Can Meta Build Augmented Reality People Will Trust?

Can a company built around collecting, analyzing, and monetizing user data genuinely develop augmented reality in a way that protects the people wearing the technology and everyone around them?

I will state my thoughts directly: I am skeptical that Facebook, or Meta as the company now prefers to be known, will consistently adhere to its Responsible Innovation Principles when those principles conflict with its financial interests. Money drives companies of this size, and I suspect that workarounds will eventually be found whenever responsible limitations interfere with growth, data collection, or profitability.

With that skepticism established, let us turn to Project Aria.

What is Project Aria trying to accomplish?

Project Aria is Meta’s attempt to research the hardware, software, and artificial intelligence needed for future augmented-reality devices. The broader idea is to create wearable technology that can interpret the user’s surroundings and provide useful information without requiring constant interaction with a phone or handheld device.

The concept is not entirely new. Google attempted something similar with Google Glass, which received considerable criticism because of privacy concerns and the possibility of recording people without their knowledge. I also never felt that Google had established a clear direction for the product. It sometimes seemed as though the company had developed a solution before identifying the problem it was supposed to solve, though exploratory research often works that way.

Still, I believe there is a place for augmented reality.

One application I find especially useful would be incorporating AR directly into a vehicle’s navigation system. Directions, hazards, road conditions, and other information could be displayed within the driver’s field of view rather than requiring someone to glance down at a phone or dashboard screen.

This technology could also provide meaningful assistance to people with disabilities. A wearable system capable of understanding the user’s surroundings and interpreting intentions might help someone navigate an unfamiliar environment, identify objects, read signs, receive real-time descriptions, or interact with digital systems more independently. If Meta can develop the technology so that users do not have to repeatedly click buttons or manipulate a handheld device, the range of possible applications opens considerably.

Privacy and security cannot be an afterthought

The areas I would be most interested in exploring are security, privacy, and complete dependence on the technology.

Extended reality systems require access to an enormous amount of personal and environmental information if they are expected to learn what users want. A device may collect information about location, movement, speech, surroundings, routines, relationships, preferences, and behavior. That information would be valuable not only to the company operating the system, but also to threat actors, nation-states, ideologues, advertisers, and anyone else interested in influencing or exploiting the user.

If a pair of augmented-reality glasses is constantly observing the world, the privacy question extends beyond the person wearing them. Bystanders may also be recorded, analyzed, identified, or placed into datasets without having made any choice to participate.

That is where a broad promise of “responsible innovation” feels insufficient.

Consumers and bystanders deserve clear answers:

  • What information is being collected?
  • Is the device recording continuously?
  • How long are the data retained?
  • Where are the data processed?
  • Who can access them?
  • Can users delete them?
  • How are bystanders notified?
  • What happens when the device is compromised?
  • Will the information be used for advertising or behavioral profiling?

A principle is only meaningful when it is connected to specific technical safeguards, enforceable policies, independent oversight, and consequences for violating the public’s trust.

Technology dependence is also a concern

We are already intertwined with technology to an extent that fully backing away from it is nearly impossible. Even so, I would caution people to continue developing practical skills that do not depend entirely on digital assistance.

What happens when a person becomes accustomed to receiving directions, recommendations, reminders, object identification, and real-time interpretations through a wearable device? What happens when the battery dies, the network fails, the company discontinues support, or the system provides incorrect information? Augmented reality may be capable of enhancing the world, but it is not the world itself, no matter how hard developers try to make it feel that way.

The principle of “all things in moderation” still applies. A tool can be useful without becoming the primary lens through which someone experiences reality. We should be careful not to trade basic human awareness, memory, social interaction, and independent judgment for a permanent layer of technological interpretation.

Social connection and artificial environments

The social effects of immersive technology also deserve careful consideration.

Periods of isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how important direct human interaction is to mental and emotional well-being. Extended reality may create meaningful opportunities for connection, especially for people separated by distance or limited by physical mobility. At the same time, it could encourage people to spend even more of their lives inside mediated environments. That does not make XR inherently harmful. It means the design should encourage healthy use rather than constant engagement. Companies should be asking whether the technology improves human connection or merely increases time spent inside their platforms. Those are not necessarily the same goal.

Who ultimately pays for innovation?

The cost of development is another issue.

