Why Visualization is Better

I learned a lot from the Pandemic, mostly from the epic educational fails I’ve observed. I’ve seen parents at their wit’s end, teachers pushed beyond their capacity, and technologies that don’t quite have the ‘umph’ to get the job done. I’ve also seen Zoom fatigue set in, lessons shortened to make weak learning experiences a bit more palatable, and student boredom reign supreme.

Isn’t there a better way to do remote learning / online teaching / blended learning or whatever other form of classroom learning we can expect to wrestle with in the coming school year? Isn’t there a better way for educators to prepare for the unexpected? There certainly is. One answer rests in using visualization as a powerful teaching method. John Medina, the author of the bestselling book, Brain Rules, explains it this way: “Vision trumps all other senses... We learn more, faster, and retain learning longer if we use image rich content.” According to Medina, this “phenomenon is so pervasive, it has been given its own name: the pictorial superiority effect, or PSE.

One of the new learning technologies now coming on to the scene—the expansive 3D visualization library from CubeDigiCo—enables such a richly visual learning experience. For example, imagine a science animation that conveys through rich animation the process of photosynthesis in glorious 3D.

More than words that are spoken or still pictures in an ebook, this delightfully visual and animated 5-minute video vignette can convey complex concepts to children in a way that registers with the way they truly learn. And it conveys the information quickly, so that learner attention spans are not strained. (My experience is that these 3D animations are so visually appealing that students will not mind watching them more than once. See this example vignette.)

The quiet explosion these 3D visualization technologies in K12 schools enable a richer learning experience, magically ushering the learning at hand into the “mind’s eye.” Let’s reduce repetitive drill and practice programs, dull e-book readings, take-home packets, and uncomfortable Zoom sessions and move forward using a more richly visual canvas.

XR Summit

The XR Immersive Enterprise: Global Online Edition is coming in May...

Join thousands of online attendees for Reuters Events’ premium online strategy summit and unlock the value of VR and AR for enterprise. It’s taking place on May 5-7, Eastern Time, and it’s totally free of charge!

Find out more and register your place free of charge now

5 reasons to join XR Immersive Enterprise: Global Online Edition…

1. Plan your 2021 strategy with expert speaker keynotes sharing insights on the XR market, the impact of Covid-19 and the future of remote working
2. Takeaway valuable lessons from the live panel and Q&A sessions on the hottest topics for XR: Training, design, collaboration, integration and scale
3. Learn from example with confirmed case studies from huge enterprise names such as Volvo, UPS, Anglo American, SAP, Thomson Reuters and Raytheon
4. Don’t miss a thing – your registration gives you access to all the sessions on-demand, and make sure you connect with leading XR solution providers in the digital exhibition
5. Stay safe at home with all these business insights free of charge to view at your leisure and help you plan for the immersive future

Reserve your free pass to the digital conference now

Be there! See my unique VR presentation at SXSWedu entitled: 

"How VR helps struggling early readers."

This session is scehduled for March 9 at 3:30 p.m. I'll see you there.

Another interesting Webinar!

Tomorrow (Wednesday, January 15) a webinar on how to gain buy in and prove the value of XR is being offered and features a range of powerhouse speakers from Lockheed Martin, AECOM, Thermo Fisher Scientific and The AREA.

This is a free webinar, yet the content can be highly valuable for people both working and interested in the field. You’ll learn about the different approaches and lessons learned, as well as the best ways to prove the value of XR to management and peers.   

Here's the link to register : https://bit.ly/2QRAyOJ

A VR Webinar

Tomorrow! Wednesday

I encourage our readers to attend the upcoming webinar: how VR and AR/MR are changing training, education and worker guidance. This webinar is featuring speakers from Volvo, Aggreko, Boston Children’s Hospital and Virtualware.

This is a free webinar, yet the content can be highly valuable for people both working and interested in the field. You’ll learn about the different training styles, as well as the biggest challenges, opportunities and productivity gains when using XR.  

Sign up here https://bit.ly/2S1GVjO

An AR/VR Survey

Call for Sponsors and Participation: State of the Art in VR/AR in Education 2019 Survey

CARLOS J. OCHOA FERNÁNDEZ 

 

If interested to sponsor email carlos@thevrara.com

To fill out the survey, click here

Pricing Failure & VR

We've been talking about “pricing failure.” (See last two posts ) 

Fast-forwarding to virtual reality as we know it today, we don't need to look hard to see the same pricing failures, as greedy companies race to the highest price point for educational customers. And, frankly, schools simply cannot afford it. On the other hand, the ‘freemium’ pricing model is increasingly popular these days, where starting base of VR resources is free, but the best, the premium resources, have a price tag. And when we brush away the ‘free’ part of freemium, my oh my, that price is a hefty one. Sticker shock immediately sets in like concrete, preventing “the buy” or the reasonable scaling of virtual reality in the classroom. Especially when the offer comes as annual licensing as opposed to perpetual licensing.

