You are here:

Glass in Class? Examining the Pedagogical Applications and Complications of Google Glass in Secondary and Higher Education Classrooms.
PROCEEDINGS

, Concordia University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

The Google Glass Explorer Program put this unique wearable technology into the hands of educators. As the device made its way into the classroom, pedagogical opportunities were discovered at the same time that potential pitfalls were exposed. While the medical field has championed Glass's value to surgeons and medical students alike, the K-20 educational arena has been mute by comparison. This paper reports on the experiences of educators using Glass in a pilot study in secondary and higher education, and explains how a planned follow-up study, as well as the work of other researchers, could build on that pilot. It also makes recommendations for collaborative studies based on Google’s reluctance to support educational research.

Citation

Daley, S. (2015). Glass in Class? Examining the Pedagogical Applications and Complications of Google Glass in Secondary and Higher Education Classrooms. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1781-1785). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bachy, S. (2014). TDPK, A new definition of the TPACK model for a university setting. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 17(2), 15-39.
  2. Baskin, J. (2015). Google Glass got it Backwards. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2015/01/25/google-glass-got-it-backwards/ Hall, R. (2014). Teaching using Google Glass and apps. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 5, 110.
  3. Hong, J. (2013). Considering privacy Issues in the context of Google Glass. Communications of the ACM, 56(11), 10-11.
  4. Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation-Framework. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1616-1620).
  5. Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  6. Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2009) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60-70.
  7. Ladhani, N. (2014) Don’t be a glasshole: the social implications of wearable tech. Social Policy Magazine, Spring 2014.
  8. Lavars, N. (2014). Fraunhofer’s Google Glass app detects human emotions in real time. Retrieved from: http://www.gizmag.com/fraunhofer-shore-google-glass-human-emotion/33568/ Peregrin, T. (2014). Surgeons see future applications for Google Glass. Bulletin American College of Surgeons, 99 (7), 9-16.
  9. Puentedura, R. (2011, January 2). The SAMR Model. Hippasus. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog Russo, C., Newman, R. & Brown, C. (2014). Google Glass and education: The wave of the future? School Business Affairs, 80(9), 37-39.
  10. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides