When procedural change challenges organizational values: An open case study

This organizational learning case study was created as part of my participation in the graduate course Organizational Learning at Queen's University as part of the Graduate Diploma in Professional Inquiry leading to a Master of Education degree.

Organizational Learning Case Study

A New Report Card

While the doors of Prairie Lighthouse Middle School (PLMS) first opened in 1990 the visionary principal had gathered a staff of innovative and committed teachers six months earlier. Together they researched and implemented an innovative approach to student-led reflective assessment and reporting in a middle school setting. PLMS teachers were subject generalists teaching all subjects to a single group of students. Switching between subjects was seen to erect artificial boundaries between subjects and, as such, no bells were ever installed in the school. Complete curricular integration within inquiry-based projects was the norm; number / letter grades were dropped in favour of descriptive rubrics. The assessment focus was on the student’s understanding of themselves as learners (metacognition and self-regulation) and the degree to which students met the stated criteria relative to each inquiry project.

PLMS staff were sought out to speak on their approach and the school was widely regarded as exemplary of the middle school philosophy and one of the best schools in the province. One hallmark of this approach was the student-written report card, or “growth statement”. As the school’s official document for communicating progress to parents, the growth statement was one of the more visible and concrete examples of PLMS emphasis on student involvement in assessment. Considerable time was taken to help students develop the metacognitive skills necessary to reflect meaningfully on their own work and to formulate summary statements of their skills based on evidence in their portfolios. Students shared their growth statements with families at a conference night and teachers would be on hand to answer parent questions though most questions were adeptly handled by the students themselves.

While staff occasionally complained about the length of time these collaborative reports took to prepare, they saw student input as a critical element to the assessment process, and well worth the effort. The metacognitive skills developed by students were, in their opinion, as important as the required curricular content knowledge. PLMS, despite many changes in staff and administration, continued to espouse and practice the core philosophy for 20 years.

Then, at a staff meeting in 2010, the department of education mandated a common report card for all schools in the province. This report was to be written by teachers, required a percentage grade for each subject and the anecdotal portion of the report was to focus, subject-by-subject, on outcomes achieved relative to each individual curriculum. Comments on student behaviour was limited to three pre-determined domains, reported by way of a numeric rubric, and was to be completed separately for each subject.

The staff were shocked and dismayed at the proposed change. They felt the new report re-established boundaries between subjects, segmented the child into discrete and unrelated elements, and took the child completely out of the assessment and reporting loop. Discussion was heated and passionate. How could a percent grade communicate anything about a child better than their existing report? How could separating behaviours from achievement provide a picture of the whole child? Would the teacher-assigned number grades shift the focus away from, and diminish the more meaningful self-reflections completed by students? Would this change damage PLMS’s ability to continue with its’ well-respected program? How much would the change affect other processes? Might staff simply abandon the growth statement and simply return to assigning a number grade?

It was clear that the school was at a crossroads and change was ahead.

Discussion Questions

What challenges are facing the staff of Prairie Lighthouse School?
What are the immediate concerns that need addressing?
What behaviours may have to change to accommodate the new report?
What beliefs and values may have to change to accommodate the new report?
Should beliefs and values change to accommodate processes?
How tightly integrated can/should processes be to beliefs/values/philosophy?
In what ways are these procedural changes impacting the school’s culture and identity?
What factors should the school’s administration consider in the transition to the new report?
What elements are important to maintain? Can these elements co-exist with the new requirements?
What new information and processes will have to be learned?
How will that change take place?

Share your thoughts in the comment area.

Download formatted and reproducible PDF.

Procedural Change Challenges Organizational Values: A New Report Card by Miles MacFarlane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://milestomes.com/?p=2748.

Posted by milesmac on November 7th, 2015 | No Comments Posted in #GDPI, big ideas, Pedagogy

Medieval Minecraft for SAGE 2015

Medieval Minecrafting 2015 Master File

Edmodo join link: https://edmo.do/j/uazqip

Here is a link to the GoogleDoc with the text of the project. Please, feel free to add, comment

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CUeU8wqQyz-TjNIzkTp28rcCxPfmOOy6Z2mv45oU_KA/edit?usp=sharing

miles@milestomes.com

michelle.dombek@7oaks.org

Posted by milesmac on October 23rd, 2015 | No Comments Posted in Pedagogy

Wearable Technology Possibilities for Education

This paper was written as part of my participation in the graduate course Educational Hardware Systems at the George Washington University. It is one of the required courses for the Education Technology Leadership concentration in the Master of Arts in Education and Human Development.

Wearable Technology Possibilities for Education

ABSTRACT

Networked computing is radically changing how and what we learn. Social constructivism and connectivism emerged in the early 1990 simultaneously with consumer internet as systems (mobile technology) and processes (constructivism) found a point of synergy.

Wearable technology is poised to see increasing consumer adoption (ABI Research, 2014), and with it, new forms of engagement with people and places, and new opportunities to better understand our selves and the world around us.

Considering the landscape and social impact of wearable technology, this paper seeks to identify the distinguishing characteristics and affordances of wearable technology, the potential impact on human interactions and our relationship with technology in order to inform development of educational applications.

Understanding Wearables

Wearable technologies are digital devices with communication and interaction capabilities embedded or integrated into something that can be comfortably worn on the body that performs tasks independently and intelligently based on user profiles and sensed information (Tehrani & Michael, 2014). Wearables come in many forms including jewelry, watches, patches, glasses, conventional garments, and hats (ABI Research, 2014). Table 1 shows Baber’s (2001) continuum of wearable device functionality with full featured computing devices at one end, sensing clothing with limited processing power at the other and interactive but narrowly functioning information appliances in the middle.

Table 1: Baber (2001) describes a continuum of device functionality.

Sensors		Information Appliances		Wearables
Limited processing power		Interactive but narrowly functioning		Fully featured computing devices

Ding & Lin (2009) describe several user motivations for engaging with mobile devices which involve receiving information from the device in response to a need; wearables as interfaces to sensors and information appliances, though, can also be set up to anticipate and independently respond to needs perceived by the device.

Google Glass and the as-yet unreleased Apple Watch are two examples on the full-featured end of the functionality continuum. These networked, interactive devices have spatial and locational awareness, are always on, can operate autonomously and offer broad functionality while remaining unobtrusive, largely hands-free, and intuitive to use (Apple, 2014; Parslow, 2014). Unless indicated, this paper focuses primarily on Google’s Glass and occasionally Apple’s Watch as the fully featured wearables.

Wearable devices are accessible at a glance whereas mobile devices are often in purses or pockets requiring the users’ full attention and tactile interactions to operate. Some wearables afford natural means of interaction like voice or subtle body movements allowing the user hands-free engagement with the technology while others function in the background without the need for human interaction at all. Accessing a mobile device may only take a few seconds longer than a wearable, yet it is reasonable to anticipate minor savings could contribute to greater attention and reduced workflow interruptions.

Wearable Affordances

Roach-Higgins & Eicher (as cited in Johnson & Lennon, 2014) suggest traditional worn clothing communicates between wearer and viewer, extends abilities, and influences how we experience, and are experienced by others. Similarly, worn technology becomes part of the user, communicating, extending physical and cognitive abilities, augmenting our experiences through information search, capture, storage, and retrieval, and enhancing physical and biological sensing thus blurring the line between human and machine (Benditt, 1999).

Physical Enhancement

Wearable technologies can enhance fully functioning senses or mitigate lost or disabled senses. Audio, video, and vibrational signals from mobile devices are common interface forms though the device must be hand held, or in contact with the body to be effective. Glass, on the other hand, simulates a large display using small near-the-eye projections and bone conduction in the eyeglass arms that discretely deliver audio to the user. Further, vibrotactile feedback and haptic response systems embedded in garments can simulate physical contact and pressure increasing the user’s tactile sensitivity.

Cognitive Enhancement

Studies demonstrate how wearables enhance memory by effective storage, retrieval, and delivery of information to the user on demand, or as a form of performance support (Lee, 2014; Ockerman & Pritchett, 2004; Shankland, 2012). Users are increasingly transferring the burden of memory from the brain to the device in a kind of merger of biological and digital processes into a hybrid memory (Clowes, 2012). Consequently, wearables become part of the user performing as memory assistants and are likely to evoke a psychological sense of unity with the device and its’ capabilities.

Physiological Understanding

Conductive threads make it possible to embedded sensors and circuitry into a garment’s fabric (Palomo-Lovinski, 2008; Tao, 2005) allowing for constant monitoring of an individual’s vital signs. Motion sensors strategically placed on the body for effective movement readings (Guo, He, & Gao, 2012) and maximising inter-device communication (Vallejo, Recas, del Valle, & Ayala, 2013) combined with sensed information about the environment and user context (Jin et al., 2014) can be used to translate discrete contexts and movements into a gestalt of user intention (Leutheuser, Schuldhaus, & Eskofier, 2013).

Contextual Understanding

Mobile devices are capable of sensing environmental position and conditions relative to the users’ physical context and deliver location-relevant notifications reflecting their interests and social relationships (Humphreys, 2013). As a portal to social media engagement with a space, users can experience rich overlays of digital content relevant to their location (Humphreys, 2013; Schwartz & Hochman, 2014). From a research and learning perspective, user contributed data tagged with contextual information can be harvested and filtered to better understand how spaces are used (Schwartz & Hochman, 2014).

While both mobile and wearable devices employ a wide array of sensors, wearables have the added advantage of flexible positioning contributing to greater quality and accuracy. The wearable offers fast and easy access to content with minimal interruptions to work flow. Additionally, push notifications can be targeted with increasing precision and focus (Salz, 2014) connecting user-submitted data with social media profiles.

