Analysing youth learners' perception of the usage of wearable technology in technical education is reflected as the starting point towards a more effective and engaging learning environment. Previous research highlighted that one of the requirements for designing an engaging technical Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) is to include a practice-oriented learning mode into its course structure. Therefore, this study aims to identify the learners' perception of the use of wearable technology in supporting the teaching and learning process specifically for technical course. This study adopted the case study methodology approach with quantitative analysis. The instruments used in this study include technical MOOC and wearable technology. A total of 375 engineering youth learners involved in this study and the data were analysed using descriptive and parametric testing. The survey results reflected that the learning materials produced by wearable technology do contribute towards positive perception in increasing the level of student's engagement with the learning process. Among key recommendations for future study are to implement the use of wearable technology for designing and developing other subjects as well.
Al?Taweel, F. B., Abdulkareem, A. A., Gul, S. S., & Alshami, M. L. (2020). Evaluation of technology?based learning by dental students during the pandemic outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019. European Journal of Dental Education, 25(1), 183-190.
Amft, O. (2018). How wearable computing is shaping digital health. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 17(1), 92-98.
Attallah, B., & Ilagure, Z. (2018). Wearable technology: Facilitating or complexing education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(6), 433-436.
Barlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information, technology, learning, and performance journal , 19(1), 43.
Bower, M., & Sturman, D. (2015). What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies? Computers & Education, 88, 343-353.
Buchem, I., Merceron, A., Kreutel, J., Haesner, M., & Steinert, A. (2015). Designing for User Engagement in Wearable-technology Enhanced Learning for Healthy Ageing. Intelligent Environments (Workshops), 314-324.
Castro, M., Tawfik, M., García, F., Loro, F., & Sancristobal, E. (2014). Combining Remote Laboratories and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for Teaching Electronics. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2086-2090.
Chaballout, B., Molloy, M., Vaughn, J., Brisson Iii, R., & Shaw, R. (2016). Feasibility of augmented reality in clinical simulations: using Google glass with manikins. JMIR medical education, 2(1), e2.
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current directions in psychological science, 1(3), 98-101.
Denis, D. J. (2018). SPSS data analysis for univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
Evans, H., O'Shea, D., Morris, A., Keys, K., Wright, A., Schaad, D., & Ilgen, J. (2016). A comparison of Google Glass and traditional video vantage points for bedside procedural skill assessment. The American Journal of Surgery, 211(2), 336-342.
Fesol, S. F., Salam, S., & Bakar, N. (2018). Wearable Technology in Education to Enhance Technical MOOCs. CARNIVAL ON e-LEARNING (IUCEL), 220.
Garcia, F., Diaz, G., Tawfik, M., Martin, S., Sancristobal, E., & Castro, M. (2014). A practice-based MOOC for learning electronics. Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 969-974.
Hew, K. F. (2015). Towards a model of engaging online students: lessons from MOOCs and four policy documents. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 5, no. 6, 425-431.
Iqbal, S., Zang, X., Zhu, Y., Hussain, D., Zhao, J., Gulzar, M. M., & Rasheed, S. (2015). Towards MOOCs and Their Role in Engineering Education. Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME), 2015 7th International Conference, 705-709.
Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Deterniming sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Kulesza, W., Gustavsson, I., Garbi-Zutin, D., Auer, M., Marques, A., Fidalgo, A., & Castro, M. (2017). A federation of VISIR remote laboratories through the PILAR Project. 2017 4th Experiment@ International Conference (exp. at'17), 28-32.
Labus, A., Milutinovic, M., Stepanic, Ð., Stevanovic, M., & Milinovic, S. (2015). Wearable computing in e-education. RUO. Revija za Univerzalno Odlicnost, 4(1), A39.
Lee, C., Kim, Y., Lee, N., Kim, B., Kim, D., & Yi, S. (2017). Feasibility study of utilization of action camera, GoPro Hero 4, Google Glass, and Panasonic HX-A100 in spine surgery. Spine, 42(4), 275-280.
Loro, F. G., Macho, A., Sancristobal, E., Artacho, M. R., Diaz, G., & Castro, M. (2016). Remote laboratories for electronics and new steps in learning process integration. Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), 2016 13th International Conference, 112-117.
McCoy, C., Alrabah, R., Weichmann, W., Langdorf, M., Ricks, C., Chakravarthy, B., Lotfipour, S. (2019). Feasibility of telesimulation and google glass for mass casualty triage education and training. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 20(3), 512.
Ortensi, A., Panunzi, A., Trombetta, S., Cattaneo, A., Sorrenti, S., & D'Orazi, V. (2017). Advancement of thyroid surgery video recording: A comparison between two full HD head mounted video cameras. International Journal of Surgery, 41, S65-S69.
Paro, J. A., Nazareli, R., Gurjala, A., Berger, A., & Lee, G. K. (2015). Video-based self-review: comparing Google Glass and GoPro technologies. Annals of plastic surgery, 74, 71-74.
Parslow, G. (2014). Commentary: Google glass: A head?up display to facilitate teaching and learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(1), 91-92.
Sapargaliyev, D. (2015). Wearable Technology in Education: From Handheld to Hands-Free Learning. Technology in Education Transforming Educational Practices with Technology, 55-60.
Spyropoulou, N., Pierrakeas, C., & Kameas, A. (2014). Creating MOOC Guidelines based on best practices. EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 6981-6990.
Strzys, M. P., Thees, M., Kapp, S., Knierim, P., Schmidt, A., Lukowicz, P., & Kuhn, J. (2019). Smartglasses as Assistive Tools for Undergraduate and Introductory STEM Laboratory Courses. Perspectives on Wearable Enhanced Learning (WELL), 35-58.
Subin, S. (2021, Jan). CNBC, EVOLVE. Retrieved from Is 2021 finally the year for smart glasses? Here’s why some experts still say no: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/23/why-experts-dont-expect-smart-glasses-to-surge-in-2021.html
Wei, N. J., Dougherty, B., Myers, A., & Badawy, S. M. (2018). Using Google Glass in surgical settings: systematic review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(3), e54.
WorldSIM. (2017). Action Cameras - What Are They and Why You Need One! Retrieved from https://www.worldsim.com/blog/buying-action-cameras?___store=usa
Zajdel, T. J., & Maharbiz, M. M. (2016). Introducing Electronics at Scale with a Massive Online Circuits Lab. Proceedings of the 123rd ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
In-Text Citation: (Fesol et al., 2022)
To Cite this Article: Fesol, S. F. A., Arshad, M. M., Salam, S., & Abu Samah, K. A. F. (2022). Youth Perception of the Usage of Wearable Technology in Technical MOOC Education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 12(13), 174- 188.
Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
