Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   1	
  
Wearable Technologies: Possibilities in
Bringing Innovative L...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   2	
  
wearable device.7
Wearable devices can be considered “devices...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   3	
  
perceived and adopted by the greater population of young adul...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   4	
  
ICT by its attributes and characteristics. The attributes and...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   5	
  
46% said they would be interested in owning a wearable techno...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   6	
  
the values, experiences and the needs of the adopter. Complex...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   7	
  
video) for classroom and learning use based on the influence ...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   8	
  
students might be using certain technologies in a formal lear...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   9	
  
Method
An online census survey39
was administered to college ...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   10	
  
observability scale was excluded from this study as Moore an...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   11	
  
Sample Demographics. About 63.7 of respondents were female a...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   12	
  
As shown in Table 2, of the respondents who have adopted a w...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   13	
  
Table 4
Reasons for Non-Adoption of Wearable Technology Devi...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   14	
  
Table 5
Adoption/Rejection of Wearable Technology Devices fo...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   15	
  
Table 6
Wearable Technology Device Use in Educational Settin...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   16	
  
Of those who owned the device, many had several reasons for ...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   17	
  
into the classroom setting. Thus, this study provides the st...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   18	
  
Notes
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   19	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  ...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   20	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  ...
Wearable	
  Technology-­‐	
  Schmitz	
  Weiss	
  
	
   21	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Wearable Technologies: Possibilities in Bringing Innovative Learning Experiences to the Classroom

2,338 views

Published on

This study examines the use and perceptions of wearable technologies (e.g. smartwatches, fitness trackers, etc.) and their likelihood for adoption and/or rejection by students in higher education for educational purposes. Using the Diffusion of Innovations theoretical framework, this study surveyed students at a southwestern university about their adoption, use and perceptions of wearable technologies. The implications of this study can open new pathways to understanding new forms of learning in higher education, particularly in journalism education.

Published in: Education
  • Hi,i read your article very good.And your discussion is so informative and amazing.I got a lot of information collect your article.Thank you for the nice article .To know more Wearable Technologies
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Wearable Technologies: Possibilities in Bringing Innovative Learning Experiences to the Classroom

  1. 1. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     1   Wearable Technologies: Possibilities in Bringing Innovative Learning Experiences to the Classroom Unpublished manuscript January 31, 2015 By: Amy Schmitz Weiss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Journalism | School of Journalism and Media Studies | San Diego State University Technology plays a crucial role in higher education today.1 Specifically, ICTs or Information and Communication Technologies 2 (i.e. computers, the Internet, etc.) are used in many classrooms nowadays as tools to aid in basic instruction (e.g. lecturing, class activities, homework assignments, etc.).3 Specifically in journalism and mass communication programs, ICTs are also being used as a tool to aid in teaching news gathering and reporting skills vis-à- vis digital still cameras, video cameras, audio recorders, laptops, etc., and as a tool to aid in teaching content production vis-à-vis image processing, video editing, web publishing, etc., to prepare students for the 21st century newsroom.4 In fact, the 21st century newsroom now reflects a digital environment where new forms of ICTs (e.g. smartphones, tablets, etc.) are rapidly being adopted for use in news reporting and gathering tasks in the newsroom.5 Some individuals have defined this moment in time as one of radical transformation for the journalism profession and academy where ICTs are changing the idea of how journalism is taught and practiced.6 For example, the latest ICT being explored with in the newsroom is the
  2. 2. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     2   wearable device.7 Wearable devices can be considered “devices that can be worn by users, taking the form of an accessory such as jewelry, sunglasses, a backpack, or even actual items of clothing such as shoes or a jacket”.8 These kinds of devices can track and hold data about an individual and their daily life ranging from how many steps they took in a given day to how much sleep they get at night. Google Glass and various smartwatches are now being used and experimented with by some reporters for shooting video as well as capturing audio.9 As it relates to the classroom, wearable technology devices are not unknown to the educational sector. The 2013 and 2014 Horizon Report identified that wearable technology will become one of the next big technologies to be adopted in higher education within the next three to five years.10 Currently, universities around the world as well as in the United States have started to experiment with the use of wearable devices for classroom instruction.11 Some U.S. journalism programs and faculty now have Google Glass and are experimenting with its use in classes.12 In fact, Robert Hernandez, a journalism professor at the University of Southern California has a Google Glass class underway this fall with students in an aim to create glass-centric software for journalists.13 As journalism programs begin experimenting with wearable devices in the classroom, some preliminary questions about this ICT must be explored before its future possible implementation in the classroom. In general, how is the device
  3. 3. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     3   perceived and adopted by the greater population of young adults? How do young adults perceive its general use in higher education? These preliminary insights can give journalism educators a better understanding of how this innovation is perceived by young adults, how it can be used in general for learning from a student’s perspective, and the likelihood of the adoption of such technology by young adults. The insights from this type of study can contribute to previous work by scholars who have studied ICT adoption from the perspective of the educator14 and/or the effectiveness of an ICT in a specific program or class.15 It must be noted that few studies have been conducted to understand the factors that make students adopt an ICT, thus this study can also help to provide more insight to educators from the learner perspective.16 Using the Diffusion of Innovations theoretical framework, this study examines how the wearable device is perceived and adopted among young adults based on an online census survey (n=29,940) that was conducted at a southwestern university in April 2014. Theoretical Background Understanding the factors to ICT adoption can be explored in a variety of ways. Scholars over the years have used the Theory of Reasoned Action,17 the Theory of Planned Behavior18 as well as the Theory of Technology Acceptance19 to explore the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of ICT adoption at the individual level. However, the Diffusion of Innovations theory is another approach to examining this. This theory helps to provide a descriptive model of adoption of an
  4. 4. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     4   ICT by its attributes and characteristics. The attributes and characteristics of an innovation must also be considered aside from the adopter’s own beliefs or behaviors. Thus, this study uses the Diffusion of Innovations theory because it seeks to describe how young adults are adopting the wearable device and what specific attributes and characteristics are driving such adoption.   According to Rogers, an innovation can be defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption.”20 It can be defined as technology, which Rogers defines as “ a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome.”21 Wearable devices can be considered a technology and innovation similar to the desktop computer or smartphone. Wearable technology is a concept that can be tied back to the early 1990s with the development of Ubiquitous Computing where it was predicted that computers would weave themselves seamlessly into daily life.22 The first scientist to experiment with wearable devices was Steve Mann who created wearable computer experiments in the late 1990s that were somewhat big in size, slow in processing power and limited in physical use.23 Since then, wearable technologies have become smaller in size, run faster because of sophisticated microchips and processors, and can withstand a variety of elements (e.g. rain, sunshine, etc.).24 According to research market firm, SSI, wearable technologies will become popular in the mainstream market within the next two to three years.25 In fact, a recent survey conducted by Harris Interactive of 2,577 U.S. adults, about