Human Relationships

Like mobile devices, wearables offer quick and easy connections to other people. Accessing a wearable in social situations is less obvious and therefore more socially acceptable because it does not appear to occupy the user’s full attention like a hand-held mobile device. On the other hand, tension may arise where not all social participants have or understand the wearable technology in use (Garfinkel, 2014).

Wearables also provide a unique first person points of view using a head-mounted hands-free camera and will soon be able to provide hands-free video conferencing with a face view of the wearer (Kimura & Horikoshi, 2014). By choice or through automation, information from worn sensors and information appliances can be shared socially allowing the wearer to share data without active participation.

Handheld mobile technology, Beloff (2008) suggests, is akin to carrying in one’s pocket a portal to virtual private spaces even in when one is physically moving in public spaces. Always on, always accessible, and intuitively operated, wearable technology merges public and private spaces even more seamlessly than hand-held devices as wearables and their users continually feed and receive data to and from online social spaces (Hjorth & Lim, 2012).

Education Applications

Performance Support

Wearable technology emerged from military applications as field-based performance support for equipment service and maintenance in the field (Chinnock, 1998). Studies revealed a shift in how people performed following instructions from a wearable. Experienced workers on their own addressed peripheral tasks while performing the target task. Receiving performance support from a wearable, the same workers were less likely to stray from the prescribed actions performing only those tasks that were issued by the computer (Baber, 2001). This finding raises an important concern for wearables in education. Learners may demonstrate a high degree of compliance, but show little initiative to explore beyond given directions. In the context of experiential and connectivist learning approaches, it is important to implement learning support in a way that mitigates this effect while encouraging inquiry and initiative.

While wearables offer much the same functionality as mobile devices, there are unique affordances that offer engaging and effective learning experiences.

Multi-sensory Interfaces

Because wearables are in constant physical contact with the user as functional garments, vibrotactile feedback has wider utility. Such wearables perform as feedback devices and are used to develop specific motor skills (Lieberman & Breazeal, 2007), enhance tactile sensitivity (Ying et al., 2012) and provide navigational support (Zelek, Bromley, Asmar, & Thompson, 2003). Full body suits could sense environmental conditions and provide haptic output using embedded vibration motors to compensate for lost or disabled senses (Profita, 2014). Enabled garments could also interact with applications to simulate pressure creating the opportunity for immersive sensory learning experiences.

Non-invasive neural computer interfaces are particularly interesting for education. If we are to create a fully wearable independent individualised learning experiences we need also to understand how the brain receives, stores, processes, connects, retrieves, and delivers information and then how to perceive, measure, and possibly influence those processes (Bahr, 2001; Coates, 2008; Liao et al., 2012). Commercial electroencephalography (EEG) is still expensive and has limited utility with available applications focusing only on learning to control EEG waves (Emotiv Inc., 2014). An available free software development kit may encourage developers to explore the possibilities and affordances of such devices for control and sensing.

Data

The wearable industry is dominated by healthcare, military, and industrial applications (Walker, 2013) where they play a significant role in training and performance support. Walker also mentions widespread adoption in the fitness industry of personal training sensors and health monitoring appliances. Individuals can use such devices to learn about their own personal health and physicians may employ such monitors for patient education. Collected data can motivate patients to make positive lifestyle changes (Shuger et al., 2011).

As the mobile and wearable environment is changing the way we engage with content, so too is the way content itself is stored, retrieved, and delivered. Granular pieces of information are stored as discrete elements, tagged with content and purpose descriptions, and then linked with logical identifiers. As application interfaces and content sequencing algorithms are developed utilizing information architectures like SCORM, it will be possible for a learner’s device to sense location and activity, identify learning opportunities using current data relevant to the learner’s needs, deliver content and assess responses in situ.

A big benefit of mobile wearable technology is the opportunity to automate many communication processes to benefit not just one’s self, but the greater human population and physical environment. As walking sensor-laden transmitters, humans can gather environmental, climatic, infrastructural, biological, and social data through the course of the day without any additional effort beyond donning the sensors. From an educational perspective, this offers two benefits. First for the user who benefits from enhanced cognitive and physical abilities, and physiological and environmental understandings. Secondly, aggregated raw data from worn sensors can inform research, decision-making, and public policy.

Pedagogy

Early experiences with technology in education focused on integration: how to use a computer for teaching and learning. Discussions about technology integration still treat computing devices as add-ons to what happens in the classroom reflecting the separation of the person from the computing device. Wearables challenge the perceived separation of people and computers causing us to rephrase the question, “What can I do with computers in the classroom?” to “What can I do with learners who have computers?” The distinction is subtle, but one that shifts the focus away from the device and on to the individual.

K12 and higher education experience with wearables is limited and Walker’s (2013) Market Assessment makes no mention at all of educational applications. Google’s Glass Explorer Program now has some wearables in teachers’ hands and early implementations, as with most new technologies, reflect old teaching strategies such as performing web searches, recording lectures (Sivakumar, 2014), providing feedback on written work, and sharing print materials (Hall, 2014).

Some reports, however, describe learning experiences that capitalize on the wearable’s unique capabilities such as inquiry based, location specific, contextual, interactive learning experiences (Suarez, Ternier, Kalz, & Specht, 2014), language learning using speech recognition and synthesis in augmented reality applications (Nooriafshar, 2013), and capitalizing on the ease with which records can be taken and information shared to digital workspaces (Hall, 2014).

Augmented Experiences

Humphreys (2013) suggests that awareness of others’ experiences and opinions about physical spaces affects the user’s perceptions of that same physical space. Positive reports may enhance a users’ experience of a space while negative reports may predispose a user to a negative experience. Experiential and connectivist learning approaches emphasize the importance of learner experiences and discovery in creating knowledge. Wearable contextual learning systems will have to balance delivery of known content with opportunities for discovery.

A New Kind of Network

The growing prevalence of wearables creates the potential for an enormous mobile sensor array as humans themselves become part of the technology. Cisco (2014) reports that 22 million wearable devices in 2013 were generating significant network activity across the planet, a number predicted to increase more than eightfold within five years.

A world full of interconnected sensors, information appliances, wearable, and mobile devices all sharing user-interpreted and raw data on social media creates what is variously called the “Semantic Web” or “Transcendent Web” (Michael & Michael, 2013; Sabbagh, Karam, Acker, & Rahbani, 2011). Here, user-entered data gives context, provides details, makes connections, overlays opinion, emotion, and experience to events and locations. This adds dimensionality to raw sensor data extending the utility of the data beyond the wearer.

Demographically and contextually rich open data has countless possibilities for research and education. Wearable users may be motivated by applications to behave in a desired way (Khaled, Barr, Noble, & Biddle, 2006; Vassileva, 2012) resulting in gathering of targeted data. For example, a researcher could create a gamified application that prompts user to visit certain locations, or enter certain information that they might not otherwise. The user achieves a gaming goal and the researcher acquires needed data.

Additionally, as users create logical links between discrete information items they lay the foundation for computer intelligence along the lines of a digital neural network.

Challenges within the field

Privacy and Social Acceptance

Hong (2013) recalls that many new technologies, including the camera, met with resistance and fear. He notes that experiences with new technologies are limited and early expectations often differ from the reality that emerges. These early expectations, he observes, are also bound to change over time as the technology’s affordances are discovered and adopted.

Google’s Glass raised significant alarm when announced. People were uncomfortable about the ease with which users could record anything they observed (Gross, 2014). Surreptitious recordings are also possible with a mobile device but the concern disappears when the device is put away. The face-worn device, though not always recording nor even powered on, is always pointed at whomever the user is looking at. From another point of view, some people view Google’s Glass with great curiosity and have surreptitiously taken photos of the wearer without the wearer’s consent (Swan, 2014). Interestingly, Apple’s watch has not encountered the same public push back likely because the form factor is not, so to speak, as in your face as Google’s Glass.

A mobile device can facilitate connections with others, but it can also hinder face-to-face interactions (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012). While a mobile can be tucked away in a purse or pocket, there may be more resistance to removing a wearable because of the ties to appearance and identity (Johnson & Lennon, 2014).

Ease of sharing and making data public, though, is also an element of concern. Tunick (2013) explores notions of privacy in light of the counterargument that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. He describes non-legal forms of punishment that can occur when out-of-context data emerges and is linked to an individual who, as a result, experiences harsh treatment. Such artifacts can exist online indefinitely causing serious and long-term damage to an individual’s reputation and well-being. Some such issues can be mitigated through public policy and during product development itself (Rubenstein & Good, 2013).

Hjorth and Lim (2012) described mobile devices as a portal to private and intimate spaces within public spaces pointing to the emerging intersection of public and private experiences. The nature of wearables, like Glass, make it challenging to monitor a child’s activity, to provide responsible supervision online, and to share digital experiences (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). Glass is, by its nature, a very personal and private device with a short line to a very public forum.

Interoperability

Not having a common form factor amongst wearable devices, standardization and interoperability present design and implementation challenges. Sensors must transmit gathered data to another device and some information appliances rely on a mobile interface for full functionality. Additionally, situations employing multiple sensors present a wide variety of communication challenges.

Ongoing research seeks to optimize wearable sensor efficacy by determining best sensor placement (Guo et al., 2012; Haar, Fees, Trost, Crowe, & Murray, 2013), creating algorithms that accurately translate sensed movement into human behaviours (Leutheuser et al., 2013), tuning strategies to compensate for signal attenuation on inter-connected body-mounted sensor networks (Vallejo et al., 2013), developing a means for reliable inter-device communication (Cubo, Nieto, & Pimentel, 2014), creating functional flexible silicon circuitry embedded in fabrics (Healy, Donnelly, O’Neill, Alderman, & Mathewson, 2006; Palomo-Lovinski, 2008), and balancing form and function factors to create comfortable wearables (Haar et al., 2013; Simone & Kamper, 2005).

As research tools, wearables will provide increasingly detailed and accurate data about virtually all aspects of nature and society. The quantity of data is likely to put pressure on research science further opening the door to so-called citizen science and crowd-sourced data analysis. Such data could provide working material for the wearable users’ learning activities reflecting real practical applications of the skills in question.

Power needs

Always on electronic devices have power requirements that must accommodate mobility and provide extended operation. Research continue into how best to meet mobile energy needs. Solutions range from solar (Pool, 2008) to new form batteries (Wooliey et al., 2004) to minimising power requirements using new technologies (Pearson, Buchanan, & Thimbleby, 2014) outsourcing computation to cloud computers (Ivan & Popa, 2014), and kinetic energy generated by the user (Palomo-Lovinski, 2008; Xu, Yang, Zhou, & Liu, 2013). Until then, users must carry cables and seek out electric power points to charge their devices.

Conclusion & Future Research

Much is said about the outdated industrial factory model of education still in practice (Pinar, 1992; Serafini, 2002). Computers introduced robust and accessible multimedia into classrooms about the same time as hypertext challenged linear-sequential approaches to content opening the door for self-directed study. Mobile technology untethered the learner from the desktop bringing computing power into new spaces and with it location-aware delivery of contextually relevant content. Wearable information systems will also have a tremendous impact on education changing the way we teach and learn. Wearable technology could untether learners not only from bricks and mortar classrooms, but from devices themselves as they become extensions of our selves offering learning networks, and dynamic, relevant, contextual, meaningful, and timely learning experiences that reflect engaging and learner-driven inquiry (Füllsack, 2013).

As wearables still have very low adoption in educational enterprises, future research should focus on how military, industrial, and healthcare industries employ wearables for training purposes. Existing educational deployments should be studied to document best practice in terms of contributions to student learning and engagement over the long term. Additionally, a study of success factors in independent self-guided learning using wearable and mobile technology will inform a transition away from traditional industrial learning models to a model that better employs available technology to maximise learning potential.

Finally, given the predicted merger of biological and digital capabilities in humans, questions of self-identity are likely to arise. Understanding the impact of digital enhancement on perceptions of self will begin to address important issues of well-being and psychological adjustment in the coming age.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABI Research. (2014). 90M Wearable computing devices will be shipped in 2014. Microwave Journal, 57(4), 66.

Apple. (2014). Apple Watch - Features. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from http://www.apple.com/watch/features/

Baber, C. (2001). Wearable computers: A human factors review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 123–145. doi:10.1207/S15327590IJHC1302_3

Bahr, M. (2001). A brave new world of information. Social Alternatives, 20(1), 41–46.

Beloff, L. (2008). The curious apparel : Wearables and the Hybronaut. Social Fabrics, 8(1).

Benditt, J. (1999). Humachines. Technology Review, 102(3), 8.

Chinnock, C. (1998). DARPA describes vision of wearable computing. Military & Aerospace Electronics, 9(10), 1–6.

Cisco. (2014). Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast update, 2013–2018. Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11-520862.html

Clowes, R. W. (2012). Hybrid memory, cognitive technology and self. In Proceedings of the 5th AISB Symposium on Computing and Philosophy (pp. 2–12).

Coates, S. D. (2008). Neural interfacing: Forging the human-machine connection. In Synthesis Lectures on Biomedical Engineering (Vol. 3, pp. 1–112). doi:10.2200/S00148ED1V01Y200809BME022

Cubo, J., Nieto, A., & Pimentel, E. (2014). A cloud-based Internet of Things platform for ambient assisted living. Sensors. doi:10.3390/s140814070

Ding, W., & Lin, X. (2009). Information architecture: The design and integration of information spaces. In Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services (Vol. 1, pp. 1–169). doi:10.2200/S00214ED1V01Y200910ICR008

Emotiv Inc. (2014). Applications. Retrieved from http://www.emotiv.com/store/app/

Füllsack, M. (2013). Constructivism and computation: Can computer-based modeling add to the case for constructivism?. Constructivist Foundations, 9(1), 7–16. Retrieved from http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=93648527&site=ehost-live

Garfinkel, S. (2014). Glass, Darkly. MIT Technology Review, 117(2), 70–77.

Gross, A. (2014, March 4). What’s the problem with Google Glass. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/whats-the-problem-with-google-glass

Guo, Y., He, W., & Gao, C. (2012). Human activity recognition by fusing multiple sensor nodes in the wearable sensor systems. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, 12(05), 1250084. doi:10.1142/S0219519412500844

Haar, S., Fees, B., Trost, S., Crowe, L. K., & Murray, A. (2013). Design of a garment for data collection of toddler language and physical activity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 31(2), 125–140. doi:10.1177/0887302X13478161

Hall, R. P. (2014). Teaching using Google Glass and apps. The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/teaching-using-google-glass-and-apps/

Healy, T., Donnelly, J., O’Neill, B., Alderman, J., & Mathewson, A. (2006). Silicon fibre technology development for wearable and ambient electronics applications. International Journal of High Speed Electronics and Systems, 16(2), 713–722.

Hjorth, L., & Lim, S. S. (2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of affective mobile media. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 477–484. Retrieved from http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=84923916&site=ehost-live

Hong, J. (2013). Considering privacy issues in the context of Google Glass. Communications of the ACM, 56(11), 10–11. doi:10.1145/2524713.2524717

Humphreys, L. (2013). Foursquare and the parochialization of public space. Retrieved October 08, 2014, from http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/viewFile/784/pdf

Ivan, C., & Popa, R. (2014). Cloud based cross platform mobile applications. Advances in Computer Science: An International Journal, 3(2), 69–77.

Jin, M., Zou, H., Weekly, K., Jia, R., Bayen, A. M., & Spanos, C. J. (2014). Environmental sensing by wearable device for indoor activity and location estimation. In 40th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON). Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.5765.pdf

Johnson, K. K. P., & Lennon, S. (2014). The social psychology of dress. Retrieved October 06, 2014, from http://www.bergfashionlibrary.com/page/The$0020Social$0020Psychology$0020of$0020Dress/the-social-psychology-of-dress

Khaled, R., Barr, P., Noble, J., & Biddle, R. (2006). Investigating Social Software as Persuasive Technology. In Persuasive Techology (pp. 104–107). Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225105886_Investigating_Social_Software_as_Persuasive_Technology/file/60b7d529c30292931a.pdf

Kimura, S., & Horikoshi, T. (2014). Prototype glasses-type device with videophone. NTT DOCOMO Technical Journal, 15(3), 10–16.

Lee, C. T. S. (2014). Hands-free performance support. T&D, (April), 108–110.

Leutheuser, H., Schuldhaus, D., & Eskofier, B. M. (2013). Hierarchical, multi-sensor based classification of daily life activities: comparison with state-of-the-art algorithms using a benchmark dataset. PloS One, 8(10), e75196. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075196

Liao, L.-D., Chen, C.-Y., Wang, I.-J., Chen, S.-F., Li, S.-Y., Chen, B.-W., … Lin, C.-T. (2012). Gaming control using a wearable and wireless EEG-based brain-computer interface device with novel dry foam-based sensors. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 9(January), 5. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-9-5

Lieberman, J., & Breazeal, C. (2007). Development of a wearable vibrotactile feedback suit for accelerated human motor learning. In Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 4001–4006).

Michael, K., & Michael, M. (2013). No limits to watching? Communications of the ACM, 56(11), 26–28. doi:10.1145/2527187

Nooriafshar, M. (2013). Google Glass and its potential uses in digital education. In Research Colloquia and Showcase 2013 (pp. 9–14). Springfield, QLD: University of Southern Queensland.

O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800–4. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0054

Ockerman, J. J., & Pritchett, A. R. (2004). Improving performance on procedural tasks through presentation of locational procedure context: An empirical evaluation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 11–20. doi:10.1080/01449290310001641284

Palomo-Lovinski, N. (2008). Extensible dress: The future of digital clothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26(2), 119–130. doi:10.1177/0887302X07310078

Parslow, G. R. (2014). Commentary: Google Glass: A head-up display to facilitate teaching and learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(1), 91–92. doi:10.1002/bmb.20751

Pearson, J., Buchanan, G., & Thimbleby, H. (2014). Designing for digital reading. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services. doi:10.2200/S00539ED1V01Y201310ICR029

Pinar, W. F. (1992). “Dreamt Into Existence by Others”: Curriculum Theory and School Reform. Theory into Practice, 92(31), 228–235.

Pool, R. (2008). Nanotech tonic. Engineering & Technology, 25 October, 62–66.

Profita, H. P. (2014). Smart garments: An on-body interface for sensory augmentation and substitution. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct Publication (pp. 331–336). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2638728.2638840

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237–246. doi:10.1177/0265407512453827

Rubenstein, I. S., & Good, N. (2013). Privacy by design: A counterfactual analysis of Google and Facebook privacy incidents. Berkeley Technical Law Journal, 28(2), 1133–1412. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol28/iss2/6

Sabbagh, K., Karam, D., Acker, O., & Rahbani, J. (2011). Designing the transcendent web: The power of Web 3.0.

Salz, P. A. (2014). The importance of “Push” in the app age. EContent, 37(7), 32–32.

