Undetectable , Hands-Free Always-On Technology in the Classroom

Hands Free Always On (HFAO) technology, such as the next generation of smart glasses, will likely become invisible and undetectable, turn up in classrooms in the near future, and change teaching and learning. An exploratory study analyzed four focus groups with faculty members at a research university. The focus group process and the data analysis were guided by four research questions: (1) How will undetectable HFAO technology affect students’ learning? (2) How will it affect professors’ teaching? (3) How will it affect assessment? (4) What would make faculty embrace this technology? We summarize participants’ insights showing that the perceived effects of HFAO technology in classrooms were mixed. Initial comments from student focus groups had similar results. Introduction As personal, wearable technology becomes more invisible, students and instructors will be coming to the classroom in a few years fully connected, yet in undetectable manner. Thus, one would not know when the other students in the classroom are connected, or even the instructor, and whether they are looking up information, collaborating with someone else, or recording the class session, or whether they are simply distracting themselves or others. During class they could, for example: (1) record and share the lecture; (2) look up information through an invisible built-in display; (3) listen to people or audio through an invisible audio interface; (4) wirelessly communicate with others through subvocalizing or speech-to-text; and (5) enter queries through an invisible input device or small gestures. The purpose of this research is to conduct exploratory research in preparation for pilot studies in which we study the inevitable use of such undetectable technology, with the future goal of structuring and scaffolding it, to guide classroom participants in order to evolve and improve learning and teaching. The current study’s purpose is to explore how university-level professors might teach in this new environment, students might learn, and HFAO technology will affect both. Four research questions guided this exploratory research: (1) How will HFAO technology affect students’ learning? (2) How will it affect professors’ teaching? (3) How will it affect assessment? (4) What would make faculty embrace this technology? After reviewing the literature, we describe our Focus Group procedure, summarize the main themes that emerged relevant to the research questions, and discuss findings, limitations, and potential future research. Undetectable, Hands-Free Always-On Technology in the Classroom 2 Related Work The importance of student interaction has been strongly stated in studies involving computer-based instruction that actively engage and motivate students (Crossgrove et al. 2008, Moredich 2007, Roderick et al. 2001, Roth et al. 1991, White 1989, Wigfield et al. 2000). Since the HFAO technology that we explore in this study has many properties similar to laptops (Perse et al. 1992, Levine 2002, Rockman 1997), we assume that it could also facilitate student collaboration and have a positive impact on teaching and learning. However, with many differences from laptops, such as invisibility to others and the alwayson property, we need to further explore its potential impact on classroom education. Novel wearable devices such as smart glasses will provide further possibilities to enhance the teaching process in the future. For example, Google Glass is a well-known, web-connected wearable computer with an optical-mounted display, which is a precursor to our definition of HFAO technology, which can facilitate teaching and learning (Parslow 2014). Educators could access information during a talk, lecture, or discussion, demonstrate specific skills, interview experts, and allow students to view distant sites. They argue that that Glass’ value may lie with using the device in conjunction with an integrated platform where information and ideas can be exchanged in a public or private setting (Vallurupalli 2013). Methodology We conducted two initial focus groups (Berg 2001) as a pilot to test our initial questions and procedures. We then ran four main focus groups with faculty members at a technological university. During the two pilots, we found participants too focused on Google Glass, which had been the only example of HFAO that we provided. The main focus groups were presented more explicit descriptions of different HFAO technologies that could be used inside the classroom, similar to the description in the introduction above. Participants were shown a figure of a normal looking student participating in a lecture while presumably wearing invisible undetectable devices. All focus groups comprised 7-8 experienced faculty. We used topical questions: (1) What will students do differently in the new classroom environment? 2) How could you and students use this invisible technology positively to improve learning in the classroom? 3) How will you accommodate your teaching? 4) How would you assess different aspects of the course or learning objectives? 5) All things considered, what would make you embrace such an environment instead of fighting it? 6) What would be your most pressing concerns? Data collected (instructor responses) were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed, guided by our four main research questions. We aimed at discovering themes from the data that could help explain the instructors’ perceptions of this new technology. In reporting findings below we will summarize the main themes of the participants’ perceptions gathered from their responses. HFAO Effects on Students Our findings revealed mixed results on the projected effects of HFAO on students. Instructors believe that HFAO could facilitate interactivity through collaboration. However it could also potentially present a problem since it adds to the activities that students do in class. The overlap in these activities such as being asked questions privately by other students while listening to the lecture could potentially increase Undetectable, Hands-Free Always-On Technology in the Classroom 3 the amount of distracters for students. The implications of recording and sharing information were uncertain. Thus, there are possible tradeoffs found when utilizing this technology. In addition, the invisible nature of the technology makes it more difficult to discern what students are doing and thus could make professors wary of the activities students do in class. Our findings revealed mixed results on the effects of HFAO on students. While instructors believe that HFAO could facilitate collaboration, it could also potentially present a problem since it adds to the activities that students do in class. The overlap in these activities such as being asked questions by other students while listening to the lecture could potentially increase the amount of distracters for students. Thus, there are possible tradeoffs found when utilizing this technology. In addition, the invisible nature of the technology makes it more difficult to discern what students are doing and thus could make professors wary of the activities students do in class. HFAO Effects on Professors Projected HFAO effects on professors also had mixed results. On one hand HFAO could indeed help instructors change the way they give lectures. Removing static location constraints could benefit students with a more hands-on experience in more fitting locations. Even if the lecture were to be given inside a traditional classroom, augmented reality could allow instructors to present a better perspective on the subject being taught. By providing more resources and increasing collaboration with students, professors can not only make immediately available any material discussed in class but also students can be active participants in the lecture—for example, in a programming class the professor could have students write a program collaboratively instead of having the professor do all the coding himself and have students watch passively. Professors could create ad hoc groups for activities without the need to physically rearrange the class layout. However, there are also potential issues to consider such as cheating in class, which we will analyze in a later section. In addition, since HFAO makes recording easier, copyright can be more easily violated and in some cases without the consent and knowledge of individuals, which presents an issue for professors and students alike. Finally, control issues are somewhat mixed because even if special control technology were available to potentially help faculty monitor students, professors were wary of it being on all the time. How HFAO Impacts Assessment A combination of factors influences the potential effect of HFAO on assessment. These refer to the type of assessment and of the course being taught because different courses may utilize different assessment methods. For courses that allow students to use resources like open book exams or those requiring creative answers instead of facts, participants stated that HFAO may not be an issue. However, other participants expressed concern when evaluating individuals due to the open communication nature of the technology, including communication with students outside the classroom, which may hinder the evaluation process. Solutions proposed by instructors include group examinations, open-ended or more specialized examinations in which each assignment would be different. However, each solution had its own set of issues such as increase in instructors’ workload. Lack of control may play an important role since we stipulated the premise of not being able to turn off the technology, in which case some Undetectable, Hands-Free Always-On Technology in the Classroom 4 instructors may have trouble assessing students. While it probably would not be possible, instructors want a higher degree of control over this technology to be able to tailor it to their assessment methods.