writing about ethical

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujdl20

Download by: [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities] Date: 19 April 2017, At: 16:39

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education

ISSN: 2153-2974 (Print) 2332-7383 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujdl20

Special Article Personal Wearable Technologies in Education: Value or Villain?

Arlene C. Borthwick, Cindy L. Anderson, Elizabeth S. Finsness & Teresa S. Foulger

To cite this article: Arlene C. Borthwick, Cindy L. Anderson, Elizabeth S. Finsness & Teresa S. Foulger (2015) Special Article Personal Wearable Technologies in Education: Value or Villain?, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31:3, 85-92, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2015.1021982

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2015.1021982

Published online: 02 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1882

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Special Article Personal Wearable Technologies in Education: Value or Villain?

Arlene C. Borthwick National Louis University

Cindy L. Anderson Roosevelt University

Elizabeth S. Finsness Minnesota State University, Mankato

Teresa S. Foulger Arizona State University

Abstract

Wearable personal learning technol- ogies can gather data from the person wearing the device or from the sur- rounding environment and enable that data to be transferred to another device or shared via the cloud. Wear- able technologies can serve as a valuable asset in the classroom enhancing differentiation of instruc- tion and student engagement. They also can assist students with a variety of physical limitations. Data collec- tion from these wearable personal- ized learning technologies enables the building of student profiles—leading to a “quantified” self for assessment and instruction. However, the prolif- eration of wearable devices may also increase concerns about privacy and security of data, dependence on out- side vendors for storage and analysis of big data, and access by students of all socioeconomic levels. Addressing these issues in the teacher education curricula suggests added emphasis on affordances for instruction, digital citizenship, and a code of ethics related to data use. Classroom appli- cation represents one area for research by and about innovative educators.

Each fall, the National TechnologyLeadership Summit (NTLS), ameeting of educational

technology integration advocates, comes together to generate a “push”—a push across teacher education professional associations to advance effective use of technology in the classroom. The sum- mit involves leaders from approximately 20 technology organizations, including the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, the Association for Educa- tional Communications and Technology, and the Association for Advancement of Computers in Education. Editors from leading educational technology journals such as ISTE’s Journal of Digital Learn- ing in Teacher Education attend, as do representatives from American Associa- tion for Colleges of Teacher Education, content-specific organizations, school- and district-based educators, and corpo- rate participants. During the 2014 con- vening, a subgroup examined wearable devices as exemplars for personalized learning technologies (PLTs).

The term “wearables” stands for digi- tal devices or computers that can be worn and used in the real world (Rao, 2014). Some wearable devices sync with computers or handhelds so that the data and reports can be viewed or compiled. Due to the integration of apps, some wearable devices share data and integrate with multiple devices. For many educa- tors, the term “wearable technology” rep- resents the next frontier in technology integration for P–12 learners. In fact, educators began dabbling with the first wearable device in the 1980s when the

calculator watch was explored as a possi- ble learning tool; at that time, the use of calculator watches in the classroom was highly scrutinized (Johnson et al., 2013).

An Area of Innovation Sparked by the entrance of Google Glass, Muse, and Fitbits into the market, educa- tors began examining the importance and impact of wearable devices in educa- tional settings. The use of wearable devi- ces has become so trendy that in 2014 Amazon established a Wearable Tech- nology Store (http://www.cnet.com/ news/amazon-launches-wearable-tech- store).

Innovative educators who have been dabbling with wearable devices have found ways to use them to monitor activity, behavior, and engagement, as well as to enhance experiences. For example, the Minneapolis Public School District introduced Movband, a step- tracking wristband similar to the com- mercial Fitbit, monitoring the movement of students enrolled in an online physical education (PE) class (Education News, 2014). Corporations are joining this movement too. As an example, Leap- Band was designed by LeapFrog specifi- cally for younger users as a result of Michelle Obama’s push to increase activ- ity and healthier lifestyles for children. It monitors physical activity and rewards children for active play. An animated pet tracks their activity and challenges them to improve (VanDervoort, 2014). Wear- able devices in higher education appear to be geared to improve productivity.© 2015 ISTE j iste.org/jdlte

Volume 31 Number3 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l 85

The 2013 Horizon Report suggested advantages of wearable technology that allow instructors and students to more easily communicate with one another, keep track of updates, and enable “push” notifications (Johnson et al., 2013).

Implications of wearable technology are being investigated, and some feel that with the low cost and pervasive use of some wearable devices like the Fitbit, unexpected consequences may already be imminent. One concern in education is about privacy. The Pew Internet Pri- vacy online report found that teens do more to protect their privacy than adults. Children and teens, especially girls, are more likely to turn off tracking devices and decide not to download an app because it asks for private information (Alexander, 2013). There are many ques- tions, but not many answers. What it might come to is this: Who owns the data generated and acquired by wearable technology? The poet Ted Hughes once said, “ I hope each of us owns the facts of his or her own life” (Milburn, 2011). In a digital environment in which informa- tion is instantly shared, it may not be clear who is the owner of the data we share or acquire (Johnson et al., 2013).

Listed here are a few devices and a brief description of how they are being used in educational settings.

� Google Glass is a wearable device that provides a heads up display (HUD) of data superimposed on the user’s field of view. Although it is expensive and has a limited battery charge (about 45 minutes), using Google Glass, stu- dents can shoot video and gather first- hand documentation.

� Keyglove is an open-source input device that can be used in art, design, and music. It relies on a combination of gestures to enter data and elimi- nates the need for a keyboard, making it an effective device for disabled users.

� Autographer is a camera that allows for hands-free image capturing. There are built-in sensors that tell the camera the exact moment to take a photo. Autographer can be used by students to capture information presented in class.

� Another camera, GoPro, can be mounted—typically on your head like a head lamp—and can be used by teachers to capture classroom engage- ment and student behavior.

� Muse detects brain signals and can provide feedback over time. It was designed to help individuals form a habit and can be used in an educa- tional setting to help determine what motivates student learning. For exam- ple, it might track student engagement to determine how a student reacts to watching a video versus a hands-on activity during class (Lam, 2014).

� Oculus Rift is a wearable three-dimen- sional (3D) virtual reality head- mounted display that is designed for gaming, to make the user feel a part of the game (Editorial Team, 2014).

Wearable Devices: Value or Villain? Wearable devices present a varied poten- tial for public education. Ever-evolving devices such as Google Glass, smart watches, wristbands, and even clothing equipped with sensors offer possibilities ranging from real-time data collection on students’ behavior, academics, and even physical health to transporting students on virtual field trips (Lepi, 2014). Yet control over the data that the wearables collect poses real ethical questions. Who owns and/or controls the data? Will embracing this technology, such as adopting the Fitbit for physical educa- tion class, place the school in violation of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (2011)? This portion of the article explores the pros and cons of wearable technology.

Value of Wearable Personal Learning Technologies

Student Engagement One of the valuable benefits of wearable technology is its ability to add a new engaging element to the teaching curric- ulum. Wearable technology provides access to useful information in a timely, ubiquitous fashion. Data from wearables can be transferred to the teacher, who can motivate individual students or groups of students through the collection

of past data and setting goals for the future (America Learning & Media, 2104). Smart watches can help teachers answer students’ questions by asking stu- dents to use their smart watches and send questions to the teacher, to be answered in the order in which they were submitted (Odegard, 2013). Students can also use their watches to present multi- media projects to their classes (Odegard, 2013), and physical education teachers can use wristbands with students to track their fitness (Editorial Team, 2014). Smart watches can be used for student data collection, communication between students and teacher, storing audible textbooks, awarding digital badges, and even unlocking the classroom door (Edi- torial Team, 2014).

Virtual headgear such as the Oculus Rift can take students on any 3D experi- ence such as an augmented field trip or provide immersive foreign language instruction, done as if in the country where that language is spoken (Editorial Team, 2014). Live documentation by stu- dents in any location can be done with wearable GoPro cameras (Editorial Team, 2014). Google Glass provides a firsthand, “lived” experience to engage the learner (Heuvel, 2013). Online sci- ence teacher Andrew Vanden Heuvel used Google Glass to create “Stembits,” a series of short videos on science, engi- neering, and math. Teachers can also record their class while they teach to capture self-assessment data. Using video-capable wearables, teachers can project their class to a remote location (Afshar, 2014; Afshari, 2014). Coaches can ask their players to wear a Google Glass to directly improve their players’ skills using real-time video. Other appli- cations for Google Glass include using the GPS function to track students dur- ing field trips, capture notes about class- room activities in Evernote Glassware, and record student presentations. Google Glass can also translate information into another language (Marcinek, 2013). A driver’s education teacher can use the global positioning system (GPS) and dig- ital compass built into Google Glass, so that their students can make correct turns (Gittlen, 2013).

Borthwick et al.

86 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l Volume 31 Number 3

Wearables offer an opportunity to impact gamification in a positive way. By using wearables, students and their peers will be able to exchange information instantly from anywhere, thus impacting the speed and competition of games (America Learning & Media, 2104). Data from wearables also can be compared with data from students in other class- rooms anywhere who are using the games, thus adding a positive impact to global gamification in education.