Schwartz, R., & Hochman, N. (2014). The social media life of public spaces: Reading places through the lens of geo-tagged data. In R. Wilken & G. Goggin (Eds.), Locative Media (pp. 1–18). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from http://nadavhochman.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Schwartz_TheSocialMediaLifeofUrbanSpaces.pdf

Serafini, F. W. (2002). DISMANTLING THE FACTORY MODEL OF ASSESSMENT. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18(1), 67–85. doi:10.1080/105735602753386342

Shankland, S. (2012). How Google is becoming an extension of your mind. Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://www.cnet.com/au/news/how-google-is-becoming-an-extension-of-your-mind/

Shuger, S. L., Barry, V. W., Sui, X., McClain, A., Hand, G. a, Wilcox, S., … Blair, S. N. (2011). Electronic feedback in a diet- and physical activity-based lifestyle intervention for weight loss: A randomized controlled trial. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 41. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-8-41

Simone, L. K., & Kamper, D. G. (2005). Design considerations for a wearable monitor to measure finger posture. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 2(1), 5. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-2-5

Sivakumar, R. (2014). Google Glass in education. StudyMode.com. Retrieved from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Google-Glass-In-Education-54628722.html

Suarez, A., Ternier, S., Kalz, M., & Specht, M. (2014). GPIM : Google Glassware for inquiry-based learning. Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities, 8719, 530–533. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11200-8_58

Swan, G. (2014). Glassholes at SXSW: The cultural dissonance of technology in a petri dish. Retrieved from http://glassalmanac.com/sxsw-glassholes/2851/sthash.r9pE9JKP.dpuf

Tao, X. (2005). Introduction. In X. Tao (Ed.), Wearable Electronics and Photonics (p. 256). Boca Raton: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SaKjAgAAQBAJ&pgis=1

Tehrani, K., & Michael, A. (2014). Wearable technology and wearable devices: Everything you need to know. Retrieved October 03, 2014, from http://www.wearabledevices.com/what-is-a-wearable-device/

Tunick, M. (2013). Privacy and punishment. Social Theory and Practice, 39(4), 643–668. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract201339436

Vallejo, M., Recas, J., del Valle, P. G., & Ayala, J. L. (2013). Accurate human tissue characterization for energy-efficient wireless on-body communications. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 13(6), 7546–69. doi:10.3390/s130607546

Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating participation in social computing applications: A user modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1-2), 177–201. doi:10.1007/s11257-011-9109-5

Walker, S. (2013). Wearable technology – Market assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ihs.com/pdfs/Wearable-Technology-sep-2013.pdf

Wooliey, S., Cross, J., Ro, S., Foster, R., Reynolds, G., Baber, C., … Schwirtz, A. (2004). Count three for wearable computers. IEE Electronics Systems and Software, (March).

Xu, G., Yang, Y., Zhou, Y., & Liu, J. (2013). Wearable thermal energy harvester powered by human foot. Frontiers in Energy, 7(1), 26–38.

Ying, M., Bonifas, A. P., Lu, N., Su, Y., Li, R., Cheng, H., … Rogers, J. A. (2012). Silicon nanomembranes for fingertip electronics. Nanotechnology, 23(34), 344004. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/23/34/344004

Zelek, J. S., Bromley, S., Asmar, D., & Thompson, D. (2003). A haptic glove as a tactile-vision sensory substitution for wayfinding. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, October, 621–632.

Posted by milesmac on October 5th, 2015 | No Comments Posted in #GWETL, big ideas, Pedagogy, Research

Survey of Global Collaboration Tools presented using Microsoft Sway

Microsoft Sway

I'm experimenting with Microsoft Sway, an application somewhat, a little, kinda, sorta like Powerpoint but much more interactive and more dynamic (in that it reformats content depending on the screen it is being displayed on). Users can search for, and embed content from a variety of other sources a little bit like Haiku Deck can find backgrounds based on your slide content. Sway will search images, videos, and Tweets for content matching your search.

Your Sway can be shared directly from the site with a view-only link, or you can share a link with rights to edit. Sways can also be embedded elsewhere... like here, for example! Sway has dynamic formatting, so the user need only focus on the content. This means that Sway will format the content suitable for desktop, tablet, and mobile viewing. Try this: Once the Sway has loaded, resize the window, or click to full-screen viewing. Everything is dynamic, including text, header images, embedded content... everything! Rather neat! I could see using Sway as a tool for knowledge building, content curation, story telling, and annotated bookmarking.

Global Collaboration Digital Tools

This Sway was created in response to an assignment in the Queen's University course 801 Collaborative Inquiry, part of the Graduate Diploma in Professional Inquiry leading to a Master of Education. The prompt was to create a montage of 21st century resources that could accommodate collaborative pursuits.

Posted by milesmac on October 3rd, 2015 | No Comments Posted in #GDPI, Professional Inquiry

Annual Reflection on Professional Learning 2015

In the same way we ask students to reflect on their work, so too should we, as professionals, take time to consider our practice. Returning to my home school after spending the 2014 calendar year teaching in Australia, I'm going to reflect on the two different systems and their impact on student learning.

Data

My home province does not use high-stakes standards testing, rather, there is a greater emphasis on knowing the learner and nurturing their development. While our provincial department has subject based curriculum, my district makes it clear that academics are only one dimension of a child's development and we ought to attend to all dimensions (physical, emotional, spiritual, etc.). It is, in my opinion, a compassionate and empathetic approach to education where our primary focus on people rather than data.

I appreciated experiencing Australia's rich data environment (particularly New South Wales, one of the largest school districts in the world) during my exchange year. Students write national standards exams called the NAPLAN (National Assessment of Proficiency in Literacy and Numeracy) at grade 3, 5, 7, and 9. These tests occupy the better part of three days not to mention the work beforehand to prepare students for the testing environment. Their exams are marked centrally and their scores are ranked within the school and the state. The resulting data from the exams highlight areas in granular detail where the child either met or failed to perform to expectations. Each outcome is tied to interventions and lessons to build capacity. External companies also offer (for sale) test question banks meant to mimic the standards exams in order to prepare students for the test.

The wealth of data was overwhelming, but certainly could be useful though I'm not quite convinced that an attentive teacher couldn't achieve the same sense of a child's needs in less time and without the enormous capital outlay and testing infrastructure. Another challenge is the test validity. I observed that students approached the test with different levels of interest and motivation. In small schools, the aggregate data has little utility when ranked with other schools. The real danger is when the data becomes the focus and "how do we bring the numbers up?" is asked more than, "how do we help this student?" I'm sure that in our heads, when saying the former, we see the numbers going up as a byproduct of helping students, but I've also observed that the time spent crunching numbers can far outweigh the time spent planning learning interventions for children.

Departmentalization

In my home middle school we keep the same students throughout the day and, as their homeroom teacher, we are responsible for all content areas. This can be disconcerting for those teachers who consider themselves content specialists and it was for me too. However, in a collaborative environment with inter-teacher supports, one can quickly fill those knowledge gaps. The goal is not to divide the work, but to build capacity in all content areas. Part of this is a shift from thinking about ourselves as content specialists to thinking about ourselves as learning specialists. We know how to look at a skill, break it down into component parts, structure learning experiences to build capacity, and assess growth along the way. As learning specialists, the content is secondary - required knowledge, for the most part, can easily be discovered in learning communities.

Posted by milesmac on September 21st, 2015 | No Comments Posted in Pedagogy

Learning out loud

I’ve been using Harold Jarche’s phrase, “Learning Out Loud” to describe my approach to learning. As a teacher, I consider myself simply the resident professional learner rather than the resident content expert. The idea of using social media to engage with colleagues both near and far appealed to my enthusiasm for technology and my passion for learning. Publically sharing work in progress, ideas, and experiments with reflections on the process as well as the product, I invite others to pitch in, offer their own experiences, ideas, and suggestions.

Twitter helped me find and follow some great people who talked about things I was interested in, or ideas that challenged my own notions. Often their posts would point to articles or blogs which, if I was interested, I would add to my RSS feed which pulled newly published content from my subscribed sources.

These articles fueled my interest and got me excited about changes in education in the 21^st century. I would share these articles on my own Twitter feed, and engage with the authors or other readers in the blog comments area.

After consuming content for about a year, I felt the desire to reflect more deeply, to be more intentional about my engagement than the odd blog comment and to articulate my emerging understandings into something that I could build on later, but, more importantly, something that could initiate conversations with others all the time and everywhere. Articles published years ago on a blog can still fuel conversations long after I have moved on to other things and I appreciate being drawn back to that intellectual space to revisit old ideas.

My habits have changed over the last couple of years as I engaged more intensely with my coursework and my fellow students but I continued to share my coursework online for those who might find it useful. Normally, when we write a paper for class, it is only ever read by one or two people. By sharing that work online I get feedback and discussion from many more people who offer thanks (which is personally rewarding) or criticism (which is intellectually challenging) and it can take on a life of its' own.

Life Update

So my George Washington University adventure hit a terminal milestone with the August 31, 2015 conferral of my Master of Arts in Education and Human Development (Education Technology Leadership). YAY! Now, just two weeks later, another adventure begins. I have enrolled in the Graduate Diploma in Professional Inquiry at Queen's University with the intention of pursuing the Master of Education the following year. So... for the next couple of years, many of my blog posts will reflect the learning and engagement with people and ideas in that program. I'll use the tag #QueensPI for those posts. As always, I welcome notes, comments, critiques, suggestions, questions, ideas...

Posted by milesmac on September 14th, 2015 | No Comments Posted in Pedagogy

6 things you need to know before starting your online graduate degree

Next month I'm writing my comprehensive exams and wrapping up a Master of Arts in Education and Human Development with a concentration in Education Technology Leadership from The George Washington University. I learned a few things along the way about distance learning in this graduate degree that will benefit others thinking about online learning. Here are five things to consider: [Edit: since this original post in June 2015, I have completed another master's degree from Queen's University. The lessons still hold true!]

Textbooks: Buy or Rent?

Digital rentals sound like a great deal. You get to use the most current text, usually for six months, for less than the cost of the print text plus you have access anytime and anywhere you have an internet connection. Reader apps include markup tools and the ability to annotate with margin notes that you can share with others. The ability to search within a chapter or the entire text for keywords is very handy, and bookmarks are synchronized between all your devices.