  5. 5. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     5   46% said they would be interested in owning a wearable technology device.26 Another survey conducted late last year,27 identified that among U.S. adults interested in purchasing a wearable technology device, 33% said they would be interested in wearing a smartwatch, 22% said wearing the device in their clothing and 19% said wearing glasses. Of those who already own a wearable technology device, eight in 10 said that it has enhanced their life. Specifically, 61% felt more informed, another 61% said it helped with their personal efficiency, 47% felt more intelligent, and 37% said it helped with their career development.28 These statistics can be placed within the context of the natural adoption curve that occurs with a new technology. According to Rogers, innovations will go through an adoption curve in the market that consists of innovators at 2.5%, then the early adopters at 13.5%, the early majority that will then represent another 34% over time, the late majority at 34%, and laggards representing the end of the adoption curve at 16%.29 Based on current market trends, wearable technology can be considered at the early stage of Rogers’ adoption curve based on the number of people who are currently adopting wearable devices. Furthermore, within the Diffusion of Innovations theoretical framework, Rogers states there are attributes of innovations that speed or impede diffusion and how an individual may adopt an innovation. These include relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Relative advantage is that the innovation is perceived better than the idea that supersedes it. This can be determined by economic profitability, social prestige or other benefits. Compatibility is that an innovation is perceived consistent with
  6. 6. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     6   the values, experiences and the needs of the adopter. Complexity is how the innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand or use. Trialability is that the innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. Observability is how the innovation is easily visible to others. 30 These attributes as Rogers has defined them have been adapted and studied for decades in different contexts and theoretical models in organizational behavior, social psychology and information science fields.31 As it applies to this study, several scholars in education and educational technology32 have studied how students have adopted ICTs (e.g. wikis, smartphones, blogs, social networking sites, e-learning systems, etc.) and their attributes in the classroom setting. Several of these studies have shown how the attributes of observability, compatibility, relative advantage and trialability of the ICT can play a factor into a student’s likelihood to adopt and use a technology. For example, observabilty can play a factor for students in how they decide to adopt a technology based on what is happening in the social circle around them. For example, Lai, Weng and Lei found in their research that students’ adoption of technology (e.g.. social networking sites, video games, wikis, blogs, smartphones, etc.) for learning purposes was connected to how much their peers and teachers supported the technology in addition to their own attitudes toward technology. Perceived usefulness and general ICT literacy skills influenced adoption but had less predictive power.33 Another study identified that students will perceive and in turn, adopt new media production technologies (e.g. web-ready media via audio, photo and
  7. 7. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     7   video) for classroom and learning use based on the influence of significant others (e.g. other students and instructors) who adopt new media production technologies. Furthermore, the study identified that students acknowledged that technology was important to their future careers and thus, were likely to adopt new media production technologies as a result of seeing the value of such skills for professional competency.34 Compatibility can also play a factor for technology adoption. Based on a survey of students’ perceptions of an e-learning system and their intentions to use the technology, findings showed that students accepted and adopted a technology when it matched their learning expectations and when it was compatible to their learning lifestyle.35 Relative advantage and understanding the uses and benefits of technology can also play a factor into a student’s adoption of ICTs. A group of researchers surveyed and interviewed university students from two different disciplines (i.e. engineering and social work) and found that students adopted general technologies such as websites, course learning management systems, smartphone apps for learning purposes but didn’t adopt technologies such as wikis, YouTube, blogs or social media as readily. To examine this difference, the researchers identified in interviews with the students that they had a limited understanding of knowing the potential benefits of using such technologies for classroom use and thus only adopted those technologies they saw a direct benefit and use from. Several students also stated that they looked to their peers or instructors for guidance in technology adoption. The researchers posited that
  8. 8. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     8   students might be using certain technologies in a formal learning context based on what their instructors are doing with such technologies in the classroom.36 It can be concluded that the attributes of compatibility, relative advantage, and observability as well as attitudes toward such ICTs (e.g. smartphone apps, wikis, social networks, websites, etc.) can play a factor in technology adoption among students as it relates to the classroom and learning experience.37 Research Questions Research has shown that young adults are adopting ICTs for classroom use and they are open to adopting new ICTs when their peers and teachers adopt or perceive its usefulness as well as its compatibility in context to the learning environment.38 Based on the past ICT scholarship, how are young adults adopting the latest ICT - the wearable device? What attributes drive adoption or not? How is this technology perceived for use in the educational setting? These issues are addressed in the following research questions. RQ1: What innovation attributes (e.g. relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability) speed or impede diffusion of wearable technology by young adults? RQ2: What innovation attributes (e.g. relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability) speed or impede diffusion of wearable technology by young adults for educational purposes? RQ3: What ways could young adults perceive wearable technology devices being used in educational settings?
