What I like about this article is that the authors state very clearly what their grounds for criticism will be (specifically, Gorard's Sieve), and then apply these grounds to their treatment of a PwC study on the effectiveness of virtual reality soft skills training. This clarity makes up for any deficiencies in the article, as it makes the grounds for disagreement easy to identify. For example, the authors give PwC a 'zero' for fairness because "instead of replicating the linear approach used in the classroom and eLearning intervention, the VR intervention was non-linear and more interactive." They assert, "If you want to compare interventions, the design needs to be exactly the same!" Now I disagree with this. The modality matters; affordances matter. You can't do exactly the same things. And we could talk about that, but what I appreciate is how easy they've made it to identify this specific issue, one among several I would have with this post.
Today: 3 Total: 1123 [Direct link] [Share]
