Page 6 - THE Journal, April/May 2017

Editor’sNote David Nagel, Editor-in-Chief
The Nascence of AR & VR in
IAmerican Education
IT’S STRANGE TO SEE THE VR outside of the classroom is a pretty WAY educators react to new technolo- exciting thing. It’s also expensive. Inside the gies — so often with apprehension rather classroom, it’s pretty restricted. Headsets
than wonder at the potential the technology cost money, especially the ones that let you
r: 41 offers for bringing new and creative learn- do more than just look around. Thegse: ts 1 1
ing experiences to students. It seems to me you find in schools, by and large, don’t do many see a new technology as a threat to very much. You hold the goggles up; you the proper order of things rather than just turn your head; you say, “Ooh, a shark,”; a chance to roll out a new type of learn- and you’re done.
ing activity and give students a chance to AR, meanwhile, is interactive and engag- experience the subject matter at hand in a ing at all price points. All you need is a
different and more engaging way. Augmented and virtual
reality (AR and VR) are two such nascent technologies at the crossroads right now.
VR has an obvious wow
factor that has made it a
bit more of a darling with
educators and students. As
we see in the first data from
the recently completed 2016
Speak Up Survey (page 34),
nearly half — 47 percent — of middle school students would include virtual reality experiences and hardware in their “ultimate school.” A smaller but still substantial
33 percent of high school students want virtual reality experiences and hardware
in their ultimate school. This is based on a survey of 435,510 K–12 students completed in January 2017.
In the same survey involving 38,512 teachers, 4,592 administrators and 29,670 parents, 29 percent of principals and 23 percent of teachers expressed enthusiasm for VR by including it in their ultimate school. Parents could seem to care less, with just 17 percent expressing support.
These numbers aren’t too surprising. What’s strange though is that VR is so far ahead of AR with students and educators.
phone or a tablet. It’s the future, and it’s the present, as it’s already
proving its benefits. It’s the heads-up display on your windshield showing you directions, your speed, your RPMs. It’s the object you can view and manipulate on your screen when you capture a QR code. It’s
the display on a worker’s
visor illustrating the steps for completing a given task. And it has a
certain wow factor when done right, as was evidenced by the nation’s brief but furious infatuation with Pokemon Go! last summer. (Has it really only been nine months?)
Yet, at present, just 13 percent of teachers and 12 percent of principals and parents list it as a tech they’d want in their ultimate school. And 33 percent of middle school students and 26 percent of high school students are interested in using augmented reality in their schools.
I can’t quite get a handle on the dispar- ity. Either way, it looks like both AR and VR have a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of educators.
To continue the conversation, e-mail me at dnagel@1105media.com.
#296e92
0 b: 146
6
| APRIL/MAY 2017
thejournal.com
April/May 2017 : Volume 44, No. 3
Editorial Advisory Board
Elisa Carlson
Director of Instruction, Curriculum and Innovation, Surrey Schools (British Columbia, Canada)
Julie Evans
Chief Executive Officer, Project Tomorrow
Geoffrey H. Fletcher
Private Consultant
Ann Flynn
Director of Education Technology & State Association Services, National School Boards Association
Phil Hardin
Director of Project IMPACT, Iredell-Statesville School System (NC)
Christopher Harris
Coordinator, School Library System, Genesee Valley Educational Partnership (NY)
Cathy Hutchins
Principal, South Woods Elementary School, St. John’s County School District (FL)
Thomas C. Murray
Director of Innovation, Future Ready Schools, Alliance for Excellent Education
Erin Wilkey Oh
Executive Editor, Education Marketing, Common Sense Education
Mark Stevens
General Manager, NEA Academy
Donna Teuber
Team Leader for Technology Integration, Richland School District Two (SC)