Month: February 2020

Augmented Learning is very exciting for me in the world of workplace education.  The reality that my learners can experience a modified environment that replicates what they will experience when doing their jobs allows me to design experiences that are realistic and relatable.  As I’ve noted in earlier posts, Adobe Captivate’s new feature to create eLearning courses in a virtual reality format makes it easier for someone like me to use a rapid development tool to create these types of immersive learning experiences.  Captivate calls the feature virtual reality as one could use a VR headset to experience a fully immersive environment (https://helpx.adobe.com/captivate/using/virtual-reality-project.html).  In my uses, it is likely that my learners will not have access to a VR headset; so, the experience will be less immersive.  However, I see tremendous value in having learners experience these courses although their experience will be flattened.  When viewing the course without a VR headset, the learner will use their computer mouse or tap on their mobile device to move through the course elements.

Augmented reality is the next frontier of this kind of learning.  “In AR systems, the user’s perception of the world is altered through the overlaid experiences of virtual and physical phenomena. This differs from virtual reality systems, where the user perceives only virtual or digital stimuli.” (Novak 2012)  I think of technologies like glasses that learners could wear to see elements of an augmented learning experience.  This is the ultimate way to simulate encounters that a learner may have while doing their job.  The learner can wear the technology to provide the augmented layer of reality while they are still perceiving the actual reality triggering all of the senses.  “These systems provide an environment that supports opportunities for higher quality human interaction across the digital and physical worlds.”  (Novak 2012)  Since AR experiences alter the experience of reality for the learner, “AR not only allows real-life simulation but also enables the impossible to be experienced.” (Han 2015)  The possibilities are endless for this type of training.  As Dunleavy noted, “AR is an instructional approach looking for the context where it will be the most effective tool amongst the collection of strategies available to educators.”

I have struggled with this to some extent, even with VR projects.  The technology itself is invigorating and triggers creative ideas on the potential ways AR can be used to support learning transfer.  With VR projects, I envisioned them being especially beneficial for situations in which it is difficult for the learner to authentically experience the events being trained on—like a safety procedure on extinguishing fires or handling a life-threatening emergency like a plane stalling.    I see similar potential with AR as well.  In addition, AR allows the learner to resource material while experiencing the authentic context of the environment.  Novak notes, “current research shows that AR can support just-in-time, context-based learning, and can help to build knowledge-rich environments.”  An example of how this could be used in my environment would be that learners are provided with glasses or a device that would allow them to see the augmented context.  As the learner does their job, they could look at items in the environment and choose to explore information about the items in the environment—maybe they look at a check encoding machine and the device allows them to view a step-by-step process or video on how to complete a task using the machine.  The device could also show hotspots or targets of where to insert the check and give the learner feedback when they perform the task successfully or guide them to the proper way as they make mistakes.  The articles this week on AR discussed using AR capable devices in curation activities and these have potential in my environment as well. (Novak 2012)

Like with many technologies, we learn best practices as we use them.  In Champney’s 2015 study using AR for military training, they noted several recommendations when using AR and these seem valuable for me to consider as I look to use it:

• Identification of the real and virtual world to reduce frustration.
• Training for AR users on how to use it.
• Appropriate level of detail when and where it is needed.
• Consideration of the amount of time the learner is in the AR environment to avoid sickness.

The potential uses of AR in workplace education are exciting.  As the devices that support AR become more accessible and tools to develop these types of experiences are available, I anticipate using the technology in learning experiences that I design.  However, it will be important to consider the benefits and the costs to make the best use of the technology.

Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning (https://courses.worl dcampus.psu.edu/canvas/master/ms-142150-20160602160611/common/corefiles/Dunleavy,_Dede_2014.pdf) . In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York: Springer.

Novak, D., Wang, M., & Callaghan, V. (2012). Looking in, looking out: A discussion of the e ducational affordances of current mobile augmented reality technologies (https://courses.worldc ampus.psu.edu/canvas/master/ms-142150-20160602160611/common/corefiles/AR_k-workplace.pdf) . In J. Jai (Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: From kindergarten to workplace training (pp. 92 –206). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Han, J., Jo, M., Hyun, E., & So, H. J. (2015). Examining young children’s perception toward augmented reality-infused dramatic play (https://www-jstor-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/24546 629?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) . Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 455-474.