On the down side, you need an internet connection unless you "check out" sections prior to being off-line. Printing is limited, though generous and your access is limited to the rental period. The latter is a serious consideration when it comes time a couple of years down the road and you're wanting to review for your comprehensive exams. While you can still access your margin notes and highlighted items, you no longer have access to the text. There are no short-term rentals to reactivate, say, for a month or a couple of weeks and there are no discounts for renewals.You have to pay the full cost again. While digital rentals are less than a new book, the savings is not always that great. maybe 25% off a print copy.

Knowing what I know now, would I do it again? Well, digital books are very handy when it comes to searchability, markup and sharing features. If the book were available as a PDF or ePub which you could keep forever for the same as, or a little more than the rental, I'd jump at that for sure.

Course Management Systems: Accessing Past Work

Online learning spaces like Moodle, D2L, or BlackBoard offer a lot of tools for sharing content and engaging with other students. Discussion boards have a rich store of thoughtful questions, many considered responses, and robust debates about course issues. It is also the repository for lecture materials, links to supporting resources, and the syllabus.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to archive anything and courses are often archived the following term. That means you no longer have any access to those materials. No lectures, no syllabus, nothing. Unless you have made notes while you read, or copied and pasted (and formatted, because that is often a messy affair) you have none of that course material.

Keep a record of your own posts, particularly if they contain important ideas and research. On a couple of occasions, I've been able to refer back to previous course contributions and revisit those ideas in the new course.

Citation Manager: You Need One

Best. Thing. Ever. Really. There are many out there, but I use Mendeley. I have a research folder on my computer that the Mendeley program monitors. When a new PDF file appears, it scans for the author, date, journal, title, etc. and makes it searchable in my Mendeley database. I can read, markup, annotate, and make notes within the application and it syncs with my mobile so I have everything there too. There is a Word plugin that inserts citations and a bibliography with a couple of clicks. The web interface lets me create research groups and share/receive documents from others.

This tool has saved me countless hours of formatting and I have even received several compliments on my APA compliance from different instructors in different classes. Mendeley even recognizes when and how to change inline citations with multiple authors after the first instance, and when to use ellipses for six or more authors... it's amazing.

Really. You need Mendeley.

Online Group Projects: Strategies to Make it Work

You're likely to have some group projects and they are great opportunities to get to know people from around the world, and to explore online conferencing tools. Skype is good for one-to-one meetings, but it's hard to beat Google Hangout for larger groups. Add in the ability to screen-share and synchronously work on documents, and Google offers a rich palette of collaborative tools that are well worth learning.

In your first group hangout, take some time to get to know each other. Talk about work and family, holidays, interests, etc. It's important to make personal connections which builds a sense of trust and community. Talk in broad terms about the project and determine each other's strengths. Come to some agreement about how to approach the assignment and some vision of the final product.

Set up a Google Doc for sharing initial ideas, research, draft writing, marginal commentary, etc. At the top of the page, copy and paste the assignment description and assessment rubric. Set out one page with a section title for each part of the project. Plunk in information as you find it in the relevant section.

An important piece of this is keeping track of research and references. Set up a shared folder and upload the research you find and use. If everyone is using GoogleDrive, these will sync for all people on the share list. If you set the folder as a Mendeley watch folder, it will also automatically be added to your research database! We would cut and paste the citations in APA format at the bottom of the document - it is really helpful if everyone does this in APA format, or whatever is required of you, right from the start. If you use web-based articles, take the time to make the citation as you grab the information. Don't just plunk in the URL, it's a pain to have to re-look up stuff when you're near the end and putting together the bibliography.

In the GoogleDoc, don't worry too much about formatting your content. Have someone from the group copy and paste the document into Word. There you can format much more easily and you can take advantage of Mendeley's features to insert all the citations and generate the bibliography. It is also worthwhile to have someone to re-work the paper from top to bottom to give it one voice, particularly if the group has each written a section and you're tacking it all together. My preference has been to get everyone to contribute to each section, then have one person wash through it. Then pass it along to a second person to proofread and clean up and finally to the whole group for a last polishing.

Make Connections

Part of the fun of online learning is connecting with classmates. In face-to-face learning, your peers are often from the same city. It is not uncommon in online learning, however, to share the virtual learning space with people from all over the globe. As a Canadian enrolled in an American university, I've worked with people from all over the USA as well as learners that were living at the time in Israel, Norway, Spain, Guatemala, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. I was also able to continue my studies while in Australia for 12 months and continued uninterrupted while travelling in Thailand and New Zealand. Many of us have connected on LinkedIn to maintain professional contact. Several have connected on Twitter as part of a professional learning network, and a couple have made their way into my Facebook feed as friends.

One of the criticisms leveled against online learning is the lack of face-to-face contact, yet, having experienced a significant degree of both, there is no doubt in my mind that I engaged with more of my peers, and more deeply, than could ever happen in a classroom setting. Imagine being in a classroom where you are discussing a topic with the person beside you. You get the one conversation and may receive a brief summary of the others when groups report to the class.

Now imagine being privy to every one of those conversations, and having the ability to participate in them all too. Now imagine that those conversations aren't limited to a three-hour class on a Tuesday night; these conversations are on 24/7. That's what the online learning space is like. It's intense, it's deep, it's overwhelming at times, but managed right, it's tremendously satisfying.

Prepare your Battle Station: Or "office", whatever you want to call it

Online work tends to be mostly, well, online. Your lectures are online, the syllabus is online, the discussion boards, research library, marking rubrics, group meetings, work documents... it's all on the computer and you're going to want to look at more than one thing at a time. My laptop has both an RGB port and an HDMI port. That lets me add two monitors to my workstation; think of it as having a huge desk with a massive bulletin board. I routinely have my course management system (BlackBoard) showing the assignment criteria, my digital text rental for connecting my writing to the course readings, Mendeley for managing other research and citations, Word or Google Docs (or both) for the writing task at hand, and Chrome for research. I tried using a single screen and task bar to flip from one to the other, but, transition time between tasks, even when pursuing the same goal, requires task-reorientation, and introduces risk of distraction. (See my article on multitasking). While there is a lot of visual stimuli going on, task-reorientation is minimized because no previous task has to be hidden and the time to switch tasks is reduced to fractions of a second.

Have you completed coursework online? Any tips or strategies to share? Would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions.

Posted by milesmac on June 16th, 2015 | No Comments Posted in #GDPI, #GWETL, big ideas, Resources

Multitasking effects on learner achievement

Multitasking effects on learner achievement, the motivations driving multitasking and strategies for mitigating multitasking’s negative effects

Precis: The best way to multitask is to not to.

Abstract

Multitasking is frequently used as a strategy for accomplishing more with time, however, few people realize gains in productivity when multitasking. This review of current peer-reviewed journals, gathered from the Education Source and ERIC databases, sought to define, and understand the effects and motivations for multitasking, then identify strategies for mitigating multitasking’s negative effects. Motivations to multitask come from the gratification of staying connected, perceived efficiency, and entertainment. However, no studies were found that identified any performance benefits from multitasking beyond practicing habitualized, routine tasks. Some cognitive, behavioral, and pedagogical strategies are identified that mitigate, but do not eliminate, multitasking’s negative impact on learning and performance.

“There is time enough for everything in the course of the day, if you do but one thing at once, but there is not time enough in the year, if you will do two things at a time.”

Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4^th Earl of Chesterfield

Letter IX, London, April 14, 1747

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3361/3361-h/3361-h.htm

Introduction

Lord Stanhope’s letter illustrates the longstanding concerns about multitasking. Even the earliest education journals studied the issue of distractibility and spreading attention too thinly (Bailey, 1889; Denio, 1897; Henderson, Crews, & Barlow, 1945; Poyntz, 1933). With digital technology, not only has the issue persisted, there are concerns that the impact on learning is even greater than before (Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Gendron, 2010; Fox, Rosen, & Crawford, 2009; Levine, Waite, & Bowman, 2007). Ubiquitous, always-on technology is changing the way humans engage with information and interact with each other. While offering tremendous personal and social enhancements, it also demands an increasingly greater share of our attention.

Historical Context

The term “multitasking” became well-known in the late 1980s describing a process by which computers could process several tasks simultaneously (Scott, 1985). Over the next decade, multitasking was used to describe an individual’s management of more than one task at a time and was seen as a desirable skill at home and at work (Chiavenato, 2001; Frand, 2000; Gray, 2000; “Multi-tasking with your baby,” 2001).

Multitasking refers to the choices people make about when and where they focus attention while attending to more than one task (Kenyon, 2008). The urge to multitask arises when more than one goal must be accomplished at more or less the same time and the individual has to balance pursuit of all goals independently and without cues to change tasks (Burgess, 2000). “Media multitasking” is the term used to describe multitasking that involves at least one form of digital technology (Judd, 2013) or, more commonly two or more forms of technology (Brasel & Gips, 2011; Lin, Lee, & Robertson, 2011; Rideout, 2013).

Cognitively, human multitasking is better understood as task switching, or continuous, often rapid redirections of attention. (Firat, 2013a, 2013b). Multitasking, it seems, has three dimensions: direction, duration, and depth.

Direction

Attention switching between tasks having different, unrelated goals are those that serve either to replace or interrupt study; attention switching among tasks related to achievement of the same goal serve as companions to study and advance the learner toward his goal (Benbunan-Fich, Adler, & Mavlanova, 2011; Levine et al., 2007). Benbunan-Fich (2012) further categorized patterns in changing attention direction as sequential (completing one whole task after another), interleaved (alternating between portion of multiple tasks), and embedded (completing one entire task within the timeframe of another task).

