, and partly to use as a ‘reflective journal’, where I could try to make sense of my thoughts and to see how I may have changed over this time. I thought, why not do this in a ‘public space’, I’ve got nothing to lose.

I dutifully set up my new blog (you are here now!) and began to add content, covering a number of topics and venting myself in various ways. To date, this is my 16th post, and I keep having ideas for more. I have had 16 Comments, made by 4 individuals in total.

https://abelspace.edublogs.org/ Comments 3 June, 2021

Part of our task was to make comments on other people’s blogs. I spent some time reading blogs written by my peers, and found them generally interesting, sometimes engaging, but rarely provocative or activating or inviting my further engagement or response. Amy Gray’s blog however, and her comments on my blog, did pique my interest.

We did end up working together and sharing ideas for Assessment tasks 2 & 3: To present an online Draft proposal for the implementation of a blended or fully online unit, and to build an LMS Unit prototype, including revised proposal.

Reflections on our ‘mini’ Community of Inquiry

Finding and following up a ‘shared interest‘, initially through noticing each other’s oral contributions during our course zoom mtgs, and then interacting (commenting) on each other’s individual blog sites.
Spurred originally by us both having worked in Lao PDR, with a place and culturally based ongoing interest in the region, the people and its uniqueness, as well as challenges in working across linguistic and cultural borders.
Amy wrote a very well considered comment in response to one of my blogs about Module 7 ‘Immersive Reality’ (IR) and ‘Virtual Reality’ (VR), in which we both recognised the potential for students’ ‘safe immersion’ into challenging and potentially distressing socio-cultural contexts, particularly in terms of current travel restrictions, and of ‘building empathy’ and developing cultural competencies.
We were both very impressed by Stephen Aiello’s presentation: Developing culturally responsive practice using mixed reality (XR) simulation in Paramedicine which gives an excellent overview of how this team has tried to utilise XR simulation to fulfil a similar purpose. However, this and most other examples of XR/VR or 360 views, involve places and objects, with an absence of people, which is still an issue I am wanting to explore further.
Although our disciplines and faculties differ (Health/Education), we were both interested in how these technologies could be useful in helping our students to better understand and learn these skills of “Culturally Responsive Practice” which I teach about explicitly in my course.
We further discovered that we had both considered ‘giving up the course’, finding EDUC99070 overwhelming and difficult to engage with the content, technical jargon and concepts, readings and perhaps also our ‘peers’.
So our collaboration and interest in each other’s work and thinking moved onto email contact and then telephone conversations and to shared Microsoft documents, Adobe Spark and Padlet.
We initially talked about a shared course design or unit within a broader course, focussed on combining our disciplines with a common focus on “Culturally Responsive Practice”, that could be offered to both those working in Education and in Health. We could share our expertise and look for common elements across disciplinary boundaries.
As it turned out, it was a community made up of very different personalities, the Pragmatist (Amy) and the Esoteric (me). While I worked away at bringing together relevant ‘content’, to be developed through my knowledge area of pedagogy that is second nature to me, Amy suggested we work together on a course she was already responsible for developing, and already made a start on, “Global Child Health – a discovery subject for the Melbourne MD”. This meant we already had a reason for doing it, a general framework, shared interest in learning from and sharing with each other, and the possibility of getting it completed for Assessment!

Final Reflections

I highlighted above, some of the elements that made for a successful team collaboration and output. In hindsight, I’m not sure this is quite what Dewey meant by a Community of Inquiry. But in terms of pedagogy, I was drawn back to the notion of collaboration …

A Community of Inquiry can be described as:

a group of people […] who use discussion to engage in deep thinking, explore big ideas, and grapple with the challenges and possibilities in a puzzling concept, idea or circumstance’
(Museum Victoria n.d.)