Will a few greedy companies destroy this industry for the rest of us, before it has a chance to get legs? Just to make a killing? Strike gold? Since content is king, will content price failures undermine any hoped-for trajectory for hardware sales? Or will the freemium strategy, now increasing in frequency, pay off? One thing is for sure: if pricing failures get in the way of technologies reaching the educational market, then sic transit gloria mundi—“thus passes the glory of the world.” Or VR.

Pricing Failure (2)

We've been talking about “pricing failure.” (See last post for an introduction.)  

The opposite of “pricing success”, a “pricing failure” bursts on the scene when there isn’t a clear correlation between an item’s cost and its value/quality. It reminds me of a serious pricing failure, one I witnessed in the educational marketplace. Yes, I remember it distinctly, during the years of the initial stereo 3D explosion in film, displays, and projectors. A top-level manager from the DLP group at Texas Instruments whispered to me the hard truth: how the pricing set forth by just one or two educational 3D software producers was so rapacious, that those companies almost brought down the entire 3D industry/market in education—by steeply overpricing their content. I was there. I saw the gut-wrenching reaction of educational buyers. The pricing was, well, ridiculous. And this is still true about many promising technologies in education. Pricing failure is more common than one would think. 

Stay tuned for next week's conclusion about the potential for pricing failure in the expanding virtual reality world.

Is VR Headed for a Pricing Failure?

The evening weather was hot and unforgiving, the humidity beyond palpable. Not a great time to be wearing a suit in Puerto Vallarta, I thought, nevertheless enjoying the enchanting gourmet meal set out with certain elegance before me. I found myself here at the well-appointed Hacienda San Angel hotel, on a hilltop above the beautiful Guadalupe Church, not very far from the connected casitas that hosted Richard Burton and Liz Taylor in 1964.

The occasion for my visit was a destination wedding, a joyous gathering for the daughter of long-time friends and frequent co-travellers. Next to me sat a world-renowned New York City surgeon, “the” specialist in his field. He had invented and perfected successful medical procedures that were adopted all across the world. Yet, he was such a kind and unassuming man. 

He softly nodded and asked me: “What is it that you do?” 

I responded: “I work in the field of education, with a particular emphasis on 3D visualization and virtual reality.” 

A pleasant conversation ensued, but also a whirlwind of discovery. The conversation led to the use of 3D surgery in his field. He saw 3D surgery as a laudable development, but one that remained impractical. “Why?” I asked. He explained carefully and methodically that current medical surgical procedures were quite effective. He added that 3D surgery did, in fact, offer a number of incremental advantages and improvements. But the price offered to hospitals made the decision an easy one: it wasn’t worth the money to gain some benefits on the margin. The price for 3D surgical equipment was just too high. It just made no sense to switch to this nascent and ‘smart’ technology. So everyone in his field, for the most part, he explained, has stayed with traditional surgical methods. In fact, his manner changed slightly, as a bit of soft-anger oozed out, oddly contrasting with his normally calm demeanor. 

“They can’t expect us to pay those prices,” he charged.

That, dear readers, is what we call a “pricing failure.”  Join us the next two weeks for a look at the possibility of pricing failure in the flourishing VR world.

It's Ironic 7

Educational VR: The Irony of it All

The trendy presence of virtual reality these days leaves me with a sense of irony. (Please look at previous posts in this series for the context.) I am struck by the incongruity of the past and the future colliding in an uncomfortable way. I am describing something we’ve seen before—when we were pushing for 3D visualization tools in the classroom from 2010 through 2015. Virtual reality is all the rage today, but in the past, things didn’t look quite so bright. Though the technologies are really quite similar, something has changed. Here's my last effort at ironic sentiment: 

Complaint: Our 3D content won’t run on that other hardware platform.

Educator response to 3D (5 years ago): “Why do I need to buy that type of hardware and not just use what I’ve got?” “The content is too hardware specific.” “Our district won’t support that brand of equipment, sorry.”