Creating this technology requires expensive hardware, research, data processing, software development, infrastructure, testing, and continued support. Meta is not going to absorb those costs indefinitely out of pure altruism. That is not how a business remains in operation. The costs will eventually be passed along through device prices, subscriptions, advertising, data monetization, enterprise agreements, or some combination of these models.

As with most supply chains, the person at the bottom is often left holding both the product and the cost. The old phrase that “everything rolls downhill” is applicable here, though the less polite version may be more accurate. This also raises an equity concern. If augmented reality becomes important for education, employment, transportation, healthcare, or public services, will access depend on a person’s ability to afford the newest device and subscription? A technology designed to expand human capability could also widen the gap between people who can access it and those who cannot.

Excitement with conditions

Do not let my cynical view dampen the excitement completely. I am interested in the possibilities of augmented reality and want to see what companies can create. The potential applications in accessibility, navigation, education, healthcare, training, and communication are substantial. Project Aria may contribute to technologies that genuinely improve people’s lives.

My concern is not that the technology should not be developed. My concern is how it will be developed, deployed, funded, and governed. I want more than a vague promise of responsible innovation. I want to know exactly how Meta plans to protect the wearer, the bystander, the data, and the broader public. The important question is not simply whether augmented reality can become part of everyday life. It is whether the companies building it can earn enough trust to deserve that place.

Assessment Strategy

Makokotlela, M. v. (2020). An e-portfolio as an assessment strategy in an open distance learning context. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 16(4), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2020100109

Article 3 Title: An E-Portfolio as an Assessment Strategy in an Open Distance Learning Context

Broad Topic: In this article, the author is interested in studying the use of an e-portfolio as an appropriate assessment strategy within a distance learning context. Due to the higher education institutions integrating technology in teaching and learning, the author argues that using an e-portfolio “as an alternative method of assessment enhances pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogy in an environmental education module” (p. 123). Multiple definitions of an e-portfolio are distributed in the background of the article, yet the common theme that emerges is one of using multiple technological tools in which to provide instruction and/or assessment within the modern, digitized classroom. “Transformation in higher education in terms of the use of technologies in teaching and learning as well as assessment is a global trend, meaning that there should be a re-think in terms of preparing pre-service teachers’ pedagogy” (p. 123). The author uses connectivism, in conjunction with the Mmogo theory (discussed later), as a lens in which to view the e-portfolio due to the theories’ networking principles of connecting nodes and information resources.

Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: Siemens’ 2005 article Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age, serves as the foundational piece. Also, the following articles were found to be highly influential when reviewing the authors’ article: 1) The Mmogo-method: An exploration of experiences through visual projections, 2) An e-portfolio as empowering tool to enhance students’ self-directed learning in a teacher education course: A case of a South African university by Van Wyk (2017), 3) e-Portfolio in higher educational institutions of Russia by Smolyaninova & Shilina (2017), 4) Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? by Kop & Hill (2008), and 5) E-portfolios as a pedagogical device in primary teacher education: The AUT University experience by Maher & Gerbic (2009).  

Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: The author issues three research questions that form the crux of her article:

  1. What is the significance of an e-portfolio as an alternative way of assessment in EE?

The author explains that due to the digital age in which teachers and students thrive, an e-portfolio provides an opportunity as an alternative assessment tool in which to present their knowledge consumption. This method could be used to evaluate their course or provide evidence of their learning (if used in the student context).

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as another method of assessment enhance pre-service teachers’ digital pedagogy?

By engaging in the creation of an e-portfolio, the author argues that the teachers’ technological competence is further enhanced as the process acts as a self-directed learning mechanism. Also, the skills needed to develop the portfolio bodes well when teaching online courses. “It has been highlighted by Van Wyk (2017) that teachers must have a clear understanding of digital pedagogy due to technological changes in the teaching and learning environment. Changes in approaches to assessment cannot, therefore, be ignored because it is an integral part of teaching and learning” (p. 125).

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as an alternative assessment tool develop collaborative skills?

As it relates to the Mmogo theory (meaning “togetherness”), the creation of e-portfolios centers around a collaborative effort in that students share ideas and interact with one another throughout the process. As it relates to a teachers’ technological pedagogy, e-portfolios allow for collaboration that could persist beyond the implementation process. Simply put, the applied learning that is required “should be designed to encourage the desired interaction between the students both to enhance learning and develop collaborative skills” (p. 126).

Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: The author is approaching her research with a connectivist mindset and utilizing many of the pronciples set forth in Siemens foundational paper. She is also incorporating a collaborative theory titled Mmogo and grounds her reasoning with the following statement: “According to Kop and Hill (2008), connectivism’s cannot be regarded as a stand-alone learning theory. Theories need to complement one another (Ally, 2004) and the author deemed it necessary to use these two theories together” (p. 124). Before beginning the methodology section, I find it important to mention some of the outcomes the author experienced when exploring e-portfolios through the two aforementioned theories. In terms of success, the author found the following benefits were applicable: 1) ICT skills were introduced as a secondary measure, 2) technological pedagogical content knowledge skills (TPCK) were developed, 3) Collaborative skills improved, and 4) an assessment strategy was developed in that evidence-based and reflective practices were showcased. In terms of challenges, 1) low ICT skills could present problems, and 2) digital literacy cannot be presumed.

Research methodology: The purpose of the authors’ undertaking in this study was to explore how e-portfolios are used as an assessment tool in teachers’ educational modules. The author used purposive sampling with 13 participants being the sample. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to determine their experience with e-portfolios, and telephone interviews were conducted. The author also performed document analysis by reviewing the e-portfolios created by the sample of students. Informed consent was obtained, and the data analysis was coded. Three themes emerged: 1) Significance of an e-portfolio, 2) technological competencies of preservice students, and 3) the development of collaborative skills. In total, 9 of the participants data was collected for a number of reasons. Findings to follow.

Findings, implications, conclusions: In terms of the three research questions asked, the author reported the following information:

  1. What is the significance of an e-portfolio as an alternative way of assessment in EE?

The author found that e-portfolios were a useful method in assessing the students’ progress. The students were involved in an environmental education course in which they had to visit a recycling plant and digitally document their observations. The process of compiling an electronic assessment enhanced the students’ technological prowess with one student stating that “an e-portfolio was important because some of us did not know anything about this kind of assessment. Now I know how to do electronic assessment” (p. 128).

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as another method of assessment enhance pre-service teachers’ digital pedagogy?

The students were required to take photos of their visit to various recycling plants, imbed them within an e-portfolio text, as well as include the information in PowerPoint slides. One student stated that “After taking photos from the recycling plant, I learned to download and adjust photographs and even attach them in the portfolio. This will help me to effectively teach solutions to waste” (p. 129). Additionally, students were exposed to the WhatsApp application to share their e-portfolio. This collaborative process created a community of inquiry in which the students agreed that they would continue using in the future. One limitation to the study was some students did not submit an e-portfolio which led to the belief that not all students were able to perform the necessary digital tasks.

  • How does the use of an e-portfolio as an alternative assessment tool develop collaborative skills?

The author revealed that students were able to collaborate throughout the e-portfolio process which supported her earlier statements concerning the Mmogo theory of togetherness. Also, connectivist principles were employed as the primary source of the course assessment via an e-portfolio creation. “By using an e-portfolio as an assessment strategy, students were provided with an opportunity to collaborate. The idea is supported by McCormick (2004) who states that employing digital technologies provides opportunities for both “collaborating to learn” and “learning to collaborate” (p. 159), in this case learning about waste management (recycling) and learning to work with others to solve a common problem, a community of practice (p. 130).

Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: As mentioned in my prior article reviews, the connectivist principles are applicable in our field of Learning Technologies. This article explored the use of e-portfolios as an assessment and collaborative package which is similar to how our portfolios are created and organized. We work together as cohorts, collaborate, document research, and eventually defend the work we have created. Similarly, as with some students in the article review, technological competency can be a struggle for students while adapting to the requirements mandated by a PhD program. However, the skills that are taught are relevant and applicable in our career field, much like the students experienced when documenting and categorizing their digital evidence.

Critique of ideas and research: So, I did not find this article to be very enlightening in terms of how connectivism was directly implemented in the course and/or assessments process. The author notes in the beginning that connectivism was used a lens yet I would have preferred to see a more structured approach in terms of applicability. Secondly, by using an e-portfolio as your sole means of assessment, much of the skill is tied up in the students’ ability to perform IT and ICT skills. This could prove to be unreliable as it relates to true learning and is more a test of their digital prowess. I would have liked to see other means of engagement. I did like the fact that collaboration and reflection was included in the pedagogy as these are skills that translate well across a myriad of industries.

