This case study was intended to explore whether wearable device use is associated with their demographic factors (e.g., device ownership and gender), using undergraduate students in a Hispanic Serving Institution. Preliminary findings of this two-way contingency table analysis suggested that students who own the device(s) are more likely to use it for school. Males are more likely to use the wearables for learning in spite of a marginal effect size. Implications and recommendations are discussed.
AbrahamsD. A. (2010). Technology adoption in higher education: A framework for identifying and prioritising issues and barriers to adoption of instructional technology. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 2, 34-49. doi:10.1108/17581184201000012
2.
Adams BeckerS.CumminsM.DavisA.FreemanA.Hall GiesingerC.AnanthanarayananV. (2017). NMC Horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf
3.
BorthwickA. C.AndersonC. L.FinsnessE. S.FoulgerT. S. (2015). Personal wearable technologies in education: Value or villain?Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31, 85-92. doi:10.1080/21532974.2015.1021982
4.
BowerM.SturmanD. (2015). What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies?Computers & Education, 88, 343-353. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.013
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156-2160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
7.
CastellanosM. (2015). Sustaining Latina student organizations: An exploratory instrumental case study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 15, 240-259. doi:10.1177/1538192715592926
8.
CharltonT.PantingC.HannanA. (2002). Mobile telephone ownership and usage among 10- and 11-year-olds: Participation and exclusion. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 7, 152-163. doi:10.1080/13632750200507013
9.
ChoiJ.KimS. (2016). Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A study on factors affecting the intention to use smartwatches. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 777-786. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.007
10.
ColganJ. C.BoppM. J.StarkoffB. E.LiebermanL. J. (2016). Fitness wearables and youths with visual impairments: Implications for practice and application. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110, 335-348.
GommR.HammersleyM.FosterP. (2000). Case study and generalization. In GommR.HammersleyM.FosterP. (Eds.), Case study method: Key issues, key texts (pp. 98-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
GraweN. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
HetzelM. W.GideonG.LoteN.MakitaL.SibaP. M.MuellerI. (2012). Ownership and usage of mosquito nets after four years of large-scale free distribution in Papua New Guinea. Malaria Journal, 11(1), Article 192. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-11-192
17.
HinojosaY.VelaJ. C. (2019). The role of positive psychology, cultural, and family factors on Hispanic/Latino college students’ depressive symptoms and subjective happiness. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18, 206-224. doi:10.1177/1538192717734287
18.
LaukkanenT. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2432-2439. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.013
19.
LeonardN. R.SilvermanM.SherpaD. P.NaegleM. A.KimH.CoffmanD. L.FerdschneiderM. (2017). Mobile health technology using a wearable sensorband for female college students with problem drinking: An acceptability and feasibility study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5(7), Article e90. doi:10.2196/mhealth.7399
20.
LunneyA.CunninghamN. R.EastinM. S. (2016). Wearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 114-120. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007
OjedaL.CastilloL. G.Rosales MezaR.Piña-WatsonB. (2014). Mexican Americans in higher education: Cultural adaptation and marginalization as predictors of college persistence intentions and life satisfaction. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 13, 3-14. doi:10.1177/1538192713498899
23.
RauschnabelP. A.BremA.IvensB. (2015). Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adoption of Google Glass wearables. Computers in Human Behavior, 49,635-647. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.003
24.
RawassizadehR.PriceB. A.PetreM. (2015). Wearables: Has the age of smartwatches finally arrived?Communications of the ACM, 58, 45-57. doi:10.1145/2629633
25.
SharplesM.Delgado KloosC.DimitriadisY.GarlattiS.SpechtM. (2015). Mobile and accessible learning for MOOCs. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(4), 1-8. doi:10.5334/jime.ai
26.
Turner-McGrievyG. M.BeetsM. W.MooreJ. B.KaczynskiA. T.Barr-AndersonD. J.TateD. F. (2013). Comparison of traditional versus mobile app self-monitoring of physical activity and dietary intake among overweight adults participating in an mHealth weight loss program. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20,513-518. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001510
27.
VelaJ. C.SparrowG. S.IkonomopoulosJ.GonzalezS. L.RodriguezB. (2017). The role of character strengths and family importance on Mexican American college students’ life satisfaction. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16, 273-285. doi:10.1177/1538192716628958
28.
WuL.-H.WuL.-C.ChangS.-C. (2016). Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 383-392. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.005