Duration

Time on task is one dimension of multitasking measuring the time between task switching. Salvucci, Taatgen, and Borst (2009) present a continuum of multitasking based on such measures that can span fractions of a second to several minutes. Short time spans between tasks are seen to be more simultaneous or concurrent involving cognitive control of attention while longer time spans are more sequential and operate on a more rational level. Duration of a switch affects the individual’s ability to return to the original task and is also dependent on the complexity of the task.

Depth

Rapid task switching has given rise to the notion of “continuous partial attention” (Stone, 2009) where an individual is aware of several stimuli but deeply engaged with none. Activities with low demand on working memory allow individuals to more rapidly switch and scan for points of interest. Where task complexity is high, though, the time required to make cognitive shift is greater and the new task is more likely to displace the old task from working memory requiring the individual to reorient herself to the original content (Salvucci & Taatgen, 2011, p. 116; Salvucci, 2010).

Significance

Effects of Multitasking

Despite the allure of multitasking’s supposed benefits, there is considerable empirical evidence demonstrating its impact on achievement and performance is largely negative.

Instant messaging while reading increases the time required to complete the reading task accounting for the time off task (Bowman et al., 2010). This is attributed to ineffective attention, the time required for interruption recovery, and time needed for task re-orientation. Bowers (2000) also described how task performance was slowed when concurrently processing more than one message. Introduction of novel stimuli can cause draw attention from the primary task at hand as cognitive capital is invested in making sense of the new information (Cheshire, 2015) such as occurs with push notifications from a digital device.

It was found that during independent study periods, a students’ average attention to tasks was less than 2.5 minutes (Judd, 2013). These findings were mirrored in IT specialists who averaged only 3 minutes between tasks (Salvucci et al., 2009). Shorter time on task and more frequent interruptions introduce a state of cognitive crisis (Firat, 2013a, 2013b; Stone, 2009) and reduce the depth of engagement (Rosen, 2008).

Exposure to new information elicits the slow onset of a cognitive phase of reflection and evaluation. Gilbert (as cited in McLarney-Vesotski, Bernieri, & Rempala, 2011) describes how a learner examines new information against existing schema. Individuals with low multitasking ability, in highly stimulating environments, can have this process interrupted resulting in incorrect or inaccurate judgements about the situation. Studies of an individual’s ability to recover from interruptions reveal that the more challenging the task, the harder it is to transition back to the original task after attention is diverted (Salvucci, 2010; Trafton, Altmann, Brock, & Mintz, 2003).

W. Zhang (2015) measured a negative correlation between laptop multitasking and the learner’s midterm grade. Self-regulation as manifest in the learner’s control over laptop multitasking was also found to affect grades. Several other studies support the conclusion that multitasking during class and self-study are correlated with lower achievement (Burak, 2012; Gaudreau, Miranda, & Gareau, 2014; Jacobsen & Forste, 2011; Ragan, Jennings, Massey, & Doolittle, 2014; Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013; W. Zhang, 2015).

Negative impact on grades from multitasking affect not only the multitasker, but other learners in the same space. Close proximity to media distractions can negatively impact learning through distraction and some content is more distracting than others (Lin et al., 2011; Sana et al., 2013). Serious, somber, or banal content is less likely to create distractions than attractive, funny, or engaging content. The negative individual and proximal effects on others are made clearer in light of the user’s activity with on-task usage accounting for less than 40% of undergraduate’s time using a laptop (Ragan et al., 2014). Similarly, Benbunan-Fich and Truman (2009) found only 13% of an employee’s laptop use during meetings reflects “compliant use”. The introduction of what is likely more engaging stimuli than a class lecture or office meeting pulls attention away from the primary goal.

Analysing interviews with undergraduate students, Bardhi, Rohm, and Sultan (2010) categorized both costs and benefits to multitasking as identified by the participants. Those interviewed recognized multitasking’s inefficiencies and potential for distraction. They also describe the chaotic nature of rapid task switching and an obsessive connection with the device which pulls them away from being cognitively and emotionally present in their physical environments.

In addition to impact on learning, multitasking may also negatively influence executive function in adolescents (Baumgartner, Weeda, van der Heijden, & Huizinga, 2014), university students’ high-risk decisions regarding sex and substance abuse (Burak, 2012) and judgement in new social situations (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001; McLarney-Vesotski et al., 2011).

Motivators for Multitasking

If the negative effects of multitasking are so clear, it begs the question why people persist. Bardhi, Rohm, and Sultan (2010) go on to describe the perceived rewards of multitasking as expressed by their undergraduate subjects. Study participants valued the content control their and the convenience of access to so many tools from one device. Participants also valued access to pleasurable content while pursuing more banal goals.

E-mail, instant messaging, unrelated web browsing, and gaming are common in-class targets of multitasking amongst undergraduate students (Gaudreau et al., 2014). Social engagement speaks to the individual’s desire to stay connected with others (Firat, 2013a, 2013b) as the former is increasingly omnipresent in the latter. The rewards of human interaction and the desire to be up to date with news leads can lead to a multitasking state of “Continuous Partial Attention” (CPA) motivated by the desire to do more with one’s time as well as the desire not to miss anything (Stone, 2009). In this state, the individual is continually but superficially monitoring several information streams.

Gaming is another common part of multitasking. Frequent feedback, rewards, and a sense of accomplishment are strong motivators that can be achieved quickly and easily. Used as short breaks within more long-term and challenging pursuits a multitasker may mistakenly attribute gratification from gaming to the effectiveness of multitasking in completing the primary task (Wang & Tchernev, 2012).

Ubiquitous computing continually pushes entertainment and social media into our stream of consciousness through alerts of new content. In contrast to sometimes banal learning activities or work obligations, individuals may be enticed away from the primary goal and suffer experience drops in productivity and achievement.

Motivation to multitask is also connected to task appeal. Individuals engaged in mundane but important tasks are easily redirected when an exciting but irrelevant task is introduced either externally in the physical world, or internally through mind-wandering (Srivastava, 2010). If the task is sufficiently engaging, the individual may be unable to resist distraction.

Managing Multitasking

While Strayer and Watson (2012) suggest that those who multitask most are also the least effective at it and Wang and Tchernev (Wang & Tchernev, 2012) call out effective multitasking as a myth, it is, nevertheless, a significant factor in performance and achievement. Technology’s ubiquity, the prevalence of multitasking, and the changing information and communication landscape, make it prudent to seek interventions that regulate and minimise its’ negative effect on learning (Kenyon, 2010; Wallis, 2010).

Regardless of an individual’s multitasking abilities, people may have a natural propensity for either single-tasking or multi-tasking (Y. Zhang, Goonetilleke, Plocher, & Liang, 2005) though less than 3% of the population demonstrate high capacity to multitask without significant loss of performance (Strayer & Watson, 2012). Frequent multitaskers and those who are good at multitasking are not necessarily one and the same. Additionally, people may be oriented to a particular kind of multitasking such as continuous partial attention rather than task switching (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009). Beyond existing inclinations and abilities, research points to behavioural, environmental, and pedagogical strategies for managing multitasking’s negative effects on learning.

Behavioural and Cognitive Strategies. Self-regulation is the effort put into directing one’s own faculties toward achievement of a goal (Grawitch & Barber, 2013). Effective multitaskers exercise self-regulation over their technology use in order to achieve a goal and it is possible for others to learn self-regulation strategies (Gaudreau et al., 2014; Perels, Otto, Landmann, Hertel, & Schmitz, 2007; W. Zhang, 2015). Such self-regulation strategies include: goal setting, planning, self-motivation, attention control, flexible use of learning strategies, self-monitoring, appropriate help-seeking, and self-evaluation (Perels et al., 2007; Zumbrunn, Tadlock, & Roberts, 2009). The extent to which learned self-regulation can specifically mitigate the negative effects of multitasking, though, is still unclear.

The importance of self-regulation is highlighted in Tabachnick, Miller, and Relyea’s findings (2008) that inherently self-motivated individuals with clear goals made decisions about their actions and environment that contributed to their ability to focus. This exercise of metacognition contributes to a greater sense of self-awareness and ability to correct ineffective work strategies (Bonds, Bonds, & Peach, 1992). Extrinsically motivated learners may be enticed to employ self-regulation strategies through the use of external motivators (W. Zhang, 2015). Learning experiences that include self-reflection and metacognitive development expose the learner to strategies for improving self-regulation.

Cognitive processing time is another element of multitasking. Insufficient time between tasks interferes with transference of information to memory; too much time between tasks may tempt learners to seek other stimuli (Y. Zhang et al., 2005). The benefits of multitasking decrease as the rapidity of task switching increases. Where task switching is a matter of choice, an individual aware of the need for transitional processing time may better appreciate the need to reduce task-switching to maintain focus (Salvucci, 2010; Trafton et al., 2003) and the faster one can process information, the better able one is to multitask (Dux et al., 2009).

Lee and Taatgen (2002) explore time factors relating to how people approach tasks. Traditional planning prepares an individual for managing several tasks while reactive planning deals with issues as they arise. While it is not always possible to anticipate issues, it may be possible to improve multitasking by reconceptualising unique processes for several different problems into a unified process that addresses all problems. For educators, deconstructing processes can help students identify actions that may serve more than one purpose and to ignore extraneous information (Lee & Anderson, 2001). In this way, learners will focus better and capitalise on efficiencies when managing more than one task.

Dux (2009) found that repetition and training can also lead to efficiencies in information processing thus decreases the negative effects of multitasking. This effect, it should be noted, was observed with the repetition of simple but novel tasks that, with familiarity, required less and less cognitive processing. Low cognitive load activities therefore are less impacted by multitasking though there are initial performance concerns and the time required to complete the task is likely to increase (Bowman et al., 2010).

Off-task multitasking using technology may also be evidence of a disorganized approach to learning, unclear or ill-defined motivations for pursuing the primary goal, or possibly a low sense of efficacy or engagement with the primary task (Gaudreau et al., 2014). This highlights the value of study skills and learner awareness of organizational strategies to manage their workload.