Universal Design for Learning The Center for Applied Special Technol- ogy (CAST) defines a curriculum that is universally designed for learning (UDL) by all students as one that provides mul- tiple means of engagement, multiple means of representation, and multiple means of action and expression, so that all learning styles within the classroom are addressed (CAST, 2014). Wearables can benefit a UDL classroom in a variety of ways. Students with emotional disabil- ities can use Muse to calm down in the classroom or measure activities that will keep them focused in the classroom (Lam, 2014). Students who need repeated teacher explanations can tape lectures using their wearable devices, and those who need multiple modalities in their instruction benefit from the audio, video, and tactile modalities that wear- able technology use (Editorial Team, 2014). Students who need their text read aloud can use a wearable called the Fin- gerReader, a device that reads text as the finger points to it (Fluid Interfaces Group, 2014). Individuals who need a realistic instructional curriculum, engag- ing in authentic, real-life activities, will benefit from wearable virtual-reality headgear such as the Oculus Rift (Edito- rial Team, 2014). If a pupil needs a more concrete explanation of concepts, he can use a smartphone in conjunction with an augmented reality app like Aurasma. A teacher using Aurasma can develop an aura, or a three-dimensional video attached to the concept’s image, thus generating a richer explanation of the concept. Additional time for an assign- ment can be tracked on a wearable device equipped with a personal

assignment calendar programmed on the device. Wearables will allow students to receive instant feedback from their teachers, thus helping students to remain engaged. These devices can help the stu- dent with disabilities and that student’s family to maintain contact with profes- sionals who work with the student (Behrman, 2014). With wearables, stu- dents can capture photos of the teacher’s notes, so, they will have the information that they are expected to learn (Afshari, 2014). Such instant and personalized communication between teachers and students will increase student engage- ment and learning (Ramirez, 2014).

Addressing Physical Needs Students with physical disabilities may also benefit from wearable technology. Many new technologies are available.

� Recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a wear- able exoskeleton that enables those with physical disabilities to walk (ReWalk Robotics, 2014).

� Bluetooth technology allows the hear- ing impaired to connect their hearing aids directly to a digital source of information, allowing them to quietly adjust their hearing aid for audio envi- ronments (Quinlan, 2014). Hearing- impaired students who communicate with American Sign Language can wear gloves that interpret American Sign Language gestures and translate it into speech through smartphones (Hill, 2012).

� Wearable technology that tracks health status is beneficial for those with health disabilities (Quinn, 2014); even wheelchair users can use a Fitbit with added gesture recognition tech- nology to measure their wheelchair usage to keep track of their fitness (Quinlan, 2014).

� Clothing that is wired can be used to maintain health data for the health impaired or also wired to be an inte- grated auditory trainer for individuals with hearing impairments (Drake, 2014).

� Using chest wearables, parents can be alerted when their children with

epilepsy have a seizure (Quinlan, 2014). Glucose levels for students with diabetes can be maintained through wearables (Quinlan, 2014).

� The FingerReader, as already described, is a finger wearable device for students with reading impairments to read text as their finger runs across it (Fluid Interfaces Group, 2014).

� A sensor attached to a stud embedded in the tongue can be programmed to power a wheelchair, move a mouse on a computer screen, and type on an onscreen keyboard (Miller, 2014).

� Individuals with short-term memory deficits are using watches to provide reminders.

Although apparently in redesign at this time, Google Glass has been pro- grammed in several ways for individuals with disabilities. Google Glass has helped:

� Students with visual impairments by connecting Google Glass to haptic devices built into shoes to help users navigate while walking (Quinlan, 2014, Drake, 2014).

� Individuals with autism to use facial recognition software programmed for Google Glass to recognize emotions of people they meet (Drake, 2014).

� Persons with physical disabilities to power environmental controls in their homes or classrooms (Quinn, 2014).

� People with hearing impairments who use ear gear that has been developed to function as an integrated auditory trainer for Google Glass that is con- nected directly to their hearing aids (Drake, 2014) and, when needed, use Google Glass for voice recognition with the textual interpretation dis- played on the screen (Quinn, 2014).

� Students needing homebound instruc- tion to take online classes (Fuhrman, 2014).

Administrative Functions Wearable technology offers school dis- tricts the chance to perform administra- tive functions in a more efficient manner. Teachers can use wearables to take atten- dance through facial recognition built into some wearables, while students can

Personal Wearable Technologies

Volume 31 Number3 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l 87

use their wearables to turn in their assignments (Editorial Team, 2014). Schools can add electronic chips into student identification badges to keep track of where they are in the school (Brickman & Geolitz, 2014), and admin- istrators and school personnel can use wearables to assist them in collecting behavior data using programs like Class- DoJo (Brickman & Geolitz, 2014). Smart watches can be used as timers to remind teachers and students of deadlines (Ode- gard, 2013). Smart watches can also be used by teachers and professionals work- ing with students, to communicate assignments that need to be completed (Petrovic, 2014). Formative evaluation results such as academic and behavioral checks or videos that indicate progress can be immediately turned in using wearable devices. Video and connectiv- ity, as well as data collection capabilities, can be used to generate multimedia for- mative assessment samples using wear- ables like GoPro (Petrovic, 2014).

Student Profiles The data collection capabilities of wearables can facilitate in-time data collection that is needed to build stu- dent profiles for assessment purposes such as response to intervention (Stern, 2014). Wearables such as Goo- gle Glass make it possible to record students’ activities as they are being performed for purposes of showing growth (Grinburg, 2014). This infor- mation can be applied to assessments and progress monitoring and become part of the identification process of students with exceptionalities. For example, recording student activities with Google Glass can identify stu- dents who are more creative in their problem solving for referral to gifted programming. Apps for wearables such as Beyond Verbal that read the user’s emotional states (De Castillo, 2014) could potentially be used for identifi- cation of students with emotional dis- abilities. Doctors can maintain student health profiles to assist students with such health impairments as diabetes to maintain their healthy lifestyle (Shin, 2014). All these profiles can be kept by

the school system to aid in maintain- ing an “academic quantified self” (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014). This “academic quan- tified self” could potentially be used as data for sharing between schools when students move to another location.

Villain? Potential Drawbacks to Wearable Personal Learning Technologies

Student Safety While wearables show great potential for education, there are many areas of con- cern when introducing wearables to pub- lic schools. The first concern is to the safety of the student users themselves. Students who wear these devices can col- lect and post too much data on them- selves or their friends for their own safety (Vijayan, 2014). Students who are already experiencing dangerous body- image problems that have led to a lack of self-confidence can become even more concerned about their body image when using wearable devices (Mahdawi, 2014). The devices themselves have already been questioned in terms of their safety due to the proximity of some devices, such as Google Glass, to the body. The Wi-Fi connection on Google Glass meas- ures 1.42 on the Specific Absorption Scale, a scale that determines the rate at which energy is absorbed by the human body when exposed to a radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic field, and this is a level that is uncomfortably close to the maximum of 1.6 (Hearn, 2014).

Security and Privacy The second of these concerns is the secu- rity of data gleaned from the wearables. Kitagawa (2014) indicates that security over this data needs to cover the device itself, the link it makes with the storage location, and the cloud or storage service provider of the device. Failure of device developers and school districts to main- tain security of these aspects of student data violates several laws pertaining to privacy.

Privacy failure of device makers and the districts who provide unsecured devices threatens privacy laws such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection

Act, wiretapping laws, and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Brick- man and Geolitz, 2014). Each of these laws guarantees the privacy of the stu- dents when using electronic devices. The Fourth Amendment protects an individ- ual from invasion of privacy without due cause. Failure to provide privacy when using wearables can leave a district open to a lawsuit, such as the Hernandez v. Northside Independent School District case, where students were told to wear GPS devices on their badges and the parents objected due to their religion (Brickman & Geolitz, 2014).

The storage and maintenance of stu- dent data bring other concerns, such as data ownership and usage. Ownership of student data resides in the hands of the legal guardians, in most cases the parents, according to state school records’ laws and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974. When the student turns 18, she has own- ership and control of her own data. The student data that are collected and stored via a wearable device cannot be shared without the permission of the parents and cannot be sold (FERPA, 1974). Dis- tricts need to negotiate the use of the data and need to treat the cloud vendor as if it were housed in-district (Brickman & Geolitz, 2014).

Legitimate use of this data must also be under safe, school-district control and accessible only by those with an aca- demic purpose who have been approved by parents. If the data were collected on wearables for purposes of assessment, individuals with legitimate use of the data must ensure that they will use the data in a secure fashion and in accor- dance with the guardian’s permission under FERPA (FERPA, 1974). Parents themselves must be ensured of access to the data and be allowed the right to pro- test the data if they feel it is not correct. In addition, destruction of the data when no longer required must be ensured (Brickman & Geolitz, 2014).

Education professionals who view the collected data from wearables can be in danger of making incorrect judgments about students based on the data. Wear- ables that collect health information may

88 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l Volume 31 Number 3

Borthwick et al.

lead physical education teachers to assume a student needs more exercise without considering other factors. School psychologists who view emotional data that appears to be out of the norm may be led to think that a student might have a behavioral disability. Students who constantly use their wearables in the classroom may be presumed to be cheat- ing or using the wearables in a disruptive fashion.

Classroom Limitations Another issue with wearables is simply that some of their apps can be disruptive to the classroom. Some apps are designed as environmental controls. Controlling the environment can include the school environment. It is possible for students to turn off instructional devices like LCD (liquid-crystal-display) projectors that are being used by the teacher if they are not protected from the wearable’s app (C. Anderson, personal communication, October 27, 2014), thus disrupting the lesson planned by the teacher.

Wearable devices present a potential for a change in pedagogy. Already schools are using devices for collecting data in student-centered projects and experiments (Ramirez, 2014); however, this can pose problems. Some schools might be so concerned with privacy issues or safety from disruptive apps that the security steps information technol- ogy (IT) staff members take might make it more difficult for innovative teachers to be flexible in their use of the devices. At the same time, encouraging the use of the devices may make some teachers feel threatened, as the devices can lead to more-student centered classroom activi- ties, not always welcomed by all teachers. School-district accountability and the need to teach a standard curriculum may also make it difficult to use wearables in a creative way.

Digital Divide Another potential problem with wear- ables is their impact on the digital divide when used as part of the curriculum. Many of the devices are expensive and out of the affordable price range for stu- dents in a lower socioeconomic level.

The connection charges also may be too expensive for some. Those with a higher socioeconomic level are potentially the students most likely to adopt wearables (Lesinski, 2014). Districts wishing to use some type of wearable in their curricu- lum must ensure that all students have the devices and the ability to connect them.

Dependence on Outside Vendors A final concern with wearables involves their need to be connected to an outside vendor who will collect the data. In an age when schools are facing required computer-based assessments produced by selected companies who collect that assessment data, wearables leave yet one more data source for these large compa- nies to gain control of, leading to the danger of too much potential control by these companies. Companies that pro- duce these devices and store their data could potentially make schools more dependent on these companies than ever before.

Implications for Teacher and Administrator Education: Opportunities

and Challenges As expected, the availability of new tech- nologies suggests the need to consider enhancements to curriculum and instruction of educator preparation pro- grams for teachers and administrators. Participants at the NTLS noted the importance of teaching candidates about:

� Responsibility to provide safe learning environments.

� The need to connect with parents to build trust around data access and use.

� The need to provide opportunities for students and/or parents to review data- bases to assure accuracy of records.

Thus, a “code of ethics” around data use arose as a topic that was viewed as even more pressing than in the adoption of other recent innovations, such as implementation of tablet computers, where access and equity have been viewed as central considerations.

Adding to digital literacy/digital citi- zenship, candidates will need to consider how students and teachers should address

risks and advantages to using wearable PLTs and behave as active citizens in monitoring and protecting their rights. Candidates will need to learn about and practice methods of using data from wear- able PLTs—data that can inform both per- sonalized/individualized instruction and instruction for a whole class. Candidates will also want to observe use of wearable PLTs during field/clinical placements, to investigate whether such devices increase student engagement.

Teacher educators preparing technol- ogy coaches, teacher leaders, and admin- istrators need to discuss school context including stakeholder perceptions and perspectives. As with other technologies, some teachers can be expected to accept and embrace the use of wearable PLTs while others may resist their implemen- tation. Some teachers may sense that “Big Brother” may be watching P–12 stu- dents and classroom impact even more closely, fearing increased standardization and accountability. Others may feel that an increased number of data points will allow students and teachers to document evidence of progress over the academic year. A major question asked by those at NTLS was: “How can policy about data collection by/from minors in schools be developed in a way that will not hold back innovation?”

Multiple challenges for teacher educa- tors were identified by NTLS participants:

� Identification of appropriate tools and applications to support content learning.

� Formal and informal learning oppor- tunities for P–12 students.

� Funding for faculty/candidate access to up-to-date technologies.

� Knowledge of how wearable PLTs inform personalized instruction.

� Modeling of use of wearable PLTs in teacher education courses.

� Focus on purposes of use and affor- dances rather than specific tools.

� Working with mentor teachers and field placement sites.

� Bringing school leaders on board so that schools are supportive environ- ments for PLTs.

Volume 31 Number3 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l 89

Personal Wearable Technologies

Several frameworks for implementing technology in educator preparation pro- grams can provide assistance to colleges in their integration of technology. These frameworks identify key leadership func- tions (Herring, Thomas, & Redmond, 2014), institutional characteristics (Burke & Foulger, 2014), and factors influencing technology integration, such as “institutional change and culture, leadership and vision, resources, a con- ceptual model, and a comprehensive approach” (Cohen, Pelligrino, Schmidt, & Schultz, 2007).

Call for Action: Research Opportunities As they investigate classroom applica- tions of wearable PLT’s, faculty members who prepare P–12 educators may sup- port dissertation studies and/or conduct their own research. Topics for such investigations include impact of wearable PLTs on teaching and learning, and soci- etal and policy implications.

Impact on Teaching and Learning Participants at NTLS suggested the fol- lowing questions for further investigation:

� Will bringing wearable personal learn- ing technologies into the classroom affect how teachers teach?

� How do PLTs fit with TPACK? � Which element of the P-L-T acronym is most important to which stakeholders?

� How do PLTs support core curriculum?

� How will data be used? Will students be provided with data to analyze and decide how to act, or would it just go to teachers/school leaders?

� How do PLTs support constructivist learning vs. increased direct instruction?

� How do PLTs support the UDL curriculum?