  9. 9. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     9   Method An online census survey39 was administered to college students 18 years and older attending a southwestern university in April 2014 (n=29,940). Responses were obtained from 454 young adults.40 Respondents were recruited through an email invitation and sent by the campus registrar office to the entire study body at the university.41 This study focuses on young adults because they are the fastest adoption group of wearable technology devices than any other age segment.42 The university population and not just journalism and mass communication students were surveyed for this study in order to provide a comprehensive and full picture about how young adults are adopting wearable technologies. The insights garnered from this census survey can provide journalism educators with preliminary information of the possible uses of this ICT in general in the classroom. Measurement. Respondents were asked about their device ownership (e.g. smartphones, game consoles, laptops, etc.), their Internet usage, perceptions and uses of wearable technologies. Questions in the survey were based on existing survey instruments on innovation adoption of information communication technologies (ICTs) and wearable technologies.43 Existing scales from Moore and Benbasat44 were used for this study to measure Rogers’ innovation attributes of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity/ease of use and trialability to determine perceptions for wearable technology adoption (see Table 1).45 All scales had reliability above .80, which is considered very good according to DeVellis.46 To make this study as replicable as possible, the
  10. 10. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     10   observability scale was excluded from this study as Moore and Benbasat had construct issues that resulted in low reliability and validity.47 The researcher used another method by which to measure observability among the respondents.48 Table 1 Innovation Characteristics Scale Items by Moore and Benbasat Relative Advantage • Using a wearable tech device would enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly. • Using a wearable tech device would improve the quality of the work I do. • The disadvantages of using a wearable tech device would far outweigh the advantages. * • Using a wearable tech device would improve my performance at school. • Using a wearable tech device would give me greater control over my work at school. • Using a wearable tech device would increase my productivity. Compatibility • Using a wearable tech device would be compatible with all aspects of my life. • I think that using a wearable tech device would fit well with the way I like to work, play and live. • Using a wearable tech device would fit into my lifestyle. Complexity/Ease of Use • I believe that wearable tech device would be cumbersome to use. • It would be easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using a wearable tech device. • Using a wearable tech device would require a lot of mental effort. • Using a wearable tech device would be frustrating. • Using a wearable tech device would be clear and understandable. • I believe that it would be easy to get a wearable tech device to do what I want it to do. • Overall, I believe that a wearable tech device would be easy to use. • Learning to operate a wearable tech device would be easy for me. Trialability • I’ve had a great deal of opportunity to try various wearable tech devices. • I know where I can go to satisfactorily try out various uses of wearable tech devices. • A wearable tech device was available to me to adequately test run its use. • I was permitted to use a wearable tech device on a trial basis long enough to see what it could do. Note. *Item removed from scale due to low reliability. Observability scale was not included due to construct issues from Moore and Benbasat. Observability was measured using another method. See article for details. The relative advantage scale consisted of 5 items with a reliability of α.=91. The compatibility scale consisted of 3 items with a reliability of α=.90. The complexity/ease of use scale consisted of 8 items with a reliability of α=.88. The triability scale consisted of 4 items with a reliability of α=.87.    
  11. 11. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     11   Sample Demographics. About 63.7 of respondents were female and 36.3% were male. The majority of the students were undergraduates (74.7%), 24.5% were graduate students and less than one percent other. Over 80% of respondents were aware of wearable technology devices. However, only 16% owned a wearable technology device in comparison to 84% that didn’t. Of those who owned a wearable device, frequency of its use varied. Thirty-four percent used the device several times a day, 20.6% used it 3-5 days a week, 14.7% said they used it less often, 10.3% said they used it once a day, and 7.4% said every few weeks. The majority stated they owned a health or fitness monitor (N=64), followed by smart glasses (N=2), smart watches (N=2), mobile life tracker (N=1) and a people tracker device (N=1). Results In order to answer RQ1, students were first segmented into adopters or non-adopters of wearable technology devices based on their ownership of such devices and ANOVA analyses were run according to aforementioned innovation attributes scales. Table 2 Innovation Attributes by Adopter Category _____________________________________________________________________________ Adopter Non-Adopter Innovation Attributes Mean SD Mean SD F-ratio df Sig. _____________________________________________________________________________ Relative Advantage 2.55 .85 3.06 .77 23.480 1, 417 .001 Compatibility 2.29 .79 3.12 .92 46.610 1, 416 .001 Complexity/Ease of Use 2.17 .59 2.72 .65 38.878 1, 392 .001 Trialability 3.32 1.12 4.07 .83 38.928 1, 402 .001 Note: Scale from 1-5 strongly agree to strongly disagree
  12. 12. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     12   As shown in Table 2, of the respondents who have adopted a wearable technology device, agreed that the innovation attributes of relative advantage (M=2.55, SD=.85) F(1, 417) = 23.480, p = .001, compatibility (M=2.29, SD=.79) F(1, 416) = 46.610, p = .001, ease of use/complexity (M=2.17, SD=.59) F(1, 392) = 38.878, p = .001 and trialability (M=3.32, SD =1.12) F(1, 402) = 38,928, p = .001 significantly showed to aid their adoption and use of such device in comparison to non-adopters. For the innovation attribute of observability, 92% of adopters were knowledgeable and exposed to wearable technology devices in comparison to 86% of non-adopters.   Table 3 Reasons for Adoption of Wearable Technology Devices ________________________________________________ Reason % _________________________________________________ Track physical activity 53.6 Usefulness 11.5 Trying out new gadgets 10.1 To be healthy 10.1 Other 10.1 For fun 4.3 (N) (69) _________________________________________________ A majority of respondents who did adopt a wearable technology device stated their reason was to use it to track physical activity (53.6%), followed by its usefulness (11.5%), trying out new gadgets (10.1%), to be healthy (10.1%) and for fun (4.3%) (see Table 3).
