Daniel's E-learning and Digital Cultures Blog

We’re nearing the end of the taught part of the course and the beginning of the assignment section so my time has been used this week to refine my lifestream, correcting any errors and employing a consistent style for any references in the weekly summaries.  More on this subject in my final summary, but for now my other main focus has been on beginning the final assignment.

I am still very much interested in the themes of post humans and distributed consciousness and I have spent some time considering these ideas in greater detail this week (lifestream 27.11.2011 #1 and 01.12.2011 #7, #9, #11, #12).  I’ve also spent a little time revisiting the ideas of Artificial Intelligence and human computer interaction (lifestream 03.12.2011 #2, #3) and this has lead me to think about how humans and groups of humans interact with computer systems (lifestream 03.12.2011 #1).  It’s fascinating to think about how groups might become empowered beyond the now well recognised notion of emergent collective group intelligence, through interaction with computer systems (lifestream 04.12.2011 #3 to #10).  If groups can be extended and enhanced through the use of artificially intelligent agents and expert systems, then this must of course have profound consequences for teaching and learning.

So having finally selected a topic for the assignment, it’s time to settle down properly into a single research area.  My lifesteam is already beginning to reflect this, with the range of topics and ideas narrowing daily and moving I hope, towards a focal point.  It must be interesting to watch this process from the outside and to see how I have refined my ideas as I progress.  I now see clearly what a perfect lens the lifestream is to document this journey.

A quick review of my lifestream will show that this has been somewhat of a disjointed week, due mostly to my inability to settle on a topic for the Posthuman Pedagogy assignment.  I began the week confident in my decision that I wanted to focus on the idea of distributed consciousness (lifestream: 22:11.2011 #1, #2, #3 and #4) which first arose in the previous week.  However as I dug deeper into this concept, it became clear to me that it would be difficult to single out a concrete learning task, given the fact that we could argue humans have always had a distributed consciousness, i.e. our tools shape our thought process and we have always been posthuman (lifestream: 19.11.2011 #1). I also spent a little time thinking about brain augmentation (lifestream: 21.11.2011 #6) and artificial minds (lifestream: 21.11.2011 #5), before finally settling on the idea of Augmented Reality (AR) as a perfect example (lifestream: 24.11.2011 #5, #6 and #7).  AR has really come of age and it’s interesting to see how many popular applications are emerging (lifestream: 25.11.2011 #1).  I’ve discovered two other great finds during the week; thanks firstly to a reminder from Jeremy (since I must have failed to follow up on reference to his work in earlier prescribed readings), of Steve Fuller.  It’s proven difficult to find much of Fuller’s writing, but I have found some fascinating videos (lifestream: 25.11.11 #2), which have echoed deeply with my own thoughts .  And secondly, the mind blowing and borderline psychedelic writing and artwork of Robert Pepperell which has influenced my thoughts on personalised realities in my Posthuman Pedagogy post.

Augmented Reality Learning Environments – A posthuman pedagogy

Although philosophical idealists will argue that there is no such thing as a common reality, in everyday practice we have chosen to believe in one. Through our senses and communications, we live in a shared reality that we refer to as the real world, but by degrees, this shared reality is being extended, enhanced and personalised through the use of tools that allow for a richer interpretation of what is considered to be “real”.  Such tools exist in many forms, from cognitive frameworks right through to actual physical devices that extend the senses and create “new forms of human presence, half-real, half-virtual” (Ascott, 2003, quoted in Bayne, 2010).  Perhaps the most conspicuous of these is the growing use of augmented reality as an layer of information on top of the physical world.  “Augmented reality (AR) refers to the addition of a computer-assisted contextual layer of information over the real world, creating a reality that is enhanced or augmented”, (Horizon Report, 2011).  When one first uses augmented reality to view the world, the experience is uncanny in the extreme.  The physical world is suddenly extended to include a rich layer of multimedia that the viewer can interact with to better understand their environment.  High end augmented reality systems can be very complex and may include many subsystems, such as head mounted displays, data gloves or global positioning systems; but for the average consumer (and therefore the average student), something as simple as a smart phone application can achieve a similar result.  An excellent example of such an app is Streetmusuem:Londinium.

Streetmusuem:Londinium is an iPhone app, developed in collaboration between the Museum of London and the History Channel, which recreates portions of London city as it might have appeared during the Ancient Roman era.  Layers of video and text, maps and 3D models of ancient architecture can be viewed on top of the real world.  As the user moves about their environment the scene changes in real-time.  These layers of reality combine within the consciousness mind of the learner. “From two, one—something different, new, and tasty”, (Carpenter, 2009).

“One of the most promising aspects of augmented reality is that it can be used for visual and highly interactive forms of learning, allowing the overlay of data onto the real world as easily as it simulates dynamic processes”, (Horizon Report, 2011).  When a person interacts with these layers of media, they are essentially engaging in a constructivist and exploratory learning session within a new reality.  Because such media layers are fluid and may change based on user input, this new reality is individual and uniquely distinctive both for each learner and for each learning session.  When we connect augmented reality systems with other networks, the potential of new layers of reality grows exponentially, as does our capacity to create new realities for ourselves, or to share them with others.  One might argue that when we augment our reality, we simultaneously augment our own consciousness, and when we share our reality, we likewise  share our conscious state with others. “Just as the brain needs the body to create conscious activity, so the body needs the environment to create conscious activity”, (Pepperell, 2010).

