Skip to main content
Log in

Wearables can help me learn: A survey of user perception of wearable technologies for learning in everyday life

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wearable devices are a popular class of portable ubiquitous technology. These devices are available in a variety of forms, ranging from smart glasses to smart rings. The fact that smart wearable devices are attached to the body makes them particularly suitable to be integrated into people’s daily lives. Thus, we propose that wearables can be particularly useful to help people make sense of different kinds of information and situations in the course of their everyday activities, in other words, to help support learning in everyday life. Further, different forms of wearables have different affordances leading to varying perceptions and preferences, depending on the purpose and context of use. While there is research on wearable use in the learning context, it is mostly limited to specific settings and usually only explores wearable use for a specific task. This paper presents an online survey with 70 participants conducted to understand users’ preferences and perceptions of how wearables may be used to support learning in their everyday life. Multiple ways of use of wearable for learning were proposed. Asking for information was the most common learning-oriented use. The smartwatch/wristband, followed by the smart glasses, was the most preferred wearable form factor to support learning. Our survey results also showed that the choice of wearable type to use for learning is associated with prior wearable experience and that perceived social influence of wearables decreases significantly with gain in the experience with a fitness tracker. Overall, our study indicates that wearable devices have untapped potential to be used for learning in daily life and different form factors are perceived to afford different functions and used for different purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available to the authors and if needed can be requested from the corresponding author.

Code availability

There was no specific application developed for the study.

References

  • Apple Inc., (2020). You’ve never seen a watch like this. URL: https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-5/.

  • Bellabeat. (2020).More than just gorgeous jewelry. URL: https://bellabeat.com/.

  • Bower, M., & Sturman, D. (2015). What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies? Computers & Education, 88, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canhoto, A. I., & Arp, S. (2017). Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 32–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Custodio, V., Herrera, F. J., López, G., & Moreno, J. I. (2012). A review on architectures and communications technologies for wearable health-monitoring systems. Sensors, 12(10), 13907–13946. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1234505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engen, B. K., Giæver, T. H., & Mifsud, L. (2018). Wearable technologies in the k-12 classroom—cross-disciplinary possibilities and privacy pitfalls. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 29(3), 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitbit Inc., (2020). Fitness Tracker with Heart Rate, URL: https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/products/trackers/inspire2.

  • Garcia, B., Chu, S. L., Nam, B., & Banigan, C. (2018). Wearables for learning: examining the smartwatch as a tool for situated science reflection. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173830.

  • Hayes, A., (2020). The ins and outs of wearable technology. URL:https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wearable-technology.asp.

  • Lazy Design Private Limited. (2018). URL: https://ainaring.com/.

  • Lee, V. R., Drake, J. R., & Thayne, J. L. (2016). Appropriating quantified self technologies to support elementary statistical teaching and learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(4), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2597142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R., & Shapiro, R. B. (2019). A broad view of wearables as learning technologies: current and emerging applications. In Learning in a digital world (pp. 113–133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8265-9_6.

  • Leue, M. C., Jung, T., & tom Dieck, D. (2015). Google glass augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 463–476). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_34.

  • Lukowicz, P., Poxrucker, A., Weppner, J., Bischke, B., Kuhn, J., & Hirth, M. (2015). Glass-physics: using google glass to support high school physics experiments. In Proceedings of the 2015 acm international symposium on wearable computers (pp. 151–154). https://doi.org/10.1145/2802083.2808407.

  • Mills, L. A., Knezek, G., & Khaddage, F. (2014). Information seeking, information sharing, and going mobile: Three bridges to informal learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motti, V. G., & Caine, K. (2014). Human factors considerations in the design of wearable devices. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (vol. 58, pp. 1820–1824). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581381.

  • Niknejad, N., Ismail, W. B., Mardani, A., Liao, H., & Ghani, I. (2020). A comprehensive overview of smart wearables: The state of the art literature, recent advances, and future challenges. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 90, 103529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic books.

  • Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013). Learning about circuitry with e-textiles in after-school settings. Textile messages: dispatches from the world of E-textiles and education. Peter Lang Publishing.

  • Rapp, A., & Cena, F. (2015, September). Affordances for self-tracking wearable devices. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 141–142). https://doi.org/10.1145/2802083.2802090.

  • Reimann, D., & Maday, C. (2016). Smart textile objects and conductible ink as a context for arts based teaching and learning of computational thinking at primary school. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 31–35). https://doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012493.

  • Rodgers, M. M., Pai, V. M., & Conroy, R. S. (2014). Recent advances in wearable sensors for health monitoring. IEEE Sensors Journal, 15(6), 3119–3126. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2014.2357257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., & Liu, T.-Y. (2018). A study of the use of wearable devices for healthy and enjoyable english as a foreign language learning in authentic contexts. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simple Matters LLC. (2020). Ditto wearable tech. URL: https://dittowearable.com/.

  • Spitzer, M., Nanic, I., & Ebner, M. (2018). Distance learning and assistance using smart glasses. Education Sciences, 8(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thees, M., Kapp, S., Strzys, M. P., Beil, F., Lukowicz, P., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 106316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106316.

  • Vallurupalli, S., Paydak, H., Agarwal, S., Agrawal, M., & Assad-Kottner, C. (2013). Wearable technology to improve education and patient outcomes in a cardiology fellowship program-a feasibility study. Health and Technology, 3(4), 267–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology:Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.

  • Vuzix Corporation. (2020). Vuzix m-series smart glasses. URL: https://www.vuzix.com/products/.

  • Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H., & Choi, M. (2016). User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contribution of [blinded] in designing and conducting the survey. We thank all the participants who took part in our survey. This work was supported by [blinded for review], grant (#Blinded)

Funding

This project was supported by NSF (National Science Foundation) grant #1566469, Lived Science Narratives: Meaningful Elementary Science through Wearable Technologies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Neha Rani contributed to literature review, study design, data analysis, paper writing.

Sharon Lynn Chu contributed to project conceptualization, study design, paper writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neha Rani.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Study was approved university’s ethics board, the institutional review board. IRB#: IRB201900971, Title:Understanding the Potential of Wearable Technologies to Support Learning was approved as exempt by Behavioral/NonMedical Institutional Review Board, FWA00005790.

Consent to participate

IRB approved informed consent form was provided to the participants, and consent was obtained prior to the study. Participants were informed that their participation is voluntary, and they can decline to participate, or withdraw consent at any time free with no consequences.

Consent for publication

All the authors were consented for publication and are fully aware of the content of the paper. I and my co-author have provided correct information to our best knowledge and provide consent for this publication.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interest

On behalf of both the authors corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rani, N., Chu, S.L. Wearables can help me learn: A survey of user perception of wearable technologies for learning in everyday life. Educ Inf Technol 27, 3381–3401 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10726-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10726-6

Keywords

Navigation