  13. 13. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     13   Table 4 Reasons for Non-Adoption of Wearable Technology Devices _____________________________________________________ Reason % _____________________________________________________ Don’t have a need for item 45.9 Don’t know enough about it 21.3 Cost is too high 20.5 Have too many gadgets already 5.5 It’s a fad 4.2 Don’t like the way it looks 2.4 Don’t like the feel/weight of the product .3 (N) (381) ____________________________________________________ Of those who didn’t adopt a wearable technology device, 45.9% said they had no need for the item, followed by 21.3% said they didn’t know enough about it, 20.5% cited cost, 5.5% said they have too many gadgets already, 4.2% believe it’s a fad, 2.4% didn’t like the way it looks, and .3% didn’t like the feel/weight of the product (see Table 4). However, 29.6% of respondents said they would consider purchasing a wearable device in the future in comparison to 23.8% that wouldn’t. And 46.6% said they were not sure if they would make the purchase in the future or not. In order to answer RQ2, respondents were recoded into interested and non-interested students based on their response whether they would use wearable technologies in the classroom. ANOVA analyses were then run according to Rogers’ innovation attributes.
  14. 14. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     14   Table 5 Adoption/Rejection of Wearable Technology Devices for Educational Purposes by Innovation Attributes _____________________________________________________________________________ Interested Non-Interested Students Students Innovation Attributes Mean SD Mean SD F-ratio df Sig. _____________________________________________________________________________ Relative Advantage 2.65 .68 3.46 .72 139.355 1, 418 .001 Compatibility 2.65 .84 3.48 .88 95.927 1, 417 .001 Complexity/Ease of Use 2.46 .63 2.84 .67 33.323 1, 392 .001 Trialability 3.84 .99 4.10 .80 7.893 1, 401 .01 Note: Scale from 1-5 strongly agree to strongly disagree As shown in Table 5, interested students agreed that the innovation characteristics of relative advantage (M=2.65, SD=.68) F(1, 418) = 139.355, p = .001, compatibility (M=2.65, SD=.84) F(1, 417) = 95.927, p = .001, complexity/ease of use (M=2.46, SD=.63) F(1, 392) = 33.323, p = .001 and triability (M=3.84, SD=.99) F(1, 401) = 7.893, p = .01, do play a role in their use and adoption of such device for educational purposes in comparison to non- interested students. For the innovation attribute of observability, 88% of interested students were knowledgeable and exposed to wearable technology devices in comparison to 86% of non-interested students. RQ3 examined how young adults perceive wearable technology use in higher education. A majority of the respondents (59.6%) said they would be interested to use one in their classes in comparison to 40.4% who said they wouldn’t. Respondents had varied answers of the ways wearable technology devices could be used in and outside the classroom.
  15. 15. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     15   Table 6 Wearable Technology Device Use in Educational Settings _______________________________________________________ Activity % _______________________________________________________ Recording a class lecture 74.4 (n=338) Note-taking 55.3 (n=251) Taking photos during class related to topic 52.2 (n=237) Gathering information for class topic 51.3 (n=233) Taking photos related to outside class activities 37.9 (n=172) In-class assignments 37.2 (n=169) Finding a relevant reading to the class topic 36.8 (n=167) In-group activities 33.5 (n=152) For field trips or outside class activities 31.5 (n=143) Asking instructor questions 30 (n=136) ________________________________________________________ Note: Respondents had the option to select more than one option. As shown in Table 6, 74% percent said the wearable device could be used to record a class lecture, 55% said for note-taking, 52.2% said for taking photos related to class topic, 51% said using the device for gathering class information, 37.9% said for taking photos outside the class, 37.2% said for in-class assignments, 33.5% said using the device for in-group activities, 31.5% said for field trips and 30% said for asking the instructor questions. Conclusion/Discussion This study shows that the adoption of wearable technologies by young adults remains in a very early stage. Considering Rogers’49 adoption curve, we are still in the innovator to early adopter stage. Furthermore, there is a greater awareness of wearable technology devices, but less people who actually own one. Both of these findings reflect a larger trend nationally and globally of this kind of device and its adoption in the marketplace.50
  16. 16. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     16   Of those who owned the device, many had several reasons for adopting it, but the majority stated physical activity tracking as the main reason. For non- adopters, the lack of necessity, lack of knowledge of the device, and cost were the main reasons for not owning one. However, not all respondents were against future adoption of such device since almost 30% were going to buy one in the future and another 46% were uncertain. As for classroom use, the majority of respondents saw the multimedia capabilities (e.g. video, photo) as well as information gathering and storage features of the wearable technology device as possible aids in their learning of class materials. Adoption of the wearable technology device among the young adults was statistically significant to the innovation attributes of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity/ease of use, trialbility and observability, reflecting Rogers’51 diffusion of innovations adoption pattern. Future research in this area could explore how such devices are being used by young adults by conducting focus groups, in-depth interviews or having self-tracking diaries charting the adoption process. The findings from this study only reflect the perceptions of young adults from one southwestern university and are not generalizable to the larger population, but the study does provide insight into the early adoption of the wearable technology device into the market. It also shows how young adults who own these devices are using them for information gathering and utility purposes albeit for physical fitness tracking. However, these purposes can be extended
