Rebecca Bayeck & Chrystal Maggiore
Individuals are increasingly interested in wearable technologies. A recent report from the United Kingdom government predicts that the number of British using wearable technologies will more than double in 2015 to reach 13% of the population (Spence, 2014). Wearable technologies, or wearables, refer to clothing and accessories combining advanced electronic technologies and computers (Cima, 2014; Skiba, 2014; Wearable technology, 2008). Wearables are also defined as products with wireless connectivity, and a certain level of autonomous processing abilities that enhance the user’s experience as the user wears them (IHS, 2013). The current development and upgrades in wearables can outpace smartphones, and tablet markets as they become the next step in computing (Visiongain, 2014). The growing adoption of wearable technology presents challenges and opportunities for developers/manufacturers (Spencer, 2014). People are now looking for wearables that will not only look cool, but allow personal control over their lives through the amount of data they can collect on their daily activities (Cellan-Jones, 2013). Companies are investing in research and development to create products that will meet and even exceed the consumers’ expectations and provide unique experiences. As the market of wearables continues to expand, it’s a great period for educators to look into these technologies. Rather than attempting to list all wearable technologies, this paper will focus on wearables tracking physical activities, Fitbit and Jawbone Up, highlighting the potential and challenges at hand.
Unlike manufactures, and developers, the growing adoption of wearable technology presents different challenges and opportunities for learning and teaching. Wearable technologies are not primarily designed for educational purposes (Horizon Report, 2014). According to Cranny-Francis and Hawkins (2008), “any field with consequences for human embodiment is potentially affected by the development of wearables [which] means virtually every field of human creativity, innovation and thought” (p.268).
By way of background, the idea of wearable technologies dates back to the 1980s and early 1990s, when only few in the world could entertain the development of a “wearable user interface” (McCann & Bryson, 2009). The concept has evolved since and given birth to sophisticated technologies available in the market to an increasing number of users. Electronics giants such as Samsung, General Electric, Google, and Apple are attracted by wearable technologies, and have developed, or plan to design wearables and/or related services (Wearable technology, 2014). The idea behind wearables is the enhancement of reality without getting in the way; wearable increase surroundings’ awareness, without disrupting social interactions (Pentland, 2013). But many challenges remain if wearables are to complement, or change/transform in-class education. Here, the paper discusses some of the opportunities and challenges facing wearables.
The Quantified Self or Life-logging
Perhaps the most known capability of wearable technology is the possibility to collect data on one’s daily activities (Cellan-Jones, 2013). Because of their wireless connectivity, and their portability, wearable allow individuals to record and accumulate details of daily activities. This practice, also known as “quantified self” provides users with data about themselves, and can inform their behavior or attitude (Cellan-Jones, 2013). Boag (2013) argues that his Jawbone Up wristband gives him control over his life; “the more I know about my body the more aware I am. We often go through life in a stupor and one thing to the next but this makes me aware of myself” (as cited in Cellan-Jones., 2013). Boag’s (2013) statement gives an insight into the user experience, and into the effect of wearable technology on one’s understanding of self. Quantified self becomes, in this view, an approach to learning that is controlled and determined by the user. The user decides what s/he wants to learn, and the goal of or purpose of the learning activity. It is worthwhile mentioning that wearable such as Fitbit also allows the user to track daily activities and sleep (Cima, 2014; Skiba, 2014).
Personalizing learning
Wearables open new opportunities for personalized learning. With Fitbit or Jawbone Up, students learn about topics of their choice, everywhere, and constantly, using sources such as their recorded daily activities. In this context, learning is integrated into every aspect of life; learning is immersive and no conscious effort is required to actively learn “while engaged in everyday life” (Kinshuk, 2012). These technologies record information about the user, and this data can be used to specifically tailor learning to the student needs in the learning process (Kinshuk, 2012). A student gathering data on sleep habits for example can demonstrate interest in biology, or health, and the data can be used to inform the content material in the student learning process.
Learners as mobile libraries or learning material provider
Depending on one’s understanding of learning and teaching, it could be argued that technologies such as Fitbit or Jawbone Up create a learning and teaching environment where the user learns a little more about himself/herself from the device anywhere. However, based on literature in education, this type of learning is informal not only because of the setting in which it occurs, but also because it is instigated by the learner’s interest, or choice and it’s free from any form of outside assessment (Callanan, Cervantes & Loomis, 2011). Indeed, the interaction or communication happens mainly between the user and the device, or the user, the device and a community of users. Which brings us to the examination and potential of these technologies in a formal setting, or in a classroom.
In a classroom environment, wearables can help the teacher know a little bit more about the students; enabling him/her to tailor learning and teaching to the needs of the students. A potential use of Fitbit or Jawbone Up maybe for a math teacher to have students use their data to predict their chances to engage in the same daily activities the following day or week, or sleeping for the same amount of hours. A health or science teacher can also use these wearables for students to identify the effects of specific activities on their health, or entire being. In an English class, instead of reading a book, students could report their daily activities.
In K-12 classrooms focusing on STEM Education, data from wearables aligns nicely with the curriculum, which focuses on data collection and analysis. Since the device does the tedious work of collecting the data, it frees up time for the students to focus on statistical analysis and making sense of the data. (Lee, 2013). Providing an opportunity to analyze data that is meaningful for the student may prove to be more engaging due to the personalized nature of the analysis.