Relevant gaps and research opportunities: Several questions that could be addressed concerning this area of research are:

  • Does completing an e-portfolio improve the students’ digital pedagogy? Or is it mainly relevant to teachers?
  • What activities specifically drive the connectivist theory as it relates to e-portfolio creation?
  • What type of study would provide the best results as it relates to understanding the limitation in ICT skills among students?
  • How would this study be implemented if adhering to the six stages as specified in Siemens’ seminal work?
  • What tools would be allowed when creating an e-portfolio? Is it limited to a pre-determined list or is the student granted autonomy?

Fostering Communities of Inquiry

Cleary, Y. (2021). Fostering communities of inquiry and connectivism in online technical communication programs and courses. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620977138

Article 2 Title: Fostering Communities of Inquiry and Connectivism in Online Technical Communication Programs and Courses

Broad Topic: The author is interested in exploring Connectivism principles in two Technical and Professional Communication (TPC) programs. One program is online, and the other is being taught in a hybrid modality. Her purpose in describing these programs is to explore peer engagement activities with the hope to foster various Communities of Inquiry (COI). Two different peer engagement activities are then described in their development, deployment, and evaluation.

Theoretical frameworks used to ground the piece: As with the other articles in my current and prior investigations, Siemens (2005) article serves as the foundational piece in describing connectivism. Also, the following articles played an important role in the author’s framework concerning Connectivism and CoI: 1) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer referencing in higher education by Garrison et al. (2000), 2) Downes’ (2008) article Places to go: Connectivism and connective knowledge, 3) Stenboms’ 2018 systematic literature review titled A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry Survey, 4) Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? by Kop & Hill (2008), and 5) Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning by Ravenscroft (2011).

Seminal constructs or concepts in the article: The author lays out a comprehensive literature review where she details the main tenants of connectivism and how the defining principles can influence the learner to seek information “dynamically rather than seeking to acquire fixed knowledge; furthermore, the learner’s ability to make decisions and prioritize is highlighted” (p. 14). These principles, summarized and shortened for brevity, are:  Learning occurs via diversity of thought and connecting specialized information nodes; nurturing connections is needed to facilitate learning and a capacity for wanting to learn is paramount; decision-making and current information is key in learning activities; and the ability to form connections and differentiate information affects the learning landscape. Due to the interconnected nature of connectivism, the author states that the CoI framework is a valuable tool in “online learning design and has amassed theoretical and empirical support. It is, thus, a relevant tool for developing and analyzing, especially online, learning environments” (p. 15). This framework incorporates three types of “presence” that are vital for learning to occur: 1) teaching presence- activities developed by the teacher to support learning, 2) social presence- the learning environment and how students interact with their peers, and 3) cognitive presence- how learners construct meaning and build knowledge domains. Both CoI and connectivism rely on interaction as a main driver in the online educational experience and further highlight the need for peer related activities within the learning community.

Broad research or theory objectives including hypotheses, propositions, etc.: As mentioned above, the purpose of the article is to showcase two examples in which the researcher incorporates a connectivist mindset in online writing programs. She states that, “research into online writing instruction (OWI) contexts acknowledges the importance of community. Principle 11 of the Conference on College Composition and Communication’s (CCCC) position statement on OWI links online communities with student success. Recent OWI scholarship has also explored the CoI framework” (p. 16). With the framework established, the author states that she is interested in creating a connectivist mentality and supporting a CoI among learners in the MA Technical Communication program she now heads. The purpose of this mindset is to “help learners to build networks and to use those networks as an explicit and implicit learning strategy. Networking is an essential skill, regardless of whether learning takes place primarily online or on-campus” (p. 17). Three stages are included in creating a peer-activity in which the learner takes precedence: 1) Development- strategies are planned and outlined, 2) Deployment- the instructor and student learn together on the peer activity, and 3) Evaluation- both parties are involved in evaluating and determining the improvement proves. The following section explains the two examples that follow the aforementioned organizational principle.

Research methodology: The first example is titled Fostering Connectivism Through an Academic Workshop and the second is Developing a CoI Through a Peer Review Activity. Both examples follow the Develop, Deploy, and Evaluate stages and were started in 2014. The MA in Technical Communication and E-Learning (the course in which these examples are being implemented) has approximately 30 new students annually. For the purpose of this investigation, I will break down both examples by stages with a summative paragraph describing the work that was conducted.

