The class this week was honoured with the presence of Dave Cormier, whose presentation was about the abundance of information due to the internet. Listening to Dave actually provoked my reflection on the meaning of literacy. However, I concluded that literacy means different things to different scholars, depending on the context in which they view it. Personally, I view literacy as skills needed to understand and communicate information either physically or digitally. According to Dave, we live in an era where access to information has become abundant compared to the 18th and 19th centuries, when students had to read, scan, or skim through the available text to gather information. However, in today’s world, students frequently utilize search engines to gather information and provide citations without necessarily engaging in a deep reading comprehension process. While educators and academics seem to worry about the proliferation of generative AI and the unrestricted accessibility to information, enabling individuals to acquire knowledge outside of traditional classroom settings, Dave argues that the underlying issue lies not with AI but rather with the internet itself.
Prior to Dave’s presentation, Haneefat talked about the benefits of using VR in education to include personalized learning, the provision of real-time support and feedback to students, more experiences of hands-on learning without the fear of laboratory accidents or inadequate equipment, and an opportunity for continuous practice. Another promising future of AI and VR is the introduction of Virtual AI Avatars for immersive learning.
Thankfully, Jason, Dave, and I supported this view during our presentation. However, Dave talked about the cost of buying and maintaining fancy technologies like VR, which I totally agree with. Many public-funded schools that desire to implement these technologies tend to struggle because of the lack of funding. Buying the device, updating the software, and keeping up to date with the latest versions of these technologies are very expensive and can eat down all the savings of a school, especially when they have no support from the government or partnering organizations. There is also this thing of cybersickness caused by wearing these VR sets; though this effect varies across students, I think it’s not suitable for young children because it sometimes causes a lot of stress, even on the eyes. According to Dave, “Using VR, especially for 10 years, is just too problematic, and one needs to also consider the opportunity cost.” In addition to challenges related to financial infrastructure and human resources, the conversation also touched on teacher training and engagement. It was also indicated that discussions concerning curriculum structure and implementation of educational policies frequently overlook teacher interests, engagement, and workload. This leads to a rigid and inflexible curriculum that overwhelms teachers and gives students no reason to be enthusiastic about learning. Even though there are concerns about privacy and overdependence on AI, Dave thinks we can still control some things.
I came across a post highlighting the biases exhibited by ChatGPT, like portraying “Asian students as model minority STEM experts and Latina students as underperforming in STEM fields.” As AI tools are becoming more integrated into educational settings and increasingly used by young people, it is anticipated that these biases can have a profound impact on students’ sense of belonging, academic confidence, identity development, and ultimately their educational outcomes. Nevertheless, the authors emphasize the importance of developing AI tools that consider the diverse experiences and needs of teachers and students, conducting thorough evaluations of AI tools both prior to and following their deployment to identify and mitigate potential biases, and implementing protective measures within student-facing GenAI tools to safeguard vulnerable individuals.