However, resources are only ever as effective as the pedagogy that supports them

By positioning students as active agents in the research process

Students need authentic purposes and audiences for their writing.

here is so much liability for a teacher. There is so much you’re not willing to go out on a limb on, because you don’t know what’s going to come back to you.

technology not only as an amplifier of cognition but also as a reorganiser of mental functioning that results in cultural redefinition. But the question is, will educators capitalise on the educational opportunities availed by wearable technologies, and will this in turn enhance learnin

For instance, whereas Viseu (2003) previously proposed that an important feature of wearable technologies was that they move beyond simulation, a large number of respondents felt that the ability to safely simulate experiments and be immersed in a geographically remote setting was a useful affordance.

Many of the affordances of wearable technologies identified by the respondents were also identified in the literature, for instance: access to in-situ information, recording and feedback (Coffman & Klinger, 2015), communication and distribution of resources (de Freitas & Levene, 2003), hands-free access and first-person view (Wu et al., 2014), simulation through re-enactment and increased engagement and presence through immersion (Yamauchi & Nakasugi, 2003). Yet none of these sources came close to identifying all of the affordances outlined by their colleagues. Moreover, none of the researchers identified in-situ guidance or gamification as a pedagogical use, nor the qualitative impact of enhanced efficiency, or the way in which wearable technologies could logistically free up space.Similarly, many of the wearable technology issues raised by respondents were also identified in the literature, such as student distraction and technical problems, (Coffman & Klinger, 2015), as well as overreliance on wearable technologies and privacy issues (Gill, 2008). However, some educational quality concerns relating to wearable technologies were not identified within the literature – specifically the increased potential for cheating and the risk that educators place technology before pedagogy when designing their classes. Nor were key logistical obstacles of cost, technical support, legal issues or software development costs identified within the literature. Some educational quality concerns with wearable technologies were identified within the literature by not raised by respondents, namely the need to familiarise oneself with the interface may impact on the educational quality (Coffman & Klinger, 2015), as well as the potentially lower processing power of small wearable devices and the interface limitations of smaller screens (de Freitas & Levene, 2003).

The research team collaborated during the analysis in order to derive a mutually agreed coding scheme. For instance, after the first pass of the open coding phase, the team met to discuss categories that were emerging and examined the data to determine appropriate boundaries between categories. Similarly, during axial coding the team discussed and agreed upon category merging and thematic arrangements. Further collective refinement of categorisations were performed during the final selective coding and reporting phase, for instance where the more general ‘enhanced environment’ category was removed from the categorisation because the team decided it could not be clearly delineated from other categories and was already implicitly present within many of them. Thus, we believe this work accords with that of Armstrong, Gosling, Weinman, and Marteau (1997), who found that while different qualitative researchers may have labelled or ‘packaged’ the classification schemes slightly differently, there was a general consensus on the underlying basic themes present

Open coding – a first-pass qualitative coding of the data to condense it into preliminary analytic categories.2.Axial coding – a subsequent re-examination of the data to refine the coding scheme, as well as understand relationships between the categories and organise them into themes.3.Selective coding – a late-stage look at the data coded under certain themes to choose representative and pertinent examples for reporting purposes (Neuman, 2006).

In order to select participants who had a firm insight into the educational affordances of wearable technologies two criteria were used:i)participants self-rated their knowledge of wearable technologies as ‘good’ or ‘very good’; andii)participants self-rated their ability to use computers/the Internet for learning and teaching purposes as ‘good’ or ‘very good’.The rationale for the inclusion of the first criteria was that without a good knowledge of wearable technologies it would be difficult to interpolate their affordances. The justification for the second criteria was that without a good general understanding of how technology can be used for learning and teaching purposes they may fail to understand how wearable technologies may be utilised. This resulted in 66 respondents (25 female, 41 male), with an average of 11 years of tertiary teaching experience and 15 years of teaching using computers/the Internet.

over 30 national and international channels were used to disseminate the call.

online survey

“what are the educational affordances of wearable technologies”?

Norman's usage emphasizes the idea of ‘perceived’ affordances – that until an affordance is perceived it is of no utility to the potential user. According to Norman (1988) the real affordances of an object were not nearly as important – it is the perceived affordances that determine what actions the user performs and, to a greater or lesser extent, how to complete those actions

not talk yourself out of finishing, whatever you do want is just a matter of focusing that same level of commitment & attention.