  17. 17. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     17   into the classroom setting. Thus, this study provides the start to an important conversation in the academy about how innovations like the wearable technology device can be explored for use in higher education. Becker, Vlad and Simpson state that journalism and mass communication programs need to adapt and innovate in order to maintain and grow enrollments in the years and decades ahead if they want to be sustainable.52 Journalism and mass communication programs that adopt innovations such as wearable technology devices before widespread use in society and the journalism profession may help to prepare journalism students for the unknown when they enter the workforce in the future.53 Also, as ICT adoption research has identified, educators who adopt such innovations can have an impact on students’ general ICT adoption and influence their students’ behaviors and perceptions of the adoption of such ICTs by how they present and use such ICTs in the classroom.54 Journalism educators can play a crucial role in this process by how they adopt an ICT like the wearable device in the classroom and how their students react to such an ICT and consider its use for the classroom but also the future newsroom they may work in. It is through new ways of exploration and experimentation with such innovations that higher education and for that matter, journalism and mass communication programs can keep pace with the market, remain sustainable for the future, and help in the creation of a new market of professionals who have the latest skills to do their job, and are on the cutting-edge of innovation in order to explore the possibilities of how work can be done in the 21st century.
  18. 18. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     18   Notes                                                                                                                 1 Lee Bernard Becker, Tudor Vlad, and Holly Anne Simpson, “2013 Annual Survey of Journalism Mass Communication Enrollments: Enrollments Decline for Third Consecutive Year,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 69 (4 2014): 349-365, first published on October 27, 2014, doi:10.1177/1077695814555432; Maria Marron, “Transitions and Challenges,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 68 (1 2013): 3–5, doi: 10.1177/1077695813475789 ; John Pavlik, “A Vision for Transformative Leadership: Rethinking Journalism and Mass Communication Education for the Twenty-First Century,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 68(3 2008): 211–22 doi: 10.1177/1077695813499561; Becker, Vlad and Simpson, “2012 Annual Survey of Journalism and Mass Communication Enrollments: Enrollments Decline for Second Year in a Row.” 2 ICT is a technology that provides information through communication technologies such as computers, the Internet, cell phones and video conferencing. 3 Laurence Johnson, Samantha Adams Becker, Victoria Estrada, and Martín, “Technology Outlook for STEM+ Education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project Sector Analysis,” The New Media Consortium, 2013, http://www.nmc.org/publications/2013-technology-outlook-stem (accessed January 30, 2014), 12; Laurence Johnson, Samantha Adams Becker, Victoria Estrada, and Freeman, “NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition,” The New Media Consortium, 2014, http://redarchive.nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon-report-higher-ed (accessed November 8, 2014). 4 Andreas Veglis and Andreas Pomportsis, “Journalists in the Age of ICTs: Work Demands and Educational Needs,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 69(1 2014): 70-71; Carol Smith, Haeryon Kim, and James Bernstein, “Computer-Mediated Communication and Strategies for Teaching,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 48(1 1993): 80-83; William Smith, “Computer-Mediated Communication: An Experimental Study,” Journalism Educator, 48(4 1994): 27-33; John Russial, "Mixed Messages About Pagination and Other Skills," Newspaper Research Journal 16 (winter 1995): 60-70; Ann Auman, Frank Fee, and John Russial, "Noble Work, but Undervalued: The Status and Value of Copy Editing in Journalism Schools," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 57 (summer 2002): 139; Lewis A. Friedland and Sheila Webb, "Incorporating Online Publishing into the Curriculum," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (autumn 1996): 54-65; Jennifer Wood Adams and Meussa L. Voynich, “The Use of Design Technology in U.S. Journalism Programs,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (spring 2008):42-54; Cindy Royal, "Teaching Web Design in Journalism and Mass Communications Programs: Integration, Judgment and Perspective," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 59 (winter 2005): 400-14; Michael Huntsberger and Alan Stavitsky, “The New "Podagogy": Incorporating Podcasting into Journalism Education,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (winter 2007): 397-410. 5 Du and Thornburg, “The Gap between Online Journalism Education and Practice: The Twin Surveys.” 6 Pavlik, “A Vision for Transformative Leadership: Rethinking Journalism and Mass Communication Education for the Twenty-First Century.” Jean Folkerts, “History of Journalism Education,” Journalism & Communication Monographs 16 (4 2014): 227-299, first published on July 22, 2014 doi:10.1177/1522637914541379. 7 Stuart Dredge, “How Vice's Tim Pool used Google Glass to cover Istanbul protests,” The Guardian July 30, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/30/google-glass-istanbul-protests-vice (accessed November 1, 2014); Alastair Reed, “Could Google Glass change the face of journalism?: Journalism.co.uk, January 15, 2014 https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/could-google-glass-change-the-face-of-journalism-/s2/a555596/ (accessed November 1, 2014). 8 Laurence Johnson, Samantha Adams Becker, Victoria Estrada, and Martín, “Technology Outlook for STEM+ Education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project Sector Analysis,” The New Media Consortium, 2013, http://www.nmc.org/publications/2013-technology-outlook-stem (accessed January 30, 2014), 12. 9 Stuart Dredge, “How Vice's Tim Pool used Google Glass to cover Istanbul protests,” The Guardian July 30, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/30/google-glass-istanbul-protests-vice (accessed November 1, 2014); Alastair Reed, “Could Google Glass change the face of journalism?: Journalism.co.uk, January 15, 2014, https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/could-google-glass-change-the- face-of-journalism-/s2/a555596/ (accessed November 1, 2014); Alastair Reed, “Smartwatches and the digital future of news,” Journalism.co.uk, January 20, 2014, https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/smartwatches-and-the-digital-future-of-news/s2/a555625/ (accessed November 1, 2014). 10 Johnson, Becker, Estrada, and Martín, “Technology Outlook for STEM+ Education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project Sector Analysis.” ; http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN-SC.pdf 11 Johnson, Becker, Estrada, and Martín, “Technology Outlook for STEM+ Education 2013-2018: An NMC