Environmental Strategies. Simple and seemingly obvious environmental controls that reduce distractions and temptations to multitask are easily achieved but not always practiced such as reducing the amount of technology in a study space (Foehr, 2006) or enabling “do not disturb” features on mobile devices.

Bowers (2000) found that multitasking was enhanced when sensory input channels were designed not only to reduce conflict, but to supplement the task at hand. Reflecting that understanding, Clark and Mayer (2008) offer multimedia design principles that align with our capacity to take in and process information, or working memory. It may be possible to translate these principles to the design and use of physical spaces and learning activities. Doing so will reduce demands on working memory which increases one’s opportunity to take in and process new information. Additionally, working memory can be enhanced by increasing one’s sense of efficacy in a given task (Autin & Croizet, 2012) through computer gaming (Hawes et al., as cited in Morris, Croker, Zimmerman, Gill, & Romig, 2013) and controlled exposure and experiences with simulated multitasking situations (Morrison & Chein, 2011).

Pedagogical Strategies. Anecdotal reports from teachers express concerns about declining student attention spans and greater reliance on digital devices (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Purcell et al., 2012). Based on their experiences, many educators identify a poor fit between traditional behaviourist pedagogy and modern children’s learning needs.

21st century pedagogies like social constructivism and connectivism, see knowledge creation as a social activity (Fagan, 2010; Siemens, 2004) and technology as a tool for creating learning communities beyond the school’s walls (Couros, 2009; del Moral, Cernea, & Villalustre, 2013; Kop & Hill, 2008). These learning approaches are well-suited to embrace what Gee (2013) calls humans’ collective “synchronized intelligence” expressed in “affinity groups” that exist easily in online spaces. Engaging with online learning networks gives students the opportunity to use their devices in positive, task-oriented ways that address the need for social connections. This kind of intentional and planned use of technology, W. Zhang (2015) suggests, focuses student engagement and reduces multitasking.

Junco (2012), however, cautions that media rich lessons with frequent on-task changes of focus still introduce the potential for distraction, though narrowly-focused multimedia learning objects in constructivist learning settings do contribute to learner achievement (Mayer, Moreno, Boire, & Vagge, 1999). Similarly, Davis (2014) describes the benefit of “small-chunk learning modules”, a strategy for aligning engagement with attention spans leading to improved learning experiences.

Effective scaffolding keeps the learner in a position of regular challenge and achievement offering the opportunity for frequent and motivating reinforcement. When there is sufficient warning and time between task switching learners are better able to make task transition (Trafton et al., 2003). Extending time on task contributes to greater ability to resist distraction (Randall, Oswald, & Beier, 2014). Such learning experiences will help the learner stay focused and motivated and serve to reducing the appeal of digital distractions, or focus multitasking to completion of the primary goal.

Conclusion

Though multitasking may have some utility with routine tasks and cursory monitoring of many information streams, it is clear that multitasking has a broad range of negative effects with more complex and cognitively challenging tasks. It is likely that both learner-initiated multitasking and imposed multitasking in the form of distraction will always be a concern. Multitaskers believe they are effective and erroneously attributed gratification reinforces their sense of efficacy. While the negative effects of multitasking cannot be completely eliminated, they can be reduced by learning and practicing self-regulation and metacognition. Self-regulation equips learners with behavioral and attitudinal strategies for goal-oriented motivation, organization, and effort. Learner metacognition brings about greater capacity for honest self-reflection and evaluation and promotes continuous refinement of cognitive strategies. For educators, recognizing why students multitask opens the door to show students how to more effectively meet their goals. Understanding the motivations driving multitasking and intervention strategies for managing multitasking will help educators guide learners to more effective and efficient learning.

References

Autin, F., & Croizet, J.-C. (2012). Improving working memory efficiency by reframing metacognitive interpretation of task difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 610–618.

Bailey, W. W. (1889). Distractions. Journal of Education, 29(1), 7.

Bardhi, A., Rohm, A. J., & Sultan, F. (2010). Tuning in and tuning out: Media multitasking among young consumers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(4), 316–332. doi:10.1002/cb.320

Baumgartner, S. E., Weeda, W. D., van der Heijden, L. L., & Huizinga, M. (2014). The relationship between media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120–1144. doi:10.1177/0272431614523133

Benbunan-Fich, R. (2012). Measurement of multitasking with focus shift analysis. Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, 1–14.

Benbunan-Fich, R., Adler, R. F., & Mavlanova, T. (2011). Measuring multitasking behavior with activity-based metrics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. doi:10.1145/1970378.1970381

Benbunan-Fich, R., & Truman, G. E. (2009). Multitasking with laptops during meetings. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 139–141. doi:10.1306/74D71190-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D

Bonds, C. W., Bonds, L. G., & Peach, W. (1992). Metacognition: Developing independence in learning. The Clearing House, 66(1), 56–59.

Bowers, C., Price, C., Cannon-Bowers, J., LaBarba, R., Borjesson, W., & Vogel, J. (2000). Decision making in dual-task environments: Analysis of hemispheric competition effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 237–245.

Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers and Education, 54(4), 927–931. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024

Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(9), 527–534. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0350

Burak, L. (2012). Multitasking in the university classroom. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–13.

Burgess, P. (2000). Real-world multitasking from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 465–472). The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/6407/

Cheshire, W. P. (2015). Multitasking and the neuroethics of distraction. Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, 31(1), 19–25.

Chiavenato, I. (2001). Advances and challenges in human resource management in the new millennium. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 17–26.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Couros, A. (2009). Open, connected, social - implications for educational design. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(3), 232–239. doi:10.1108/10650740910967393

Davis, J., Balda, M. J., & Rock, D. (2014). Keep an eye on the time. T&D, 51(January), 50–53.

Del Moral, M. E., Cernea, A., & Villalustre, L. (2013). Connectivist learning objects and learning styles. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 9, 105–124. Retrieved from http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=89372672&site=ehost-live

Denio, F. B. (1897). Memory and its cultivation. Education, 18(4), 217–228.

Dux, P. E., Tombu, M. N., Harrison, S., Rogers, B. P., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63(1), 127–138. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.005

Fagan, M. B. (2010). Social construction revisited: Epistemology and scientific practice. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 92–116. Retrieved from http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48444269&site=ehost-live

Firat, M. (2013a). Continuous partial attention as a problematic technology use: A case for educators. Journal of Educators Online, 10(2), 1–20.

Firat, M. (2013b). Multitasking or continuous partial attention: A critical bottleneck for digital natives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 266–272.

Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors, and pairings. Retrieved from http://kff.org/other/media-multitasking-among-american-youth-prevalence-predictors/

Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51–53. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0107

Frand, J. L. (2000). The information age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(October 2000), 15–24. doi:ht tp: //www.educause.edu/apps /er /erm00/ar t icles005/ erm0051.pdf

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning.

Gaudreau, P., Miranda, D., & Gareau, A. (2014). Canadian university students in wireless classrooms: What do they do on their laptops and does it really matter ? Computers & Education, 70, 245–255. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.019

Gee, J. P. (2013). The anti-education era: Creating smarter students through digital learning (1st ed.). New York, N.Y.: Palgrave MacMillan.

Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2013). In search of the relationship between polychronicity and multitasking performance: The importance of trait self-control. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(4), 222–229. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000118

Gray, C. L. (2000). What does it take to become a CFO? Journal of Accountancy, 190(6), 47–53. doi:10.1002/pfi

Henderson, M. T., Crews, A., & Barlow, J. (1945). A Study of the Effect of Music Distraction on Reading Efficiency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29(4), 313–317.

Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(5), 275–280. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0135

Judd, T. (2013). Making sense of multitasking: Key behaviours. Computers and Education, 63, 358–367. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.017

Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers and Education, 59, 505–514. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023

Kenyon, S. (2008). Internet use and time use: The importance of multitasking. Time & Society, 17(2), 283–318. doi:10.1177/0961463X08093426

Kenyon, S. (2010). What do we mean by multitasking? - Exploring the need for methodological clarification in time use research. International Journal of Time Use Research, 7(1), 42–60. Retrieved from http://kar.kent.ac.uk/26028/

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). October – 2008 Connectivism : Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past ? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–8.

Lee, F. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Does learning a complex task have to be complex? A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), 267–316. doi:10.1006/cogp.2000.0747

Lee, F. J., & Taatgen, N. A. (2002). Multitasking as skill acquisition. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 225–230.

Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and academic distractibility in college youth. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 10(4), 560–566. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9990

Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can’t always tell who likes them: Multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 294–310. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.294

Lin, L., Lee, J., & Robertson, T. (2011). Reading while watching video: The effect of video content on reading comprehension and media multitasking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 183–201. doi:10.2190/EC.45.2.d

Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638–643. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.638

McLarney-Vesotski, A., Bernieri, F., & Rempala, D. (2011). An experimental examination of the “ good judge.” Journal of Research in Personality, 45(4), 398–400. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.005

Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Gill, D., & Romig, C. (2013). Gaming science: The “Gamification” of scientific thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(September), 1–16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00607

Morrison, A. B., & Chein, J. M. (2011). Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 46–60. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0034-0

Multi-tasking with your baby. (2001, May). Working Mother, 74.

Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15583–15587. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106

Perels, F., Otto, B., Landmann, M., Hertel, S., & Schmitz, B. (2007). Self-regulation from a process perspective. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 215(3), 194–204. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.3.194

Poyntz, L. (1933). The efficacy of visual and auditory distractions for preschool children. Child Development, 4(5), 55. doi:10.2307/1125838

Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L., Jacklin, A., … Zickuhr, K. (2012). How teens do research in the digital world. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Student-Research

Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers and Education, 78, 78–86. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.002

Randall, J. G., Oswald, F. L., & Beier, M. E. (2014). Mind-wandering, cognition, and performance: A theory-driven meta-analysis of attention regulation. Pssychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1411–1431.

Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-in-america-2013

Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis, Spring(20), 105–110. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind1204-62

Salvucci, D. D. (2010). On reconstruction of task context after interruption. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’10, 89. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753341

Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2011). The Multitasking Mind. (F. E. Ritter, Ed.)Oxford series on cognitive models and architectures. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press Inc. Retrieved from http://www2.arnes.si/~mmarko7/javno/printaj/23/the-multitasking-mind_31.pdf

Salvucci, D. D., Taatgen, N. A., & Borst, J. (2009). Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. Chi, 1819–1828. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518981

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education, 62, 24–31. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003

Scott, O. G. (1985). Multitasking operating system for the IBM PC. Computers in Chemical Education Newsletter, 8(1), 5–6.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved September 15, 2014, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Srivastava, J. (2010). Media multitasking and role of visual hierarchy and formatting cues in processing of web content. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1281718384

Stone, L. (2009). Continuous partial attention. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://lindastone.net/

Strayer, D. L., & Watson, J. M. (2012). Supertaskers and the multitasking brain. Scientific American Mind, 23(1), 22–29.

Tabachnick, S. E., Miller, R. B., & Relyea, G. E. (2008). The relationships among students’ future-oriented goals and subgoals, perceived task instrumentality, and task-oriented self-regulation strategies in an academic environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 629–642. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.629

Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 58(5), 583–603. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00023-5

Wallis, C. (2010). The impacts of media multitasking on children’s learning & development: Report from a research seminar. New York, N.Y. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0350

Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The “Myth” of media multitasking: Reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 493–513. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01641.x

Zhang, W. (2015). Learning variables, in-class laptop multitasking and academic performance: A path analysis. Computers & Education, 81, 82–88.

Zhang, Y., Goonetilleke, R. S., Plocher, T., & Liang, S. F. M. (2005). Time-related behaviour in multitasking situations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 62(4), 425–455. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.01.002

Zumbrunn, S., Tadlock, J., & Roberts, E. D. (2009). Encouraging self-regulated learning in the classroom: A review of the literature. Virginia: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) (Vol. 36). doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0305-4

Posted by milesmac on June 9th, 2015 | 2 Comments Posted in #GWETL, Research

Value of Teacher Volunteerism: some rough numbers

Like the legal and medical profession's requirement to do pro bono work, SHOULD EDUCATORS be required to serve populations that otherwise would not have access to particular areas of learning? I believe they should. Access to learning and education benefits society as a whole and an informed populace is necessary to a successful government. The requirements and how this should be achieved, however, deserves discussion and debate.

This appeared in one of my course discussion boards and got me thinking about the extent and value of existing teacher volunteerism in the absence of any requirement to do so. In Canada I believe all collective agreements recognize extracurricular work as voluntary.

I'd argue that all extra-curricular activities at schools during lunch breaks and before/after school is pro bono work. My limited research suggests that pro bono obligations in the legal profession are a minimum of 50 hours per year or the equivalent of 3% of annual billing[1].

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation conducted a workload and volunteerism survey[2] finding that 92% of teachers “run and support extracurriculars”. Extrapolating these numbers out to Ontario’s general teaching population of almost 115,000 teachers[3] and 30% volunteering 5 hours per week and 13% at 10 hours per week, that’s well over 12.5 million volunteer hours each year in a 40 week school year and that still only accounts for 43% of teacher volunteers.

That’s a big number.

If we think of an eight hour work day, that’s the equivalent of 1.6 million extra days of labour volunteered into Ontario public schools. That’s the equivalent of an extra 8000 teachers each year. At an average annual salary of $51,000[4], these volunteers are contributing well over $400 million in extra services.

That’s just in Ontario.

With more than 300,000 teachers in Canada[5] we can estimate the value nationwide to be well over one billion dollars.

Just for fun, if the same volunteerism patterns are applied to the United States’ 3.7 million teachers[6] , that’s more than $13.2 billion.

I know it's dangerous to extrapolate study findings too far beyond the target population, and I've rounded numbers (down in all cases) while putting this together, but the broad picture painted is clear. Teachers are already very generous with their time and work hard to keep it voluntary providing individuals the freedom to back off or ramp up as life circumstances change.

---------------------

[1] Anand, Raj (2007), “Fostering Pro Bono Service in the Legal Profession: Challenges Facing the Pro Bono Ethic” (Paper presented at the Ninth Colloquium on the Legal Profession: Legal Ethics in Action, Osgoode Hall Law School, 19 October 2007), online: Law Society of Upper Canadahttp://www.lsuc.on.ca/latest-news/a/hottopics/committee-onprofessionalism/papers-from-past-colloquia/

[2] http://www.osstf.on.ca/~/media/Provincial/Documents/Publications/Education%20Forum/fall-2014-vol-40-issue-3/drowning-in-extra-work.ashx

[3] http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/educationFacts.html

[4] http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=High_School_Teacher/Salary/004c9fd6/Toronto-ON

[5] http://www.cmec.ca/299/Education-in-Canada-An-Overview/

[6] http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

Posted by milesmac on April 18th, 2015 | No Comments Posted in Pedagogy

Some authentic applications of Augmented Reality (AR)

Hsin-Kai Wu (2013) suggests AR should be understood as a concept rather than a specific technology. It is helpful to understand AR as a negotiation between the user and content delivery systems leveraging the power of several technologies to create intuitive and seamless, context-aware interactions between user and content. AR, therefore, is a novel concept for displaying digital information as a meaningful overlay attached to physical objects as viewed through a mobile device (Hsin-Kai Wu, 2013). Where it differs from other online content is spatial positioning of the content and the use of naturally occurring trigger image.

On the surface, it is easy to think of AR as just a fancy QR code – the user scans it and is directed to a web page, application, or a YouTube video. In this regard it is no different than a QR code, or a simple URL. AR is most effectively used when the user accesses relevant information relevant to a particular space or artifact.

A school celebration of the arts day offers a good example. Using an app like Aurasma to create content channels. Each piece on display can serve as a trigger image that, when viewed through a smart device, can overlay content specific to the user’s subscribed channel. It could be a video of the artist explaining the piece, or a clip of the artists’ work in progress, or the teacher pointing out important features. In this way, a single trigger image can simultaneously (though virtually) offer different relevant content to different users .

AR applications would work well with architectural reconstructions. Visitors to the remains of historic spaces could use the SightSpace3D app to walk through virtual recreations of physical structures as though they were in the past and inside the structure. Users could watch a video tour, or manipulate a scale model on a computer but AR connects the users’ movements in physical space to movements in virtual space offering a more immersive experience.

Another effective example of AR is Minecraft Reality. This app uses data (structures and land forms) from the game Minecraft, an immersive 3D virtual space, and displays it in physical space as though attached to the trigger image. Sharing work in 3D spaces is usually done as a projection while the user offers a tour through the space all from one point of view. With Minecraft Reality, several users can view the same structure using the same trigger image through their smart device camera, and tour around and inside the structure by physically moving around the trigger image.

Finally, my favourite example is WordLens which was recently purchased by Google and redistributed as Translate. The user can view a foreign language sign or poster while travelling and, viewing it through their device, have the app replace the foreign text with English text (of whatever the selected language is).

These are what I consider to be authentic uses of AR, or uses that really make use of the technology’s affordances. SightSpace ties physical movement to virtual spaces, Minecraft Reality make 3D spaces explorable outside a computer, and WordLens offers just-in-time translation services by simply pointing the camera at foreign text. Aurasma is a novel way to attach student voice to physical objects, though the novelty effect is short lived and, alone, rarely justifies expensive technology investments (Juan, 2010). Further, Wrzesien (2010) suggests that some innovations may redirect learner attention from the content to the technology thus detracting from the technology’s effectiveness as a learning support.

Hsin-Kai Wu, S. W.-Y.-Y.-C. (2013, March). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002527

Juan, C. L. (2010). Learning Words Using Augmented Reality. International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 422-426). Sousse: IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5572407&isnumber=5571093

Wrzesien, M. A. (2010). Learning in serious virtual worlds: Evaluation of learning effectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Computers & Education, 55(1), 178-187. Retrieved from http://augmentyourreality.wikispaces.com/file/view/Wrzesien.pdf

Posted by milesmac on April 8th, 2015 | No Comments Posted in Pedagogy

April 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Mar
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

Organizational Learning Case Study

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Wearable Technology Possibilities for Education

ABSTRACT

Understanding Wearables

Wearable Affordances

Physical Enhancement

Cognitive Enhancement

Physiological Understanding

Contextual Understanding

Human Relationships

Education Applications

Performance Support

Multi-sensory Interfaces

Data

Pedagogy

Augmented Experiences

A New Kind of Network

Challenges within the field

Privacy and Social Acceptance

Interoperability

Power needs

Conclusion & Future Research

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Share this:

Like this:

Microsoft Sway

Global Collaboration Digital Tools

Share this:

Like this:

Annual Reflection on Professional Learning 2015

Data

Departmentalization

Share this:

Like this:

Life Update

Share this:

Like this:

Textbooks: Buy or Rent?

Course Management Systems: Accessing Past Work

Citation Manager: You Need One

Online Group Projects: Strategies to Make it Work

Make Connections

Prepare your Battle Station: Or "office", whatever you want to call it

Share this:

Like this:

Multitasking effects on learner achievement, the motivations driving multitasking and strategies for mitigating multitasking’s negative effects

Abstract

Introduction

Significance

Effects of Multitasking

Motivators for Multitasking

Managing Multitasking

References

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Twitter Feed

Archives

Tags

Categories

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Meta

Meta