This form of community of inquiry was developed by Matthew Lipman 2003) […who] argued that a community of inquiry is characterised by; ‘non adversarial deliberations, shared cognitions, the cultivation of literacy and philosophical imagination and the encouragement of deep reading, and the enjoyment of dialogical texts’ (Lipman 2003). Moreover, Lipman’s account of a community of inquiry includes the following features: inclusiveness, participation, shared cognition, face-to face relationships, the quest for meaning, feelings of social solidarity, deliberation, impartiality, modelling, thinking for oneself, challenging as a procedure, reasonableness, the reading, the questioning and the discussion
https://rrr.edu.au/unit/module-2/topic-4/collaborative-classrooms/

The above quote is related to classroom teaching, but is pedagogically relevant to both what Amy and I did together, and what this course (EDUC99070) set out to achieve.

(Note, I retain the use of the term ‘pedagogy’ – rather than other introduced terms such as ‘andragogy’ or ‘heutagogy’ . I realise this is controversial – see https://elmlearning.com/pedagogy-vs-andragogy/ but I believe that anyone who is well versed in pedagogical theory, is able to modify their approach according to the age/experience of students/learners, but the basic theories are always relevant.)

Effective pedagogy is about relationships. Building relationships, emphasising empathy, recognising and overcoming biases, noticing, listening, facilitating, encouraging, being genuine, being as ‘authentic’ as possible, knowing your subject/knowing your learners, being fair, being just and believing in the importance of what and who we teach for a better future world.

At this concluding point of the course, Amy and I hope to continue collaborating and working on these ideas together. I know that I have developed more knowledge of the technology out there, more confidence in my own grounding in Education theory (particularly Curriculum & Pedagogy) as being relevant to learners at all levels, become far more interested in developing approaches and expertise into better online/dual mode delivery, and developed a far better understanding of how education is being actualised in the University of Melbourne context. I am looking forward to actively pursuing relationships with others with shared interests, to working with my course co-ordinators in developing their online course designs, and ‘finding the time to play’ mentioned at the outset of this post!

References

Akdere, M., Acheson, K., Jiang, Y. (2021)
An examination of the effectiveness of virtual reality technology for intercultural competence development,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Volume 82, Pages 109-120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.03.009.

Batt-Rawden, Samantha A. MBChB; Chisolm, Margaret S. MD; Anton, Blair; Flickinger, Tabor E. MD, MPH Teaching Empathy to Medical Students, Academic Medicine: August 2013 – Volume 88 – Issue 8 – p 1171-1177 doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299f3e3

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Hold Rinehart and Winston

Lipman, M 2003, Thinking in Education, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Diversity, Facilitating Online Learning, Review

(comment & excerpts from…) Artificial intelligence research may have hit a dead end

May 3, 2021 abelspace Leave a comment

“Misfired” neurons might be a brain feature, not a bug — and that’s something AI research can’t take into account

By THOMAS NAIL

APRIL 30, 2021 10:00PM (UTC)

https://www.salon.com/2021/04/30/why-artificial-intelligence-research-might-be-going-down-a-dead-end/

[…] artificial intelligence researchers and scientists are busy trying to design “intelligent” software programmed to do specific tasks. There is no time for daydreaming.

Or is there? What if reason and logic are not the source of intelligence, but its product? What if the source of intelligence is more akin to dreaming and play?

Recent research into the “neuroscience of spontaneous fluctuations” points in this direction. If true, it would be a paradigm shift in our understanding of human consciousness. It would also mean that just about all artificial intelligence research is heading in the wrong direction.

Yet all approaches have one thing in common: they treat intelligence computationally, i.e., like a computer with an input and output of information.

Narrow AI excels at accomplishing specific tasks in a closed system where all possibilities are known. It is not creative and typically breaks down when confronted with novel situations. On the other hand, researchers define “general AI” as the innovative transfer of knowledge from one problem to another.

Decades of neuroscience have experimentally proven that neurons can change their function and firing thresholds, unlike transistors or binary information. It’s called “neuroplasticity,” and computers do not have it.

Spontaneous fluctuations are neuronal activities that occur in the brain even when no external stimulus or mental behavior correlates to them. These fluctuations make up an astounding 95% of brain activity while conscious thought occupies the remaining 5%. In this way, cognitive fluctuations are like the dark matter or “junk” DNA of the brain. They make up the biggest part of what’s happening but remain mysterious.