  19. 19. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     19                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Horizon Project Sector Analysis.” http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN-SC.pdf; Laurence Johnson, Samantha Adams Becker, Victoria Estrada, and Freeman, “NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition,” The New Media Consortium, 2014, http://redarchive.nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon-report-higher-ed (accessed November 8, 2014). 12 Adam Offitzer, “How Journalism Professors Are Bringing Google Glass into the Classroom,” American Journalism Review, April 10, 2014, http://ajr.org/2014/04/10/google-glass-journalism-new-perspective/ (accessed May 30, 2014). Some journalism programs include: DePaul University, Michigan State University, Texas Christian University, Lehigh University, San Diego State University, among others. 13 Chris Gayomali, “Meet the USC Journalism Professor Leading Course on Google Glass,” Fast Company, April 3, 2014, http://www.fastcompany.com/3028476/whos-next/meet-the-usc-journalism- professor-leading-a-course-on-google-glass (accessed May 30, 2014) 14 Margaret DeFleur and Lucinda Davenport, “Innovation Lag: Computer-Assisted Classrooms Vs. Newsrooms,” Journalism Educator 48 (2 1993): 26-36; Kevin Lee and Charles Fleming, “Problems of Introducing Courses in Computer-Assisted Reporting,” Journalism Educator, 50 (3 1995): 23-34; Lucinda Davenport, Fred Fico, and Margaret DeFleur, “Computer-assisted Reporting in Classrooms: A Decade of Diffusion and a Comparison to Newsrooms,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 57 (1 2002) 2-22; Kimberly Lawless and James Pellegrino, “Professional Development in Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning: Knowns, Unknowns, and Ways to Pursue Better Questions and Answers,” Review of Education Research 77, 4 (2007): 575–614; Willam Sugar, Frank Crawley, and Bethann Fine, “Examining Teachers’ Decisions to Adopt New Technology,” Educational Technology & Society 7, 4 (2004): 201–13; Timothy Teo, “A Path Analysis of Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes to Computer Use: Applying and Extending the Technology Acceptance Model in an Educational Context,” Interactive Learning Environments 18, 1 (2010): 65–79; Carol Smith, Haeryon Kim, and James Bernstein, “Computer-Mediated Communication and Strategies for Teaching,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 48(1 1993): 80-83. 15 Lee and Fleming, “Problems of Introducing Courses in Computer-Assisted Reporting.”; Patrick Sutherland, “Diffusion of Courses with World Wide Web Features: Perceptions of Journalism and Mass Communication Program Administrators,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 58 (1 2003):384-395; Shelton Gunaratne and Byung Lee, “Integration of Internet Resources into Curriculum and Instruction,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 51 (2 1996): 25-35; DeFleur and Lucinda Davenport, “Innovation Lag: Computer-Assisted Classrooms Vs. Newsrooms.”; Davenport, Fico, and DeFleur, “Computer-assisted Reporting in Classrooms: A Decade of Diffusion and a Comparison to Newsrooms;” William Smith, “Computer-Mediated Communication: An Experimental Study,” Journalism Educator, 48(4 1994): 27-33; John Russial, "Mixed Messages About Pagination and Other Skills," Newspaper Research Journal 16 (winter 1995): 60-70; Ann Auman, Frank Fee, and John Russial, "Noble Work, but Undervalued: The Status and Value of Copy Editing in Journalism Schools," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 57 (summer 2002): 139; Lewis A. Friedland and Sheila Webb, "Incorporating Online Publishing into the Curriculum," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (autumn 1996): 54-65; Jennifer Wood Adams and Meussa L. Voynich, “The Use of Design Technology in U.S. Journalism Programs,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (spring 2008):42-54; Cindy Royal, "Teaching Web Design in Journalism and Mass Communications Programs: Integration, Judgment and Perspective," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 59 (winter 2005): 400-14; Michael Huntsberger and Alan Stavitsky, “The New "Podagogy": Incorporating Podcasting into Journalism Education,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (winter 2007): 397-410. 16 Toby Hopp, “Subjective Norms as a Driver of Mass Communication Students’ Intentions to Adopt New Media Production Technologies,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 68 (4 2013): 348– 364, doi: 10.1177/1077695813506993 17 Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975). 18 Icek Ajzen, “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior,” in J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann (eds.), Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. (NY: Springer, 1985), 11-39; Kiernan Mathieson, “Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Information Systems Research 2 (1 1991): 173-191; Shirley Taylor, S., and Peter Todd,“Understanding Information Technology Usage - a Test of Competing Models,” Information Systems Research 6 (2 1995): 144-176; Shirley Taylor, S., and Peter Todd, “Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience,” MIS Quarterly 19 (4 1995): 561-570. 19 Fred D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly 13 (3 1989): 319-340; Fred D. Davis, Richard Bagozzi, and Paul Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science 35 (8 1989):982-1003. 20 Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition. (NY: The Free Press, 1995),11.
  20. 20. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     20                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             21 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 12. 22 Mark Weiser, “The Computer for the 21 st Century.” Scientific American Special Issue on Communications, Computers, and Networks, (1991): 78-89. 23 Steve Mann, “Wearable Computing as Means for Personal Empowerment,” Keynote address presented at the First International Conference on Wearable Computing, Fairfax, Virginia, May 12–13, 1998, http://wearcam.org/icwckeynote.html (accessed January 30, 2014); Steve Mann and Hall Niedzviecki, Hall, Cyborg: Digital Destiny and Human Possibility in the Age of the Wearable Computer (Toronto: Doubleday, 2001). 24 Google launched its Google Glass prototype to the public in 2013, a pair of glasses that the user could wear to view the Internet, get directions, take video and photos all from a small lens near their eye. Although it remains in beta, latest figures place the number of Google Glass owners somewhere around 10,000. 25 Jason Kannon, “Wearable Technology Grows in Popularity,” SSI, September 18, 2013, http://www.surveysampling.com/~/~/link.aspx?_id=D6BCAB8C95DC4E5AA23B9ADCD0099681&_z=z (accessed January 30, 2014). 26 Larry Shannon-Missal, “Are Americans Prepared to Sport Wearable Tech?” Harris Interactive, November 6, 2013, http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/150 8/ArticleId/1312/Default.aspx (accessed January 30, 2014). 27 Will Oremus, “Survey: People Don't Really Want to Wear Computers on Their Face,” Slate.com, November 25, 2013, http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/11/25/citrix_wearable_technology_survey_adults_prefer_ smartwatches_to_google_glass.html (accessed January 30, 2014). 