Educator response to VR (today ), though VR also lacks unifying standards: “I don’t care—how can we do it?” “It’s just sexy!” “I’ll find a way.”

Of course, my entire message for this entire series plays on the irony of the times we are in. Virtual Reality is succeeding in the education market today, well, because, well, it’s… sexy. How long that will last? Who knows, but I suspect these questions won’t just go away. For now, here is how the education market works: over the next year or so, suppliers need to fill in the missing pieces and answer the unanswered questions or VR will be left in the backwaters of time and will be replaced by the latest trending whatchamacallit or gadget. Welcome to education. And P.S.: don’t show this article to your local VR enthusiast. Why not? Incongruity overly frustrates their sense of forward progress.

It's Ironic 6

Educational VR: The Irony of it All

The stout and trendy presence of virtual reality these days leaves me with a hefty sense of irony. (Please look at previous posts for the introduction to this series.) I am struck by the incongruity of the past and the future colliding in an uncomfortable way. I am describing something we’ve seen before—when we were pushing for 3D visualization tools in the classroom from 2010 through 2015. Virtual reality is all the rage today, but in the past, things didn’t look quite so bright. Though the technologies are really quite similar, something has changed. Here's my next effort at ironic sentiment: 

Complaint: I just can’t find enough 3D content.

Educator response to 3D (5 years ago): “There is not enough academic content to justify our purchase of this technology.” “Isn’t student-created content too difficult and time consuming to make?” “I just don’t see the curricular traction, sorry.”

Educator response to VR (today ), though VR also lacks comprehensive content and is difficult for students to construct: “I don’t care—this is really innovative, i.e. sexy!” “Where can I find more free content?”

It's ironic...

It's Ironic 5

Educational VR: The Irony of it All (5)

The stout and trendy presence of virtual reality these days leaves me with a hefty sense of irony. (Please look at previous weeks' post for the context to this series.) I am struck by the incongruity of the past and the future colliding in an uncomfortable way. I am describing something we’ve seen before—when we were pushing for 3D visualization tools in the classroom from 2010 through 2015. Virtual reality is all the rage today, but in the past, things didn’t look quite so bright. Though the technologies are really quite similar, something has changed. Here's my fourth effort at ironic sentiment:

Complaint: Laptops, projectors, 3D glasses—how do we manage all this stuff?

Educator response to 3D (5 years ago): “How do we store, disburse, and collect all this paraphernalia?” “How do we possibly keep the 3D glasses at full charge?” “How do we switch between 2D and 3D?” “Sorry, this is just too much to handle. I’m a busy teacher.”

Educator response to VR (today), even though VR headgear have increased size, storage and management concerns: “Oh, so sexy! Gotta get some.” “Managing these resources—huh? Is that really necessary?”

More irony coming next week...

It's Ironic 4

Educational VR: The Irony of it All (4)

The stout and trendy presence of virtual reality these days leaves me with a hefty sense of irony. (Please look at previous weeks' post for the context to this series.) I am struck by the incongruity of the past and the future colliding in an uncomfortable way. I am describing something we’ve seen before—when we were pushing for 3D visualization tools in the classroom from 2010 through 2015. Virtual reality is all the rage today, but in the past, things didn’t look quite so bright. Though the technologies are really quite similar, something has changed. Here's my third effort at ironic sentiment:

Complaint: 3D glasses can spread lice and diseases easily to children.

Educator response to 3D (5 years ago): “How do you expect us to stop and clean these devices between each use?” “This just isn’t on my radar, sorry. I’m too busy to be a janitor.”

Educator response to VR (today ), even though VR headgear offers the same concern: “My, this is sexy!” “I’ve got to have this for my classroom.” I'm not going to worry about cleaning them.”

Ain't it ironic?

It's Ironic 3

Educational VR: The Irony of it All

The stout and trendy presence of virtual reality these days leaves me with a hefty sense of irony. (Please look at the last two week's post for an introduction to this series.) I am struck by the incongruity of the past and the future colliding in an uncomfortable way. I am describing something we’ve seen before—when we were pushing for 3D visualization tools in the classroom from 2010 through 2015. Virtual reality is all the rage today, but in the past, things didn’t look quite so bright. Though the technologies are really quite similar, something has changed. Here's my third effort at ironic sentiment: 

Complaint: 3D makes some of my students sick.

Educator response to 3D (5 years ago): “How do you expect me to use a tool that makes students ill?” “How do we explain this to parents?” “My teachers are getting sick, too.” “We just can’t do this, sorry.”