Neuroscientists have known about these unpredictable fluctuations in electrical brain activity since the 1930s, but have not known what to make of them. Typically, scientists have preferred to focus on brain activity that responds to external stimuli and triggers a mental state or physical behavior. They “average out” the rest of the “noise” from the data.

This is why computer engineers, just like many neuroscientists, go to great lengths to filter out “background noise” and “stray” electrical fields from their binary signal.

This is a big difference between computers and brains. For computers, spontaneous fluctuations create errors that crash the system, while for our brains, it’s a built-in feature.

What if noise is the new signal? What if these anomalous fluctuations are at the heart of human intelligence, creativity, and consciousness?

There is no such thing as matter-independent intelligence. Therefore, to have conscious intelligence, scientists would have to integrate AI in a material body that was sensitive and non-deterministically responsive to its anatomy and the world. Its intrinsic fluctuations would collide with those of the world like the diffracting ripples made by pebbles thrown in a pond. In this way, it could learn through experience like all other forms of intelligence without pre-programmed commands.

In my view, there will be no progress toward human-level AI until researchers stop trying to design computational slaves for capitalism and start taking the genuine source of intelligence seriously: fluctuating electric sheep.

My comment/reflections…

Yes, I read this and excerpted elements that resonated particularly strongly with me. Whenever I hear discussions about AI, I have misgivings. This article helps me to articulate some of these.

Notions such as creativity, addressing ‘novel situations’, going beyond ‘what is known’, or programmed, to find novel solutions that may not have been already attempted. A “closed system where all possibilities are known” is simply a translation of human fallibility with all its potential biases and blind spots, into, as the author says, “computational slaves for capitalism”. One that works faster, cheaper, more efficiently, but without the potential for the fluctuations and ‘noise’ to get in the way.

Well this ‘noise’, to me, is the human condition and I believe it contributes to the wonders of diversity, of difference, of creativity and even what might be considered bohemian or eccentric responses and ways of being that provide the colours of our world.

In terms of the origins of the new technological and AI machinery, what would it mean in terms of the ethics, morals and understandings of ‘right and wrong’, good/bad, acceptability of ‘solutions’, if any nation, sect or belief system of the world was able to program and develop it? Any religion, any philosophy, any group or individual? We know who is ruling the development of AI right now, is that ok with you and me? With our neighbours, our extended families, our region or our place in the world? Have we thought about why this might be, or how it might feel different if our own belief systems were completely incompatible or in opposition?

Diversity, Facilitating Online Learning, Social Media

Reflecting on social media ‘bullshit’ in solomon islands

April 25, 2021 abelspace 2 Comments

https://devpolicy.org/social-media-bullshit-threatens-control-of-covid-19-outbreak-in-png-20210323-3/

Reading Sue Ahearn’s well informed article published in Devpolicy.org (or see Who we are) provides a kind of a background to ways in which social media is used in this part of the Pacific. My knowledge and experience is with the Solomon Islands, an archipelago of small islands geographically and culturally close to the much larger PNG. At this time, the threat of COVID is very real, but in the Solomon Islands towns and more remote areas of PNG, news and ‘facts’ are shared primarily through Social Media, mostly FB.

Few people have the skills or literacy abilities for critical analysis or ‘fact finding’ beyond a headline or brief comment/claim. Paying for data to connect to the internet or to open links is out of reach of most people. Links are often posted to less reputable sites that present stories inspired by ‘conspiracy theories’ that look just as trustworthy as any other. If it is a ‘doctor’ or a ‘priest’ presenting these ‘facts’, and if they are relatable (eg dark skin), they are more likely to be shared.

https://www.ourtelekom.com.sb/deals/hot-deals/
Solomon Islands main provider. Note small print… Many people complain about their data disappearing, or ‘being stolen from them’ – it is very hard to keep track.

https://devpolicy.org/internet-prices-in-papua-new-guinea-20200130/

When you clicked on this blog post to open it, did you think about how much money it would cost you for the blog page to open? For many internet users in developing nations, such issues are serious considerations, given high internet prices, particularly when compared to generally low incomes.
https://devpolicy.org/internet-prices-in-papua-new-guinea-20200130/
Written by Amanda H A Watson

