In last week's post, I highlighted my new taxonomy for VR content:
Although some big content developers seem satisfied with plans to roll out passive content, this is the content least in demand by educational gatekeepers (who also control the money in schools). Remember one thing: school gatekeepers—such as district administrators, principals, and lead teachers—ferociously fight to keep passive learning experiences out of classrooms.
One wonders: are these VR content developers “barking up the wrong tree?” Jack Ganse, a highly respected Colorado science teacher, once reminded me that they indeed are: “It's always a challenge to be mindful of and responsive to taxonomy when incorporating technology into the classroom. We run the risk of losing student engagement if we rely too heavily on just one taxonomic level, especially passive content.” He added: “Just as too many empty calories dilute our senses and compromise our nutritional health, too many passive technology experiences will dull and weaken the educational well-being of our students.” And there is ample reason for concern: while recently analyzing seventeen VR conference sessions at an ed-tech conference, I realized the interesting notion about [these] offerings is the apparent “echo chamber” at play. Too many of these sessions sound like the same content: the field trip or the gadget.