Teacher educators may also want to investigate student motivation and engagement in both formal and informal learning.

� Will data gathered from wearable PLTs help students learn to self-assess?

� How do personalized learning tech- nologies support student motivation and/or engagement?

� How do personalized learning tech- nologies affect relationships (peer and teacher–student)?

Even the word “personal” comes with a variety of connotations—all of which suggest opportunities for more careful observation of how wearable technolo- gies are implemented. Such an investiga- tion might consider various perspectives of a personal nature:

� Personal—in terms of more opportu- nities for educators to gather student personal data (and act upon).

� Personal—in terms of more opportu- nities for students to explore personal interests.

� Personal—in terms of more opportuni- ties for students to receive tailored expe- riences and instruction based on needs.

� Personal—in terms of more opportu- nities for students to have first person experiences with content.

� Personal—in terms of more opportu- nities for being able to create commu- nities and affinity spaces (beyond limitations of geography and space).

Not unexpectedly, as with other tech- nologies, investigations of teacher adopt- ers who can best facilitate application of wearable PLTs may be of interest, along with best methods for preparation of preservice and in-service teachers.

Societal and Policy Implications As mentioned previously, both digital citizenship and ethical matters come into play in terms of the risks and advantages to using wearable PLTs to gather student data and assimilate it into “Big Data” sets. Safe storage and access to data along with student privacy are issues to explore. NTLS participants reflected that “We have AUPs. Why don’t we have AASDPs—Acceptable Access to Student Data Policies?”

Call to Action While recent headlines have highlighted events such as Google’s launch of Glass, the introduction of several “smart

watches,” and Apple’s showcasing of its Apple Watch, wearable devices are mak- ing their way into the consumer market. For example, recently there has been a tremendous increase in the purchase of fitness wristbands, and the medical com- munity has been employing wearable or embedded devices such as insulin pumps as health care tools for several years.

But the use of wearables in education is currently unchartered territory (Rog- ers, 2003). The element that all wearable devices have in common is customiza- tion for the user and anytime/anywhere use. Additionally, wearables are dis- tinctly unique because of their ability to provide access to timely, actionable, for- mative assessment data—some of which may be used to improve teaching and learning (Black & William, 1998). Those who view wearables as a viable and advantageous way to address personal- ized learning needs are operating in a new educational paradigm. This unprec- edented access to information, data, and communications could be a key ingredi- ent for educators who wish to address one of the most significant learning chal- lenges of this day: “to leverage the learn- ing sciences and modern technology to create engaging, relevant, and personal- ized learning experiences for all learners that mirror students’ daily lives and the reality of their futures” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. vi).

Adopting wearables within educa- tional arenas will require an under- standing of change theory. Typically, educators address needs for change in ways that are termed as incremental: small and calculated steps toward a new vision so as not to create too much backlash if the resulting out- come does not prove to be as intended. After all, we are dealing with children and their learning, and taking risks could be detrimental (Rogers, 2003).

There is a fundamentally different approach called disruptive innovation (Christensen, 2003), which may be what we currently see happening with regard to wearables in education. A change is disruptive when “it is entic- ing, it takes root, it improves, and it

90 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l Volume 31 Number 3

Borthwick et al.

spreads” (Burke & Foulger, 2014). These kinds of innovations begin with a perceived need or desire, a vision, and latitude to explore possibilities. According to Christensen (2013), those participating in a disruptive act are intrinsically motivated. As the innova- tion spreads, a groundswell occurs. In other words, the innovation is adopted from the ground up and creates a sub- culture of users. It takes hold and con- tinues to grow until a critical mass assures sustainability. As a disruptive innovation takes hold, it can easily displace other methods. At this level the innovation begins to affect (dis- rupt) the larger culture in a significant way.

As of this writing, we have little evidence through scholarly literature by innovators who are exploring this new area of technology integration. Regardless, many innovators are excited about the idea and will explore the possibilities. As a call to action, educational leaders should think about how they can free up resources to allow such exploration. Per the U.S. Department of Education National Educational Technology Plan (2010) call to action to create more engaging experiences through the use of tech- nology, researchers should seize this opportunity to further investigate teaching with technology. The use of wearable devices to enhance personal- ized learning is uncharted territory!

Acknowledgments In addition to the authors, the following individuals participated in the NTLS ses- sion on wearable technologies:

� Dave Edyburn—Editor, Journal of Research on Technology in Education.

� Mike Searson—SITE Past President. � Kevin Anderson—Superintendent of Schools.

� Jeffrey Carpenter—AACTE Commit- tee on Innovation and Technology.

� Rhonda Christensen—Chair, SITE Research & Evaluation SIG.

� Denise Crawford—Editor, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education.

� Camilla Gagliolo—ISTE 2015 Pro- gram Director.

� Kevin Graziano—AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology.