If my friend in the Solomon Islands has data, they can access the internet. We use Messenger or IMO to speak but the quality is incredibly low and intermittent. They may call five times, I hear the ring, answer, hello? hello? hello???? I can’t hear anything… After a minute or two, hang up, then again, hello? hello? Can you hear me? A delay … a response comes through to something I said maybe 40 seconds ago. Maybe we can have a ‘conversation’, depending on where they are standing. Sorry, you’re breaking up … sorry, what did you say? Sorry, I missed that, not clear. This is how we ‘communicate’.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-12/australia-solomon-islands-png-sign-undersea-cable-deal/9983102

Australia signs on amid security concerns

“Back in 2016 the Solomon Islands government signed a deal with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei to lay a cable to Australia.
But the Australian government was concerned Huawei would be permitted to plug into Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure. […] The Australian Government then announced its support for the PNG cable and a few months later said it would foot most of the bill to lay the cable to the Solomon Islands as well.”

Old news now. The undersea cable was completed in 2019. As yet, there seems to be no improvement to the system or lowering of prices/access.

“Bringing lower cost fast and reliable internet and communications to the Solomon Islands through the Coral Sea Cable System and Their domestic network “
https://www.facebook.com/solomonsubmarinecable/

[No new or updated information appears to be available.]

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/post-implementation-review-the-coral-sea-cable-system-project

So, beyond the data/communication issues…

https://www.statistics.gov.sb/ – The Official Website front page – note dates!

The most recent Solomon Islands National Census was held on 24th November, 2019. (I was there! – it was a massive and difficult task, and like a lot of information in the Solomon Islands, is likely to not quite tell the whole truth!) But it is clear to all that it is a very rapidly growing population, and keeping up with infrastructure to support and educate this population is constantly far behind what is required.

As can be seen clearly in the information provided below, the increase in social media users in the Solomon Islands is also massive, and rapid. It is hardly surprising that with this growth, the generally low levels of media literacy or English language skills, and the proportion of the population who live in rural areas (generally village subsistence) that misinformation and/or conspiracy theories and calls to ‘return to traditional (and godly) ways’, are often the responses on or to social media posts.

https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-solomon-islands#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20mobile%20connections,71%25%20of%20the%20total%20population.

Schools in the Solomon Islands are banning mobile phones – even boarding schools where the students live far from their homes and families, which has had a mixed response. (Link to interesting article about pros and cons of banning mobile phones in schools) Social media and internet access is often blamed for declining standards – loss of respect, declining education standards, increased rapes and unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence … all blamed on the proliferation of pornography and western values through mobile phone use and exposure. Interestingly, some commentators (particularly those working with NGOs) also note that it is more likely that social media and internet access just makes the news about instances involving these declining standards far more public than before.

Culture and close extended family networks mean that incidences have often been shut down and kept quiet as protection from shame being brought about after such events. Corruption at high levels has also continued ad nauseum. Social media has provided a ‘voice’ for victims and increase in awareness and human rights, but this is really so ‘new’ and so sudden that the controversy over banning Facebook by the Solomon Islands Government is hardly surprising. (see previous post: SOCIAL MEDIA IN LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES)

Covid-19

Globally shared information about Covid-19, in a country that has had only 20 cases, all brought in by overseas travellers and quarantined, with apparently few to no symptoms, is difficult to take on or believe or relate to. I hear regularly of far too many deaths in the only National Referral Hospital, people of all ages, dying primarily of Non-communicable diseases and lack of treatment options being available. These deaths are shared by family members and people pay their condolences with messages on Facebook. It is hardly surprising that local Solomon Islanders would be more inclined to stories and local pandemics rather than this foreign pandemic that has the world on edge, and a ‘vaccination’ for something that hasn’t touched them beyond closed borders and financial loss.