28 Joe McKendrick, “Google Glass is Only the Beginning of Cloud-Powered Wearable Technology, Survey Suggests,” Forbes.com, June 5, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2013/06/05/google- glass-is-only-the-beginning-of-cloud-powered-wearable-technology-survey-suggests/ (accessed January 30, 2014). 29 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 262 30 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 212-251. 31 Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980); Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975); Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.”; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models.”; Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael Morris, Gordon Davis, and Fred Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” MIS Quarterly 27 (3 2003): 425-478; Ritu Agarwal and Jayesh Prasad, “A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology,” Information Systems Research 9 (2 1998): 204-215; Gary Moore and Izak Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, 2(3 1991): 192-222; Viswanath Venkatesh, Fred Davis and Michael Morris, “Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research,” Journal for the Association of Information Systems, 8 (4 2007): 267- 286. 32 Jian-Lian Chen, “The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance,” Computers & Education, 57 (2011): 1501–1511; Anoush Margaryan, Allison Littlejohn, and Gabrielle Vojt, “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies,” Computers & Education, 56 (2 2011): 429–440; Wilma Clark, Kit Logan, Rosemary Luckin, Adrian Mee, and Martin Oliver, “Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (2009): 56–69l Chun Lai, Qiu Wang, and Jing Lei, “What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong,” Computers & Education, 59 (2012): 569-579; Hopp, “Subjective Norms as a Driver of Mass Communication Students’ Intentions to Adopt New Media Production Technologies.” 33        Lai, Wang, and Lei, “What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong.” 34 Hopp, “Subjective Norms as a Driver of Mass Communication Students’ Intentions to Adopt New Media Production Technologies.” 35 Chen, “The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance.” 36 Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Vojt, “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies.” 37 Chen, “The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance.”; Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Vojt, “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital
  21. 21. Wearable  Technology-­‐  Schmitz  Weiss     21                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             technologies.”; Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, and Oliver, “Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners.” 38      Chen, “The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance.”; Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Vojt, “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies.”; Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, and Oliver, “Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners.”; Lai, Wang, and Lei, “What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong.”; Hopp, “Subjective Norms as a Driver of Mass Communication Students’ Intentions to Adopt New Media Production Technologies.”  39 Census survey means every student in the campus population was surveyed. The accuracy of the intended group and the reliability is higher than a sampling survey which only covers a cross section of the intended group the survey is intended for. 40 Despite this response rate from the census, the respondents are representative of the makeup of the campus population by gender, enrollment level and ethnicity. Campus enrollment was 84% undergraduate and 15% graduate. The ethnicity of the campus population was 36.7% were white, 29.5% were Hispanic, 13.3% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.4% were other, 3.7% were African American and .2% were Native American/American Indian. The campus population was 56% females and 44% males. Sixty-three percent of respondents were female and 36% were male. As for survey respondents, 74.7% were undergraduates and 24.5% were graduates. The ethnicity of the survey respondents was 41.7% were white, 24.5% were Hispanic, 18.1% were Asian Pacific Islander, 4.2% were other, 3.9% were African American and 1% were Native American/American Indian. 41 To aid participation in the survey, the researcher provided an incentive of a random drawing to win Apple or Android Gift Cards for those who completed the survey. 42 Johnson, Becker, Estrada, and Martín, “Technology Outlook for STEM+ Education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project Sector Analysis; Shannon-Missal, “Are Americans Prepared to Sport Wearable Tech?” 43 Gary Moore and Izak Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, 2(3 1991): 192-222; Shannon-Missal, “Are Americans Prepared to Sport Wearable Tech?”; Kannon, “Wearable Technology Grows in Popularity.” 44 Moore and Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation.” 45 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. 46 Robert F. DeVellis, Scale Development, Theory and Applications, 2 nd edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003). 47 Moore and Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” 203. 48 Rogers states that an innovation can be classified as computer hardware or equipment, and that it will have higher observability and likelihood for adoption than computer software that is not as apparent to observe or be exposed to. Wearable technology devices are physical objects such as glasses, smartwatches, etc. that are visible in a social system. Thus, the visibility of such an innovation can be answered by exposure to and knowledge/awareness of such innovation. 49 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. 50 Kannon, “Wearable Technology Grows in Popularity,”; Shannon-Missal, “Are Americans Prepared to Sport Wearable Tech?”; Oremus, “Survey: People Don't Really Want to Wear Computers on Their Face.” 51 Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations. 52 Becker, Vlad and Simpson, “2012 Annual Survey of Journalism and Mass Communication Enrollments: Enrollments Decline for Second Year in a Row.” 53 Jane Singer, David Craig, Chris Allen, Virginia Whitehouse, Anelia Dimitrova and Keith Sanders, “Attitudes of Professors and Students About New Media Technology,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (summer 1996): 44. 54 Chen, “The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance.”; Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Vojt, “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies.”; Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, and Oliver, “Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners.”; Lai, Wang, and Lei, “What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong.”; Hopp, “Subjective Norms as a Driver of Mass Communication Students’ Intentions to Adopt New Media Production Technologies.”  

×