Example 1- Fostering Connectivism Through an Academic Workshop

  • Development- The author consulted with various board members and institutional members and was granted approval to run the course in an online format. Strategies were developed and research was conducted that led her to conclude that “an intensive face-to-face socialization workshop was essential preparation for learners” (p. 18).
  • Deployment- All students were required to attend a campus event in which enrollment, library tours, student counseling, and campus tours were conducted. The purpose of this event was to connect learners to the university and ensure that they were not forgot about within the college communal atmosphere. She additionally created a separate orientation for the online community in which the virtual learning environment is introduced, the program is discussed, communication tools are established, and an overall sense of what to expect is discussed. “The workshop also, crucially, provides scope for learners to ask questions and to provide feedback. After the workshop, the whole group has lunch together” (p. 19).
  • Evaluation- Feedback was given in the form of student comments and analyzing data from the virtual learning environment (VLE) site. Comments mentioned were “collaborations and friendships that began at the workshop and continued throughout the program, and most refer to the essential information they assembled regarding how to interact and access materials online” (p.19). In terms of quantitative data, the site had over 2,000 visits in the 2018-2019 year with almost 100 messages and 1,500 views in the forums.

Through this immersive environment, the students were able to interact with their peers and develop learning communities to assist throughout their time at the university; both of which promote a connectivist setting.

Example 2- Developing a CoI Through a Peer Review Activity

  • Development- The author, while teaching a course in which the students conduct a research proposal and write their findings, decided to use peer feedback as a way to promote working together to achieve a viable proposal. Some of the statements utilized were: The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn, getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course, and the instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn. “This activity also exploits principles of connectivism, by enabling learner to recognize diverse opinions, to acknowledge one another as information sources, to acknowledge the peer group as a node that facilitates learning, and to see connection within and across peers’ proposals” (p. 23).
  • Deployment- The author then deployed peer-review guidelines in which the students were to engage with other students and list ways in which their proposal could be improved. Communication guidelines were also established, and constructive criticism was encouraged. At the end of the activity, the instructor, acting as the SME, post comments.
  • Evaluation- In 2018, the author found that most graduate students enjoyed the activity while most groups posted more than the required number of messages and continued to use the forum to discuss their projects with their peers (thus fostering a CoI and connectivist mentality).

Findings, implications, conclusions: The author found that both activities utilized principles of connectivism and inquiry to develop learning within a group of students. Networks were also established in the socialization workshop that could lead to higher levels of course completion by enabling a learning environment. Learner engagement and satisfaction was addressed in the second example in the form of constructive feedback and peer-assessment groups. The author states that, “gathering feedback about interventions enables instructors to update activities and provides a solid basis for curricular improvements” (p. 27).

Prescriptive and descriptive contributions: For our field in Learning Technologies, the author embarked on many of the principles that we use in the distributed program. Our annual meeting incorporates networking and course overviews, and many of the courses that I have taken use a form of peer review to engage our classmates and get to know their research interests. The medium of technology is present, and the instructors encourage us to search various information sources when we are conducting desk research that lays the groundwork for field research. Much of the philosophy is similar which allows the learner better decision-making abilities, technological engagements, and networking capabilities (all of which highlight the theme of connectivism).

Critique of ideas and research: In both activities, the author is highlighting a connectivism theme, yet much of the learning that is occurring also incorporates constructivism (social learning with peers), behaviorism (modeling in that the learners use the guidelines set forth by the instructor prior to engaging in peer feedback), and cognitivism (the information that is presented is appropriately processed by the individual and the output is their choice moving forward). This argument is not new in that several critiques point to connectivism being a combination of more grounded learning theories and that more outcomes need to be measured before being declared a learning theory.

Relevant gaps and research opportunities: The following questions could be asked of the prior two examples going forward:

  • In terms of the connectivism theory, how do these activities establish information nodes?
  • As it relates to feedback, what technology is being used to understand the issues?
  • How is the social workshop different from the orientation that most students have to attend? What learning component is being taught?
  • Would it also help to incorporate a foundational technology lesson to help students navigate the VLE?
  • How would you better access the feedback from students moving forward? What is being presented to leadership that allows this form of course design to continue?
  • Could a CoI be applied to other types of courses? Would connectivism be applicable for a mathematics course? Would information networks and diversity of opinion apply to a field that has been firmly established?