� Marsala Hancock—President, iKeepSafe.

� Michael Kennedy—Council for Excep- tional Children.

� Gerald Knezek—Past President, SITE. � Punya Mishra—Chair, SITE Creativity SIG.

� Trey Vasquez, Council for Exceptional Children.

Author Notes Arlene C. Borthwick is an associate dean and professor at the National College of Education, National Louis University. She served as an ISTE Board Member during 2010–2014, is a past president of the ISTE Special Interest Group (SIG) for Teacher Educators, and received the ISTE “Making IT Happen” award in 2008. Her current research activities relate to online instruction, personalized learning technologies, and school–university collabora- tion to support preservice candidate impact on P–12 student learning. Please address corre- spondence regarding this article to Arlene C. Borthwick, National Louis University, 1000 Capitol Drive, Wheeling, IL 60090, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Cindy L. Anderson is an associate professor at Roosevelt University. She teaches Technology and Special Education Technology at the uni- versity. She is the chair of the Society for Infor- mation Technology in Teacher Education Assistive Technology Special Interest Group. She is also a current board member of the Inclusive Learning Network of the Interna- tional Society for Technology in Education, where she is International Committee Chair. She has attended the National Technology Leadership Summit for 9 years. She presents and publishes on technology in education, spe- cial education technology, and technology in teacher education. Her current research includes wearable technology, mobile technol- ogy for students with disabilities, and iPad apps for indigenous populations.

Elizabeth S. Finsness is an assistant professor and the Director for the Office of Field and International Experience at Minnesota State University, Mankato. She serves on the AACTE Technology & Innovation Committee and the Minnesota Department of Education edTPA Advisory Board. She served as the Dis- trict Instructional Technology director for the Osseo Area School District. She received the TIES District Technology Leader of the Year and the Technology Leadership Award. She presents on the edTPA, Teacher Candidate

Support Network, and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Her current research relates to preservice teacher candidate preparation.

Teresa S. Foulger is an associate professor of educational technology in the Mary Lou Ful- ton Teachers College at Arizona State Univer- sity and Coordinator of Educational Studies. Her area of research focuses on the infusion of technology, innovative professional develop- ment, and sustainable change. She is a two- time recipient of the ISTE Research Paper Award, and has also received the Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning research paper award through AERA. Currently she is the past president of the ISTE Teacher Education Network (TEN).

References Afshar, V. (2014, May 29). 14 Google Glass

innovative uses in education. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ vala-afshar/14-google-glassinnova tiv_b_5410893.html

Afshari, M. (2014, July 8). Wearable technology in education. Cloudtweeks. Retrieved from http:// cloudtweaks.com/2014/07/wearable-technology- education

Alexander, R. (2013). 7 Things you should know about wearable technology [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/search/ apachesolr_search/wearable%20technology

America Learning & Media. (2014, June). Wearables in education: Devices and analysis. Retrieved from http://www.americalearningme dia.net/edicion-004/267-innovation/3661-wear ables-in-education

Behrman, J. (2014). Roanoke City 2014 teacher of the year is a SPED techie who leads with augmented reality [Web blog comment]. Retrieved from http://kihd.gmu.edu/aim/teach ers/blog/2014/06/18/augmented-reality-video- modeling/

Brickman, H., & Geolitz, J. (2014, November). Google this: E-privacy in school technology [Powerpoint slides]. Presented at the IASB IASA IASBO Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://members.iasb.com/confer ence/handouts/legalgoogleho.pdf

Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7–71.

Burke, D. M., & Foulger, T. S., (2014). Mobile learning in teacher education: Insight from four programs that embraced change. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(4), 112–120. Retrieved from http://www.tandfon line.com/eprint/rzqxdnQqb6996rxhFchx/full; doi:10.1080/21532974.2014.927208

CAST, Inc. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Retrieved from http://udlth eorypractice.cast.org/reading?5&locDintro. xml_l1079

Volume 31 Number3 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l 91

Personal Wearable Technologies

Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Cohen, M. T., Pelligrino, J. W., Schmidt, D. A., & Schultz, S. (2007). Sustaining technology integration in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 29(3), 75–87.

De Castillo, M. (2014, September 18). Beyond Verbal gives wearable tech the power to know the tone of your voice. Upstart Business Journal. Retrieved from http://upstart.bizjournals.com/ entrepreneurs/hot-shots/2014/09/18/beyond-ver bal-gives-wearable-tech-the-power-to.html?page Dall

Drake, T. (2014, May 14). WearAbilityDWearable computers and accessibility [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/ 7mary4/wearability-wearable-computers-and- accessibilty?relatedD1.