As can be seen in the latest on COVID in neighbouring PNG (above), the case in the Solomon Islands is volatile and could change rapidly at any time. Much international Aid and attention has been put on the Covid pandemic with increased education and quarantine measures, but many people are resistant and aggrieved that this money is not being spent on existing problems.

For better or worse, social media is a tool that has opened up communication and access to information in the Solomon Islands but how much of this is ‘mis-informed bullshit’ remains a cause for concern and vigilance.

Diversity, Social Media

Social media in less developed countries

April 19, 2021 abelspace Leave a comment

So there are about one billion three hundred and ten million results found on this query in 0.55 seconds? I was actually considering my own experiences with social media over three years, when I lived and worked in two ‘less developed countries’, Laos and Solomon Islands, during the period 2017-2019. But I’m not sure I have anything new or original to add, if there are that many ‘relevant’ posts already!

Savannakhet, Lao PDR 2016-2017

In Laos I found that Facebook, WhatsApp, and no doubt other platforms, were used in a multitude of ways. As an outsider, everyone I met would ask me to link up with them on social media. I was resistant, I had made it a self proclaimed policy back then (2016) that I would only make ‘friends with’, or link with people I knew, and felt comfortable with. I seriously considered setting up a new FB profile that I could use so that my current friends and feeds did not get mixed in with my new friends and feeds.

Can I create multiple Facebook accounts? https://www.facebook.com/help/975828035803295/?ref=share

I didn’t bother setting myself up a new page/profile. It seemed many of those making requests wanted to simply link up, and thereby use our ‘friendship’ like a reference on their resume, which turned out to be not a problem for me. They did ‘like’ my posts, so we were somehow ‘connected’. In 2021 I still am connected to a number of these people. We share our news- often their posts are in Lao language, and I will translate it. I still have a friend who contacts me often – I used to sit down and ‘talk’ with her every day after work over a reviving beer lao, but we never really shared a common language. We now correspond via Facebook, and she says that she uses a translator app to maintain the conversation.

The culture and Lao context is very different to what many of us (in more ‘developed’ countries’ might know or expect. The college I worked at, the staff and many of my friends were very ‘rule oriented’, they loved their uniforms, conformity was applauded and expected. They laughed at my antics, wanted to learn from my English, and were amused at my non-conformist behaviour. Flip side was that I was an outsider in all ways, a source of curiosity and friendliness, but always on the periphery of the society, never really having access to the deep culture and beliefs of these people.

What I learnt about social media in this context was that it was a tool to make and retain connections, that for many it was a source of English language and mixed cultural examples, that Buddhist monks used social media and that in some ways, it contributed to opening up the world and possibilities of social and cultural connections and understandings. At the same time it was used by most people to communicate locally, and the more ‘friends’ on your list the more socially ‘successful’ you were seen to be. But on the other hand, these ‘connections’ are also heavily impacted upon by Covid and travel restrictions. So for the moment, social media keeps me somewhat in the ‘loop’ with my beloved Savannakhet, Lao PDR.

Solomon Islands – 1994, 2004, 2018-19

I spent longer in the Solomon Islands, and have longer standing relationships there. When I first went as a volunteer in 1994, there were few telephones or even electricity connections (none in rural areas where the majority of population still live), no mobile phones, few computers or access to technology. What there was was often donated through aid, and mostly ended up useless as there was no expertise in repairs. I lived on a remote island (Pigeon Island, Temotu) in 2004 and they had a small computer connected to the Sailmail communications system, and a two way radio that people would come from surrounding areas to use to send or receive urgent messages from the capital.

Brief sideline – I found myself as the new teacher at Pigeon Island with my son after responding to this advertisement in 2004… http://www.nelligennet.com/pigeon1e.htm

Since that time, I had received requests from extended family and friends to connect on Facebook. Most of my Facebook feed is now from the Solomon Islands and I am able to keep contact with friends, extended family, colleagues and professionals. I am able to keep up with news and discussion forums, government announcements, interest groups, and more. I still host and maintain two Facebook pages with former colleagues – Friends of Special Development Centre and Research, Reports and Statistics of Solomon Islands.