A closer look at technologies in this paper shows that revolution may reside in the central role the learner will play in the learning process. With wearable technologies, the learner can become the principal provider of learning material or data use in the class. The learner may become a “mobile library” or a “mobile book”, essential for learning to take place. The next generation of curriculum may then need to be developed with some sort of flexibility, with no required books for example. Furthermore, being the provider of the learning material gives the learner the ability to pick and choose the content of the class, and turns the teacher into a collaborator in the learning process. The role of the learner and teacher is redefined with the use of these technologies. And theories such as connectivism come to their full meaning or potential with wearables because they prove to some extent that knowledge exists in places other than the head of the leaner (Donaway, 2011).
Data ownership
Wearable technologies gather data about one’s life or daily activities. Because collected by users, these data it could be said belong to the user who can then decide to share them for learning purposes. In an era of data analytics, and ethical issues that ensue, the challenge with the use of data collected from wearables may be the absence of laws detailed enough to guide the use of data collected on individuals or by individuals on a large scale. In a classroom, users’ refusal to share personal information for in-class learning purposes may jeopardize the learning process. For a use of wearables at a larger scale, for wearable to compete with traditional classroom teaching and learning approach, laws clarifying data ownership are needed learners, teachers and institutions.
Assessment
Educational technologists, instructional designers, researchers and teachers agree that assessing students’ learning is challenging when technology is integrated into teaching or learning. The goal in a technology learning environment is to evaluate learning and not technology abilities. However, with wearables described in this paper, the immersion and unconscious effort they require to engage in a learning activity makes assessment challenging. Wearable users control their learning, and certainly set their learning goals. Because the user sets the learning goals, the challenge for the instructor is to measure learning that occurs in wearables environment. Wearables will add to the ongoing debate on learning assessment. And the newness of the technology may cause its rejection in classroom instruction, or its adoption as a means for content delivery.
Culture
Knowledge sharing or acquisition varies in different cultural settings. While it may seem appropriate and fun to own and wear a device that tracks the user’s activities in the United States or Europe, in other parts of the world, collecting data on one’s activities, or even sharing them may seem inappropriate and bizarre. Individuals may rather learn about themselves from others, than from a device. Research show that there are cultural differences in the use and acceptance of technology (Childress, 2012). Cultural values will also constitute a barrier. Each culture has its understanding of human life, death, and human body in general. Therefore, the type of rapport individuals in different countries have with life, their body, and death will certainly influence not only the adoption of wearable technology.
As wearables develop and become increasingly part of our daily life, thinking of its potential for learning and teaching should start with questions such as “what has this technology changed in users’ activities? To have a user-centered approach, and give room to creative and innovative approach to teaching and learning. Drawing from a humanistic intelligence theory (Mann, 2001), there is a need not to think of technology and transfer of knowledge as “separate entities” that need to connect. Rather, technology should be thought of as an integral part of knowledge transfer to avoid a content delivery type of approach to teaching and learning with every innovation.
References
Callanan, M., Cervantes, C., & Loomis, M. (2011). Informal learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 646-655. doi:10.1002/wcs.143.
Cellan-Jones, R. (2013, June, 3rd). Logging our lives with wearable tech. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-22759482
Childress, V. (2012). Technology and culture. Children’s Technology and Engineering, 16(4), 12-13. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1016490491?accountid=13158
Cima, M. J. (2014). Next-generation wearable electronics. Nature Biotechnology, 32(7), 642-643. doi:10.1038/nbt.2952.
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., & Narayan, V. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD: Developing a framework for creative pedagogies. Research in Learning Technology, 22. doi:10.3402/rlt.v22.24637.
Cranny-Francis, A., & Hawkins, C. (2008). Wearable technology. Visual Communication, 7(3), 267-270. doi:10.1177/1470357208092319.
Donaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-685. doi:10.1108/00907321111186686
Horizon Report (2014). Higher education edition. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN-SC.pdf
IHS Electronics & Media. (2013). Wearable technology-Market assessment: An IHS whitepaper [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.ihs.com/pdfs/Wearable-Technology-sep-2013.pdf
Kinshuk. (2012). Guest editorial: Personalized learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 561-562. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9248-3
Lee, V. R. (2013). The Quantified Self (QS) movement and some emerging opportunities for the educational technology field. Educational Technology, (November-December 2013), 39.
Mann, S. (2001). Wearable computing: Toward humanistic intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(3), 10-15. doi:10.1109/5254.940020.
McCann, J., & Bryson, D. (Eds.). (2009). Smart clothes and wearable technology. Elsevier.
Pentland, S. (2013). The Future of Wearable Technology Retrieved from: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365039733/ 04/25/2013
Skiba, D. J. (2014). The connected age and wearable technology. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(5), 346-347. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1561005652?accountid=13158
Spencer, E. (2014, October 13). Britain Loves Wearables: One In Ten Set To Use Hardware As Wearable Tech Explodes. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/10/13/britain-loves-wearables-one-in-ten-set-to-use-hardware-as-wearable-tech-explodes/
Visiongain (2014, June 26). Wearable technology market report 2014-2019: Companies harnessing value in fitness, mHealth, augmented reality, cameras & E-textiles. Retrieved from https://www.visiongain.com/Report/1283/Wearable-Technology-Market-Report-2014-2019
Wearable technology. (n.d). Retrieved September 29, 2014, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearable_technology.