Editorial Team. (2014). Wearable technology in the classroom [Infographic]. EdTechReview. Retrieved from http://edtechreview.in/trends- insights/trends/1376-infographic-wearable-tech nology-in-the-classroom

Education News. (2014, January 21). Minneapolis schools pilot wristband to track physical education. Retrieved from http:// www.educationnews.org/technology/minneapo lis-schools-pilot-wristband-to-track-physical- education

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. (2011). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/ guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

Fluid Interfaces Group. (2014). FingerReader: A wearable interface for reading on-the-go. Retrieved from http://fluid.media.mit.edu/proj ects/fingerreader

Fuhrman, T. (2014, October 16). Why wearables are the new gateways to human knowledge. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://cam pustechnology.com/articles/2014/10/16/why- wearables-are-the-new-gateways-to-human- knowledge.aspx

Gittlen, S. (2013, October 21). Will Google Glass usher augmented reality into the classroom? EdTech Focus on K-12. Retrieved from http:// www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2013/10/ will-google-glass-usher-augmented-reality-class room

Grinberg, E. (2014, February 11). Would you want Google Glass in class? CNN Living. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/living/ google-glass-in-schools

Hearn, K. (2014, October 21). Can high tech wearable technology become a health risk? I Wanna Be a Geek. Retrieved from http://iwbag. com/tech/can-high-tech-wearable-technology- become-health-risk/5558

Herring, M., Thomas, T., & Redmond, P. (2014). Special editorial: Technology leadership for preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3), 76–80. doi:10.1080/ 21532974.2014.891875

Hill, D. J. (2012). Smart gloves turn sign language gestures into vocalized speech. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/ 09/20/smart-gloves-turn-sign-language-ges tures-into-vocalized-speech

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Kitagawa, K. (2014). 7 Rules for designing wearable devices. Retrieved from http://embedded-comput ing.com/articles/7-rules-designing-wearable-devi ces-2

Lam, K. (2014). Wearable technologies in education. Retrieved from http://edtechtimes.com/2014/07/ 16/wearable-technology-education

Lesinski, M. (2014, September 18). Wearable technologies, privilege, and the digital divide. Broadband Social Justice. Retrieved from http:// broadbandandsocialjustice.org/2014/09/wear able-technologies-privilege-and-the-digital- divide

Lepi, K. (2014, May 29). The teacher’s guide to wearable tech in the classroom. Edudemic: Connecting education and technology. Retrieved from http://www.edudemic.com/wearable-tech- in-the-classroom

Mahdawi, A. (2014). The unhealthy side of wearable fitness devices. theguardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentis free/2014/jan/03/unhealthy-wearable-fitness- devices-calories-eating-disorders-nike-fuelband

Marcinek, A. (2013). Future education through Google Glass. Retrieved from http://www.eduto pia.org/blog/future-education-through-google- glass-andrew-marcinek

Milburn, M. (2011, July–September). My memoir. Prime Number Magazine. Retrieved from www.

primenumbermagazine.com/Issue11_NonFic tion_MichaelMilburn.html

Miller, A. M. (2014, November 20). Wearable tech for people with disabilities. USNews. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/ health-wellness/articles/2014/11/20/wearable- tech-for-people-with-disabilities?pageD2

Odegard, A. (2013) Smartwatches can potentially be very useful in education. Retrieved from http:// www.pocketables.com/2013/04/smartwatches- can-potentially-be-very-useful-in-education. html

Petrovic, B. (2014). Wearable computing in education. In A. Markovi�c & S. B. Rako�cevi�c (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium SYMORG 2014: New Business Models and Sustainable Competitiveness (pp. 934–941). Belgrade, Serbia: University of Belgrade.

Quinlan, J. (2014). Wearable tech: Game changer for people with disabilities? [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/ Mutual_Mobile/sxsw-2014-wearable-tech-game- changer-for-people-with-disabilities

Ramirez, E. (2014). Quantifying in the classroom. Quantified Self. Retrieved from http://quantified self.com/2014/11/quantifying-classroom

ReWalk Robotics. (2014). ReWalk motorized device helps people with disabilities to walk. Retrieved from http://www.disabled-world.com/assistivede vices/mobility/rewalk.php

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Shin, L. (2014). When our wearables talk with doctors. Zdnet. Retrieved from http://www. zdnet.com/when-our-wearables-talk-with-our- doctors-7000033044/.

Stern, B. (2014). What does wearable computing mean for education? [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.edumusings.com/ wearable-computing-mean-education/

U.S. Department of Education, (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.

VanDervoort, O. 2014: LeapBand: Wearable tech for kids. Retrieved from http://www.wearable techworld.com/topics/wearable-tech/articles/ 377658-leapband-wearable-tech-kids.htm

Vijayan, J. (2014). 7 Hidden dangers of wearable computers. Computerworld. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com/article/ 2474554/emerging-technology/141686-7-hid den-dangers-of-wearable-computers.html

92 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l Volume 31 Number 3

Borthwick et al.