Champney, R., Lackey, S. J., Stanney, K., & Quinn, S. (2015). Augmented reality training of military tasks: Reactions from subject matter experts (https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/ master/ms-142150-20160602160611/common/corefiles/Champeny_2015_military_AR.pdf) . In R. Shumaker & S. Lackey (Eds.), Virtual, augmented and mixed reality (pp. 251–262). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Learning happens all around us.  I cannot think of a day when I haven’t reached for a resource to learn something new.  At work, I might reach out to a community of people on my laptop who use a software program that I do to solve a problem.  At home, I might reach for my iPhone to locate a video recipe on preparing the perfect Old Fashioned.  And, as I mentioned in my previous post, I have definitely resourced materials and videos to help me with physical activities.  As Looi describes,

We see that ready‐to‐hand access creates the potential for a new phase in the evolution of technology‐enhanced learning, characterised by ‘seamless learning spaces’ and marked by continuity of the learning experience across different scenarios or contexts, and emerging from the availability of one device or more per student. The challenge is to enable learners to learn whenever they are curious and seamlessly switch between different contexts, such as between formal and informal contexts and between individual and social learning, and by extending the social spaces in which learners interact with each other.

These “seemless learning spaces” support a continual experience of learning and culture of resourcing.  No longer can you not ‘ask for directions.’  The directions are literally in your palm and Siri won’t judge you or critique you for how many times you’ve asked her the same question.  The seamless nature of this experience allows us to find what we need, when we need it and how we need it.  It’s what the talent development folks would view as the ultimate right time learning.

Looi also brings up an issue that I struggle with.  Part of my role is administration of a learning management system for a financial institution.  We are highly regulated and are legally required to prove employees have satisfied training on compliance topics.  The issue of tracking and reporting is difficult in this seamless space.

As we have argued, learning can happen in any situation and context. However, how to capture learning that is not planned, not fixed and probably without validated instruments to measure, and usually individualised, poses great challenges to learning‐science researchers.

In my role, one of my goals is to provide my adult learners choice to support their drive of self-directedness.  To do this, I would like to offer the ability for learners to customize their experience through selecting the way they learn—maybe an in-person class, online course or reading materials—when they learn.  Mobile options would help me advance towards this goal and I’m working on finding a system that can support this kind of structure.

Kearney discussed the ability of m-learning to “transcend   these   spatial   and   temporal restrictions, overcoming ‘‘the need to tie particular activities to particular places or particular times’’(Traxler 2009, 7).”  Just this year, Adobe Captivate came out with the ability to offer virtual reality learning.  It is awesome.  You simply take a 360 photo, upload it to the program and then place targets for the learner to access while viewing the experience.  I see this most valuable in new hire orientation training, facility tours and safety trainings.  It takes an eLearning course from boring to cutting edge with relative ease and, importantly provides the capability of tracking the learners interaction and success in the virtual environment.

Churchill provides the RASE learning design framework and it seems relevant to my applications as well.  The framework describes that success is best achieved when a learning experience includes:  resources, activity, support and evaluation (Churchill 2016).   This reminds me of Horton’s absorb-do-connect model with an additional focus on support (Horton).  I’ll be looking for ways to include more elements of support and evaluation, aside from quizzing in my lessons.

This week’s reading really made me reflect on how I can work to overcome the issue of tracking learning at my organization.  In some situations, I feel that self-reporting could be an option for non-compliance related items.  Or, even a requirement to pass a standard test on the topic but the way in which one learns it is self-selected.  As I work to improve my designs, I see great potential in allowing alternative options—and for many these may be mobile learning experiences.

Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda (http://ezaccess.libraries.p su.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48035657&site=ehost-live&sc ope=site) . British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective (https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1225) . Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17.

Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2016). Framework for designing mobile learning environments (https://link-springer-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-0027-0_1) . In D. Churchill, J. Lu, T. Chiu, & B. Fox (Eds.), Mobile learning design: Theories and applications (pp. 3–25). Singapore: Springer.

Horton, W. (2012).  E-Learning by Design.  San Francisco, CA. Pfeiffer.