Mixed Reality (MR)

Just like Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR) is a technology that allows “the incorporation of virtual computer graphics objects into a real three-dimensional scene” (Pan et al., 2006: 20). What differentiates MR from AR, is the device used to access the experience: Head-Mounted Display (HMD). Perfect examples of such HMD needed to experience MR are Microsoft HoloLens and Magic Leap One. What’s also different from AR is the greater level of interactivity and perceived sense of presence for the users. This is particularly given by the fact that this time, the user does not require to hold any devices or controllers to manipulate reality and interact with the virtual objects they add within it. Users can grab virtual objects, move them, display them anywhere desired, read information while operating tasks, have conversations with others (wearing or not wearing an HMD) without having to disengage themselves from the experience, etc. All of which only using their hands and their eyes (eye-tracking technology).

• University of Brighton’s Case Studies: there are currently no case studies available. However, the School of Health Sciences (SHS) is currently looking into CEM Hololense – Lucina AR.

1. INTERACTION: 

Pros:

• As for AR, MR’s distinct ability to create immersive hybrid learning environments that combine digital and physical objects can support the development of processing skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication through interdependent collaborative exercises.
• Compared to Virtual Reality (VR) and differently from AR, MR can allow users to directly interact and manipulate virtual objects within the real-world environment without needing to hold controllers, wear haptics gloves, or hold a specific device (e.g. mobiles). All you need is your hands, increasing so the perceived sense of realism, immersion, and level of engagement for the user. For example, in some hospitals, surgeons have started operating wearing MR HMDs as, while allowing them free hands movement, it can also guide them and support them throughout the operation process in a collaborative way.

Cons:

• The cost of MR HMDs and software is significantly high, meaning that most students or lecturers are not yet in possession of a MR headset and/or of enough powerful computers to consider this an effective option.
• Unlike VR and AR, where educators can rely on already existing, externally sourced, virtual educational platforms/applications, MR related software and hardware are still under development and experimentation in some respects, and educational experiences for these devices are still limited and costly (or mainly provided by Magic Leap and Microsoft).
• While individual distant learning could be enhanced, distant collaborative work through AR is not yet an option.

2. INCLUSIVITY: 

Pros:

• Through the adding of sound systems and haptics technologies (e.g. for the reproduction of smells and simulation of touch), MR can allow even greater immersive and realistic experiences, adaptable to the needs of individual’s students. Moreover, the suitability of the MR HMD to be used hands-free could also support some of the students’ physical and learning difficulties.

• MR can allow students to collectively ‘view’, ‘manipulate’, ‘engage’, ‘interact’ with objects otherwise inaccessible because of costs, danger or distance (e.g. human hearts dissection, dangerous chemicals, black holes, bombs, etc), or even in ways simply impossible to realize in the traditional educational setting.

• MR can help enhance not only student’s learning outcomes but also self-confidence, memory, engagement, creativity, and empathy, encouraging so cohesion and mutual understanding within the group of students.
• The possibility to learn independently from distance, by simply logging-in into the designed immersive MR learning experience (if in possession of a MR HMD), could also accommodate some of the students’ needs and difficulties.

Cons: 

• While the possibility of adding haptics technologies and programming the experience anyways as desired can accommodate some of the students’ individual needs, other difficulties may, however, require the acquisition/development of specific MR software and hardware for some students. While potentially costly and timely, this approach could create a sense of exclusion in the affected students.
• Educators can run the risk of using/creating MR Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) that are not necessarily suited for all student’s needs. The learning can be disrupted and the students can become disengaged, demotivated, less confident and excluded from the group or the activity being thought.

3. INNOVATION: 

Pros:

• MR, like any other immersive medium, offers the opportunity to revolutionize traditional modes of teaching and learning, apply and enhance powerful pedagogies such as ‘situated learning’ and ‘transfer’, and create more exciting and interactive learning activities that meet the requirements of 21st-century students (prospect and current).
• As MR is still far too expensive for many institutions to consider, it is likely that AR will remain the preferred option until the cost of MR technology will drop. Therefore, and for now, while it remains highly useful and important to start familiarizing with MR, follow its continuous development, and as educators, start thinking about what you could do with it, attempts to fully implement this technology within the classroom should be carefully thought through beforehand.

Cons:

• As the boundaries of what can be done with this technologies are yet to be written, while raising incredible opportunities to experiment with innovative pedagogies, it also raises significant challenges as case studies and clear guidance on how and when to effectively apply these media within teaching are still lacking.
• Today, the cost of the technology itself and the technical complacencies involved with blending real and virtual worlds makes MR a very difficult (but not impossible) option to consider for even simply experimental purposes.

4. INFORMED: 
Pros:

• Knowing the technological and pedagogical affordances and limits of MR compared to other immersive and non-immersive media can support educators to make informed choices regarding which tool/s to use, how, and when. All of which can help educators and the institution reduce the risk of failure, the risk of wasting time and money and, instead, maximize the success of each experiment with benefits to the students learning.
• As years go by, there will be an increasing number of case studies available to us, explaining how and when to effectively apply these media in education and which one/s to use in which context/s.

Cons:

• Staff needs to invest additional time in planning a series of learning activities based around these immersive experiences in order for students to benefit from the full learning opportunities presented.
• If MR software is externally sourced, educators could face copyright constraints that could limit the number of options available to them, as well as risks to disrupt the students’ learning if the sourced and chosen MR-activity is not in line with the intended learning and teaching objectives.
• As this technology evolves, more and new ways of collecting personal user data consequently emerge, raising so new questions and concerns regarding how to deal and protect these new forms of data and who else could have access to it beyond the university.

5. INVESTMENT: 

Pros:

• By 2025, it is expected that immersive technologies, more broadly, will become ubiquitous and populate the market, meaning that, by then, more students and lecturers will likely to possess their own devices, reducing so the institution’s need to having to acquire them for all its students.

• Any MR-based activities developed and/or externally sourced can be kept for the next years to come and be revisited or edited according to the educator’s and students’ needs. While this can save time to educators and costs to the institution in the long run, it can also allow distant independent students to learn in a more interactive and engaging way, therefore, and potentially, expanding the reach of the university.

Cons:

• Alongside the great costs involved with the acquisition, set-up, and maintenance of MR hardware and software, there are also the time and money investment needed to train and support the staff and the students.
• Because ‘in-house’ MR content production is still difficult to afford or execute given the complexity of MR software algorithms (requiring the ability to develop immersive hybrid experiences that combine digital and physical objects and that can be viewed and manipulated through a specific HMD), there will likely to be the need of relying on external immersive agencies/platforms providers of the immersive MR activity needed (costly and timely). The current leading providers of MR technology are Microsoft and Magic Leap.