Educator response to VR (today ), although VR makes even stronger visual demands on the student: “I don’t care, this is so transformational, i.e. really sexy!” “No, none of my children appear to be sick [even though I haven’t really asked them].” “Where can I buy this for my school and classroom?”

Ain't it ironic???

It's Ironic 2

Educational VR: The Irony of it All

The stout and trendy presence of virtual reality these days leaves me with a hefty sense of irony. (Please look at last week's post for the intorduction to this series.) I am struck by the incongruity of the past and the future colliding in an uncomfortable way. I am describing something we’ve seen before—when we were pushing for 3D visualization tools in the classroom from 2010 through 2015. Virtual reality is all the rage today, but in the past, things didn’t look quite so bright. Though the technologies are really quite similar, something has changed. Here's my second effort at ironic sentiment: 

Complaint: 3D costs too much. 

Educator response to 3D (5 years ago): “We can’t afford this.” “How do you expect teachers to buy this for each classroom?” “This just isn’t sustainable, sorry.”

Educator response to VR (today), even though VR costs much more, per student: “Wow, this is so sexy!” “Where can I get more?” "I'll find a way."

It's Ironic Intro

Educational VR: The Irony of it All

I recall the hall of fame release by the Byrds in 1965, a song that rhythmically and hauntingly chanted:

To everything (turn, turn, turn) There is a season (turn, turn, turn) And a time to every purpose, under heaven…A time to build up, a time to break downA time to dance, a time to mournA time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together…

This song aptly describes some of the emotions I experience while scouting VR at conferences. I am always struck by the incongruity of the past and the future colliding in an uncomfortable way.

I am describing something we’ve seen before—when we were pushing for 3D visualization tools in the classroom from 2010 through 2015. I know this arena well, having led one of the largest and most successful 3D implementations in U.S. schools, working closely with stalwart companies like Texas Instruments. Virtual reality is all the rage today, but in the past, things didn’t look quite so bright. Though the technologies are really quite similar, something has changed. We’ve morphed, as the Byrds would suggest, from a time of breaking down, to a period of building up. What happened? Over the next few posts, let me explain using a few juxtaposed examples. Here's my first example:

Complaint: These 3D glasses are just too heavy and uncomfortable for students.

Educator response to 3D (5 years ago): “They don’t fit the heads of children.” “They don’t work well for children wearing glasses.” “These just won’t work, sorry.”

Educator response to VR (today), even though glasses are heavier and more constraining: “Wow, isn’t this amazing!” “Can I try them on?” “How can I get more for my classroom?”

Isn't it ironic...?

 

Reality Check Conclusion

Let's pause and reflect on this series. I suppose, if you see the world pessimistically, the last four posts suggest that the penetration rate for VR as an emerging technology in education is far below the hype levels we all hear about; and if you view the world with rose-colored glasses, you might instead see this as a fertile market. [Shaping the Future] The bottom line problems with VR in education are well understood by educators. [Active] To educators, current VR experiences:

• cover very little of the written school curriculum
• are not easily managed in the classroom
• haven’t learned from the experiences and failures of the 3D in education movement of the last decade
• haven’t yet convinced teachers of their instructional merit

No, until virtual reality experiences can offer all of the requisite 4Es of education (engaging, effective, efficient, and easy to manage), we have a long way to go. [Immersive] —Len Scrogan

Remember, I have deliberately embedded words of hope throughout this series, as seen in the top paragraph, in [bracketed italics]. These are expressions that literally shout the promise and potential of virtual reality, while counterbalancing any bad news.  These words are not just taken magically from the air, but consist of actual text snatched from the VR-related exhibit hall booths and sales literature at a recent ed-tech conference, ‘designer’ phraseology that help sell VR to tech-hungry educators. 

Reality Check (4)

Little or No Change. In my undergraduate classes at the University of Colorado-Denver I started a process of surveying each incoming cohort about their experience with virtual reality. [Building imagination] The findings thus far from my first two semesters clearly align with my experience interviewing past cohorts and knowledge of in-practice teachers, as well. Here are my current findings:

• 42% of UCD students have tried VR, which is up from 35.7% last year. Of course, that means 58% had never used it, prior to taking my classes.
• Only 3.5% of my students have used virtual reality in an way associated with their university coursework. What happened to the energy of virtual reality in the educational marketplace? It’s dismal.
• And, oh yeah, about 15.8% of my students get uncomfortably ill when viewing virtual reality. That makes sense, supported by worldwide vision health research. [Education that WOWS]

Remember, in order to keep our blog readers from falling off the feared precipice of despair, I have deliberately embedded words of hope throughout this series, as seen in the top paragraph, in [bracketed italics]. These are expressions that literally shout the promise and potential of virtual reality, while counterbalancing the bad news.  These words are not just taken magically from the air, but consist of actual text snatched from the VR-related exhibit hall booths and sales literature at a recent ed-tech conference, ‘designer’ phraseology that help sell VR to tech-hungry educators. 