The use of Facebook in the Solomon Islands has caused some controversy, as access is relatively new for many people, it is available in most areas, and the Solomon Islands Government (SIG) recently tried to instigate a plan to ‘Ban Facebook’. This set off all kinds of backlash and anti-government sentiment being shared, alongside more traditionally focussed members of the community who in fact continue to blame Facebook for the declining respect for tradition, access to pornography (and hence rise in violent rape and crime) and the negative influence of Western behaviours.

It also happened in the midst of the Covid ‘SOE’ – State of Emergency, that was said to give the government unnecessary powers to stifle public knowledge or opinion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-23/solomon-islands-set-to-ban-facebook-for-sake-of-national-unity/12910786

After the initial announcement, the online forums and public posts went in all directions! More technologically astute people began to share ways to get around the ‘ban’ (which was only FB, not any other platform) and other social media options were shared, including questionable sites (a lot of these had increased popularity during Trump’s dying days). The level of technological mastery is generally low, particularly in the provinces, so for many it was Facebook or nothing. A large and vocal number of people preferred nothing.

The SIG later backed down on these plans, and things have largely gone back to the way they were, although certain media commentators and content decision makers do seem to be more cautious about what they will post.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-15/solomon-islands-backtracks-on-plan-to-ban-facebook/13060246

This is the first of my posts relating to Social Media use in Developing countries. Please look out for my next post: Reflecting on social media ‘bullshit’ in solomon islands

Diversity, Facilitating Online Learning, Review, Teacher/Academic work

module 7: immersive reality – pre and post reflections

April 19, 2021 abelspace 2 Comments

In #COM000848 – Facilitating Online Learning this week, “we explore Immersive Reality as an EOR to support online learning that supports learner exploration and authentic online learning environments”.

Pre-Reflection

The question I have relates to education/learning that is about actual interaction with humans in all their diversity and about respecting the strengths, needs, values, beliefs and experiences of people from diverse backgrounds. How do we teach/learn about responding effectively to situations that do not (and should not) be categorised or generalised, or responded to in a way that dismisses context (including sensory, emotionally, dis/comfort, familiarity, implicit/unconscious bias, tone, status…) and incorporates cultural sensitivity, understanding of appropriateness in terms of neuro- and gender diversity, and the above mentioned aspects of diversity?
How can virtual reality provide opportunities to truly experience these diverse and often unexpected or ungeneralisable ‘realities’, let alone test or measure the appropriateness of student responses? It is the unknown and unexpected ‘human’ response variations that concern me here. How can virtual/immersive reality prepare one for such events?

I work in the Faculty of Education (MSGE and across various other institutions) with pre-service teachers. I can fully understand the benefits of Immersive /Virtual Reality in terms of methods (ie teaching areas, or disciplines), particularly since COVID where experiential access is now far greater and so many new opportunities to ‘experience’ locations, information, ideas and become ‘immersed’ exist.

However, my area of interest and expertise relates more to education issues in general – in terms of diversity/difference, pedagogy in terms of relationships, in issues that relate less to the ‘disciplines’ and content (the what) and more about the who, the how and the why.

AITSL (The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership) has instituted a number of Standards (APSTs – Australian Professional Standards for Teachers) that include the following:

Of particular relevance are those detailed under Standard 1 :

1.1 Physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics of students
1.2 Understand how students learn
1.3 Students with diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds
1.4 Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students
1.5 Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities
1.6 Strategies to support full participation of students with disability
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

So again, I reiterate my question, can these pedagogical considerations be achieved or improved or be better implemented through augmented reality technology?

Post Seminar Reflections

Two guest presenters were brought in to present their overviews and experiences with Immersive Reality – Stephen Aiello (Links to an external site.) and Claudio Aguayo (Links to an external site.).

In the module content, design principles were introduced, each of which still seem to bypass the human/relational ‘authenticity’ question that relates to my concerns outlined above (and in our presentation on ‘Authentic Learning’).

