|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Is TI the best outcome for education? |
Pass the popcorn |
|
25% |
[ 1 ] |
Where is the 'off' switch? |
|
75% |
[ 3 ] |
|
Total Votes : 4 |
|
Author |
Message |
chinasyndrome

Joined: 17 Mar 2003 Posts: 673 Location: In the clutches of the Red Dragon. Erm...China
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 7:09 am Post subject: My Teacher Is A Hologram! (Long) |
|
|
I just watched an interesting program called Nexus http://www.abcasiapacific.com/nexus that had a segment about the future of virtual reality (VR). Here is a brief background of what was discussed.
Jaron Lanier is at the forefront of VR software and technology design. Ray Kurzweil was described as the father/inventor and innovator of VR. Both spoke of the next generation of the net, which they call Internet 2 and which will be thousands of times faster and bigger than what we currently use. Both say that by no later than 2010 there will be a workable, flexible and fully integrated technology that will not be clunky (which is how they describe even the best net technology of today).
They and others are talking about the next generation of VR which they call Tele Immersion (TI) and which will, they say, go way beyond 'simple' 3-D holographs and good graphic design. They are talking of lightweight pressure suits with millions of receptors that can emulate the 5 basic senses, although how the suit or software can emulate our sense of smell is beyond me. They contend that after spending a few minutes in the suit and the virtual world you are in it will be quite easy to trick the mind into accepting the virtual as real (suspension of disbelief).
The cost/price of the technology and hardware to support it will, they say, be relatively small because it will to a high degree ride off the back of existing technologies. Coupled with this, Kurzweil made the point that it is porn and other 'adult' sites that financially thrive in and drive the Internet, so he sees them as being the natural or at least original drivers of spreading the TI word. His personal interests are in trans-gender and trans-personality TI. Others being interviewed talked about being able to experience virtual death or creation, amongst other things.
It made me wonder if the world of TI may be physically dangerous. Would your program and potentially your pressure suit be open to virus attack? Could your suit crush you to death? How would it feel to take a virtual bullet in the chest? Would the ability to go trans-gender or trans-personality create more clarity by allowing you to explore your own mind and motivations or will it lead to greater confusion and personal identity problems?
Weighty considerations. It's hard to imagine that in only 7 years what we now consider to be hi-tech could come to be seen as quaint and clunky. A virtual eslcafe? Hmmm. I can see a few virtual fistfights in that idea. What got me thinking and wondering is the effects the Internet 2 will have on teaching, not only languages, but all teaching. Assuming the cost of I2 and TI is comparatively small, why would you bother with school or hiring teachers when a virtual program, perhaps shared by a whole class as well as individual study, is available?
Time to get your pension plan and retraining in place? What really intrigued me about this program was the certainty they expressed on the timeframe, cost, infrastructure and availability. Scientists and futurists and usually quite general in their comments and when they do hazard a guess it is usually followed by so many qualifications they may as well have just said 'I don't know'.
Just as CD was the beginning of the next disk revolution, to shortly be augmented by VCD (which was interim technology on the way to DVD), it appears that TI is the bridge to the scientist's goal of hardware/software implants in the brain and/or nervous system. Benefits and disadvantages of a TI classroom? What say you?
Serious comments welcome. Other comments such as 'in a TI classroom in Korea no little turds can stab you in the arse with a pencil/pen/finger' are also welcome. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AlexW

Joined: 02 Aug 2003 Posts: 17 Location: Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
What really intrigued me about this program was the certainty they expressed on the timeframe, cost, infrastructure and availability. Scientists and futurists and usually quite general in their comments and when they do hazard a guess it is usually followed by so many qualifications they may as well have just said 'I don't know'.
|
Ah, but when I'm pitching for x billion dollars of research funding, I can see it all so clearly now...
Secondly, under federal law any 'forward looking statements' nowadays come with a 93-line disclaimer appended as a get-out-of-jail card. Which basically says: 'While we would encourage you for business reasons to carry on buying this stuff, 'cos it's the elixir of life for your decision-making process (and for the superannuated parasites we prefer to call our principal shareholders), the fact remains that if we get it wrong we'll just turn around and say it's not our fault you fell for this corporate voodoo; now get stuffed'.
But to get to the real nub of the issue: are virtual classrooms of this kind going to take over? For three reasons, definitely not.
First up, the Complexity Problem. The world of shoot-em-ups - even those with AI capabilities - is several orders of magnitude less complex than all but the simplest of human interactions. Try writing an AI routine for simple cells, never mind people - I have and it's hard enough. Besides which, mere increases in computer power won't solve this problem because the issue of human social intelligence is qualitatively different. Programming interaction into a system isn't that hard, and it's that that gives the scientific community its (ungrounded) self confidence. Where it goes beyond their remit, though, is that the responses in a TI system - if I understand rightly the kind of content people are suggesting it would display - would have to be accurate, human responses. User response to that frigging virtual paperclip in MS Office 97 doesn't suggest a willing audience for anything half-baked.
Second point: the money. You'll have worked out by now that whatever economy of scale we're talking about the EFL industry is not a gold mine compared to armaments, all-out wrestling or oil. Who's going to cough up for the R&D necessary to pull this off for language teaching? Who's going to install the necessary tech to make sure it all runs, and train an entire generation of technophobes?
Third point: obsolescence. How does such a system leep up with what's going on in what for it is the outside world? Armies of loyal scribes updating dictionary entries, visual semantics (for this to work, every feature of body language, facial expression and so on would have to be encoded - if you want verisimilitude, you have to go the whole hog)? All possible in principle but at the end of the day the only people prepared to put in the hours and the dollars will be the Defense Department.
In brief, then: no need to reach for the slippers, pipe and Ovaltine. It ain't over yet, and nor will it ever be. I'm an e-learning software developer myself, and no technophobe; but it doesn't take long to learn enough about projects going over time and over budget, and how over-complex presentation of material actually detracts from the learning objectives you're trying to get across, to be convinced of that fact.
At the end of the day: unless you're trying to teach Lance Corporal Jack Schitt how not to shoot his own men and/or innocent civilians, forget it.
Al |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|