Reality Check (3)

Is VR truly popular in classrooms these days? [Pivotal] Unfortunately, I am seeing too few yeses and too many noes in the conversation. In the recent months, here is even more insightful data I have been wrestling with:

No More? Has Google conquered the education world, claiming more than 2 million Google Expedition users worldwide? [Enables exploration] Sounds like real penetration of the ed market, doesn’t it? Not really. First, their actual penetration rate is miniscule. UNICEF estimated there are 650 million children of primary age in the world, and nearly double that if you include secondary students. Based on these assumptions, Google has only reached 0.003 (less than a third of 1 percent) of elementary students worldwide, and only 0.0015 of all students, both primary and secondary. Second, “having used” (just once or a few times) is much different in schools than “are using” (daily, weekly, monthly, frequently). Sounds like hype, doesn’t it? You bet.

Only a Bit More. Google conquers the U.K. is what some people say, with over a half million students having used their singular Google Expeditions platform. [Builds understanding] But if you assume in excess of 10 million students in the U.K. at minimum, that converts into a 0.05 penetration rate. (And, of course, we must still own the “having used” versus “are using” verbiage.) Translated, more than 95% of UK students have not used Google Expeditions. Oh well.

Remember, in order to keep our blog readers from falling off the feared precipice of despair, I have deliberately embedded words of hope throughout this series, as seen in the top paragraph, in [bracketed italics]. These are expressions that literally shout the promise and potential of virtual reality, while counterbalancing the bad news.  These words are not just taken magically from the air, but consist of actual text snatched from the VR-related exhibit hall booths and sales literature at a recent ed-tech conference, ‘designer’ phraseology that help sell VR to tech-hungry educators. 

Reality Check (2)

So, let’s start our VR reality check, which is based on a recent avalanche of data points occurring in schools, not in the artificially glorified environments of conferences and expo halls. [Democratizing education]

Is VR very popular in classrooms? [Pivotal] Unfortunately, I am seeing too few yeses and too many noes in the conversation. In the recent months, here is a flood of feedback about VR I have been receiving from educators or some of the insightful data I have come across:

No Show. One educator I spoke with told me how their school leaders, excited by the educational possibilities of using virtual reality in their public school classrooms, offered a dedicated break-out session on VR on their first “professional development day” for teachers. [Learning] Not one teacher attended the VR session. No one. [Revolutionary]

No Go. In another public school, an elementary school, a district-level tech expert visited the school to offer a VR workshop (that, in this case, teachers were required to attend). [Transporting] According to one attendee, most teachers present at this workshop felt it wasn’t something immediately useful for them. Fast forward three months. Not a single teacher had taken up this technology in their classrooms. No takers. None. Zilch. [Impactful]

No Time. Laura Tickle, a K-5 technology coordinator at Ben Franklin Academy, a high-performing Charter school in Colorado, reported that “’zero’ teachers are using VR currently.” [Exciting] When asked to explain why, she responded: “Time would be the main issue with not using VR.” Teachers have so little of it. She added “and we do not have any equipment for it.” [A real turn-on]

No Priority. Joy Vigil, a middle school technology coach at a respected Colorado magnet school, The Academy of Charter Schools, noted that teachers at her school are also not yet using VR in instruction. [Illustrious] She explained, “This is due to lack of equipment and training”. And when schools don’t buy—and don’t train—it’s simply a technology that is not high up on their priority scale. [Powerful]

Remember, in order to keep our blog readers from falling off the feared precipice of despair, I have deliberately embedded words of hope throughout this series, as seen in the top paragraph, in [bracketed italics]. These are expressions that literally shout the promise and potential of virtual reality, while counterbalancing the bad news.  These words are not just taken magically from the air, but consist of actual text snatched from the VR-related exhibit hall booths and sales literature at a recent ed-tech conference, ‘designer’ phraseology that help sell VR to tech-hungry educators.