Design Principle 1: Rather than Perfectly Duplicate, Replicate where Possible and Innovate where Necessary

Design Principle 2: The Collaboration that Is Essential to Instantiating Authentic Tasks-Based Learning Strategies Online Is a New Experience for Most Learners and Must Be Carefully Nurtured

Design Principle 3: The Fidelity of the Simulated Experiential Learning Environment Does Not Have to Be Exceptionally High as Long as it Enables Learners to Suspend Disbelief and Feel that What they Are Experiencing Is Real.

Kartoğlu, Ü., Siagian, R. C., & Reeves, T. C. (2020).

Aguayo, C., Eames, C., & Cochrane, T. (2020, 03/09) offer a framework for complementary mixed reality (XR) and free-choice learning education. Content from Table 1. Pedagogy/heutagogy (teaching and learning principles) is copied below (my highlighting).

i. Focus should be placed in self-determined (heutagogical) learning, where the learning is guided by learners’ motivations and needs.

ii. The placement of the outside-the-classroom visit within a teaching unit is pedagogically important.

iii. The structure of the outside-the-classroom visit is pedagogically and logistically important.

iv. Pre-visit resources can help to sensitise learners and initiate connections to place (the visit site).

v. Use of the mobile learning resources (virtual/immersive environments) should be designed to complement and not detract from sensory (embodied/haptic) experiences in the real environment.

vi. The visit should allow freedom to experience but also have some focus to scaffold learning, and to promote interactions between learners (social learning).

vii. Opportunities for learners to interact with both real and virtual/immersive learning environments increase learner autonomy and engagement.

viii. Learning needs to be reinforced post-visit to deepen knowledge, clarify attitudes and support next learning steps

Whilst this is an excellent list of ways to set up and use mixed reality learning opportunities most effectively, particularly for adult learning, it does not address the types of skills that may be required from instructors (or school teachers) in relation to diversity in terms of i) needs/motivations; iv) sensitisation and initiating connections; v) sensory experiences (or responses); vi) interactions; or viii) attitudes.

After the two presentations, I had the opportunity to ask my question directly to the presenters. Claudio Aguayo (Links to an external site.) outlined a number of projects utilising XR such as “Explora XR Chile” and “Cultural Heritage – Virtual Maroe” that looks at ways of interacting with places of cultural and geographical significance. “Rethinking the future of Maori community health with digital media and warm data” provoked particular interest in terms of the possibilities of utilising qualitative data that centres on “interrelationships that integrate elements of a complex system” – potentially inclusive of cultural and other types of diversity.

Stephen Aiello however, shared the following project with us, that seems to finally acknowledge my recognition and suspicions relating to ‘authenticity’ and diverse relational human dilemmas. He said that my concerns were important ones, and that little research seems to exist on how this might be effectively incorporated into XR simulation.

In the link below, he directly talks about the issues that always concern me – the necessity for cultural competence to be considered and taught; the necessity for us all to examine our own biases, which he associates with “attitudes, assumptions, stereotypes and personal characteristics” and how we need to develop the appropriate skills and knowledge to provide culturally safe and contextually relevant practices and treatments (and in my case, pedagogy).

Developing culturally responsive practice using mixed reality (XR) simulation in Paramedicine Education (adobe.com)

I am happy now to see some hope in ways that XR simulation/Virtual Reality can be developed and potentially utilised in ways that are able to consider how we can all develop our cultural competence and tackle some of the many issues around how we respond to and get to know other perspectives and beliefs, and ways of understanding the ‘real’ world(s).

References:

Aguayo, C., Eames, C., & Cochrane, T. (2020, 03/09). A Framework for Mixed Reality Free-Choice, Self-Determined Learning [Journal]. Research in Learning Technology, 28(Mobile Mixed Reality – Themed Collection). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2347

Kartoğlu, Ü., Siagian, R. C., & Reeves, T. C. (2020). Creating a “Good Clinical Practices Inspection” Authentic Online Learning Environment through Educational Design Research. TechTrends : for leaders in education & training, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00509-0

Leve, A & Sayers, R (2021) Authentic Learning https://spark.adobe.com/page/Mc1Uj5DRZPjkK/

Ed Deliberations