Conclusion

The interface to an augmented reality system is a tool that allows the user to modify their own reality, extending it in directions never before imagined.  Graphical user interfaces allow us to visualise complex data sets but when those data sets correspond directory to our immediate physical environment, we suddenly gain the ability to understand that environment and our place within in it, in profound new ways.  Through the use of symbolic languages and well designed semiotic icons, we allow humanity to communicate without regional linguistic variation, achieving precision of expression and clarity in the transfer of meaning that is simply impossible in the “natural” world.

Augmented Reality Examples

MovableScreen at Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UODkvUTnAU

Streetmusuem:Londinium.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/07/29/roman.london.app/index.html

35 Awesome Augmented Reality Examples

http://www.bannerblog.com.au/news/2009/06/35_awesome_augmented_reality_examples.php

References

Bayne, S. (2010).  Academetron, automaton, phantom: uncanny digital pedagogies.

Carpenter, R (2009). Boundary Negotiations: Electronic Environments as Interface.

Pepperell, R. (2009). ‘Art and the fractured unity of consciousness’ in New Realities: Being Syncretic Consciousness Reframed.

The Horizon Report, 2011.  Two to Three Years: Augmented Reality

I’ve spent a fascinating week considering what it means to be posthuman.  This began with my post at the end of last week on the differences between the cyborg and the posthuman (lifestream: 13.11.2011 #1), in which I discuss the notion of a distributed consciousness; and this has since informed some thoughts on the emergence of a global “cognisphere” (lifestream: 20.11.2011 #1).   Jeremy asked in the comments to that post whether language could be considered as a tool, and this question formed the basis for much of my lifestream content this week.  I became very interested in the development of language itself as well as modern day enhancements such as the construction of symbolic languages for specific disciplines (lifestream 15.11.2011 #2, #3 and #4).  It should come as no surprise that language has played a key role in the development of social groups and social organisation but it has also produced profound effects on the mind of the speaker.  With the development of highly accurate symbolic languages, we have introduced the possibility for substantially more reliable transfer of meaning between individuals, as well as deeper understanding of concepts through enhanced reasoning and greater detail of mental constructs.

Such tools certainly give us greater powers and abilities but does that make us more than human, or are humans actually defined by their ability to adapt and improve themselves?  Carol and I have have had an interesting running discussion on Twitter over the course of the week on the subject of human evolution and whether the prefix ‘post’ in posthuman is redundant, given that all life is in a state of constant evolution (lifestream: 17.11.2011 #3) and that humanity has always been defined by its adaptability.  One interesting idea emerging from this discussion has been the notion that the evolutionary process is itself undergoing a change, and whether humanity’s integration with technology might be viewed as a type of natural development (lifestream: 19.11.2011 #1).  Overall its been a very stimulating week; and so now begins the preparation for the posthuman pedagogy task and getting a concrete topic for my essay.  Much to consider, as always.

We’ve seen that it is an over simplification to consider the cyborg as a fantastical techno-creature from our most outlandish fiction.   For me personally the cyborg represents an enhancement to basic human function through the use of some prosthesis.  And while many of today’s medical prosthesis are remarkable in their sophistication, they can rarely be said to improve human performance (one notable exception being the artificial legs of Olympic hopeful Oscar Pistorius)

Instead the contemporary cyborg is usually an attempt at repairing a damaged human, rather than an enhancement.   Fictional cyborgs, and most likely real cyborgs in the very near future, are much more than this.  Such cyborgs are truly more than human and achieve this status with the addition of prosthesis that give them abilities mere organic humans could never manage.  These cyborgs are most definitely posthuman, but posthumans need not be cyborgs.  I’ve argued (Sumamry: Week 8)  that we are all in fact already posthuman, and that we have always been so since the invention of tools and social groups that modified our thought processes enough to make us more than individual entities.  For me, the posthuman is a combination of the organic human and a set of external factors, tools or stimuli which endow us with powers and abilities we could never achieve in isolation.  Certainly there is a closer coupling between the cyborg and its parts, but the posthuman is unbounded and free to match the appropriate tool to the task.

This week we’ve focused on the theme of digital literacies with a particular emphasis on the visual.  We have each explored some really stimulating ideas through the production of a visual artefact, and it has been interesting to notice how each of us interprets one anothers work differently (lifestream 14.10.2011 #1).  The title of my own artefact, We Are The Web, reflects my belief that while the Internet may be produced by people, in many ways it also is people.  It is live and interactive, and for those of us who live and work within it, it is becoming an extension of ourselves.  We are drawing ever closer into a symbiosis with technology, and while this can offer many conveniences, my fear is that we may be blinded by the benefits while ignoring the potential dangers (lifestream 11.10.2011 #6 – music video).

Siân has commented on my emphasis of “the implant and the prosthesis”, while Grace notes the discomfort shown in some of the images that I’ve selected to be part of the piece.  This was a very deliberate choice that I made when creating the image, because for me, our love affair with technology is something that we have forced upon ourselves.  It is an unnatural coupling and something that requires us to actively modify both ourselves and our behaviour if we are to reap the rewards.

To express such complex ideas visually is particularly challenging, especially when we consider the many influences affecting the way that we interpret images, combined with the fact that images must be seen in context if they are to be understood at all.  In order to better address these issues, I did some surfing and discovered amongst other resources, a brilliant presentation by Doug Belshaw entitled The Essential Elements Of Digital Literacies (lifestream 12.10.2011 #1) as well as some excellent and free online graphics tools (lifestream 12.10.2011 #2).  Visual literacy is without question an essential skill for todays learner, and definitely something that I’ve become more sensitive to during the course of the last week.