google glass case study pdf

Advertisement

Google glass adoption in the educational environment: A case study in the Gulf area

• Published: 03 November 2020
• Volume 26 , pages 2477–2500, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Rana Saeed Al-Maroof 1 ,
• Aseel M. Alfaisal 2 &
• Said A. Salloum 3  

1152 Accesses

19 Citations

Explore all metrics

The rapid changes in recent years witnessed the development of technology-based education environment where teachers and learners can interact by adopting Information and Communication Technology (ICT) such as Google Glass. However, few educational universities and colleges have adopted Google Glass in their educational institutions. The reason behind this tendency is that the integration of the technology phenomenon has not been widely explored. This study is an attempt to investigate Google Glass adoption in the Gulf area. We hypothesized that presenting the teachers and learners with the influential features of Google Glass would change their attitudes towards using Google Glass in educational institutions. This paper reports on the design of a framework that links TAM with other influential factors. In other words, this study examines the integration of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with the well-known effective features of the device, including teaching and learning facilitator and learning motivator, ‘functionality’, and trust and information privacy to enhance communication between teachers and students in the classroom. The total number of questionnaires collected was 968 different universities. Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was utilized to investigate the research model based on the student’s data gathered through a survey. The results that motivation, trust & privacy have a significant relationship with perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of Google Glass. The results also suggested that functionality was significantly associated with the perceived ease of use. Further, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were significantly related to the Google Glass adoption. Finally, trust & privacy and the perceived ease of use have a crucial role in supporting the adoption of Google Glass. The practical implications of these findings in relation to future work also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Students’ Perception on Incorporating Google Classroom in Learning Economic Disciplines

The acceptance of a personal learning environment based on Google apps: the role of subjective norms and social image

Exploring the Factors Affecting Behavioural Intention to Use Google Classroom: University Teachers’ Perspectives in Bangladesh and Nigeria

Explore related subjects.

• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Adapa, A., Nah, F. F.-H., Hall, R. H., Siau, K., & Smith, S. N. (2018). Factors influencing the adoption of smart wearable devices. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 34 (5), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1357902 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Emran, M., & Salloum, S. A. (2017). Students’ attitudes towards the use of Mobile technologies in e-evaluation. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM), 11 (5), 195–202.

Al-Emran, M., Arpaci, I., & Salloum, S. A. (2020a). An empirical examination of continuous intention to use m-learning: An integrated model. Education and Information Technologies, 25 , 2899–2918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10094-2 .

Al-Emran, M., Al-Maroof, R., Al-Sharafi, M. A., & Arpaci, I. (2020b). What impacts learning with wearables? An integrated theoretical model. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1753216 .

Al-Emran M., Malik S. I. Al-Kabi M. N. (2020c) A Survey of Internet of Things (IoT) in education: Opportunities and challenges. In A. Hassanien, R. Bhatnagar, N. Khalifa, & M. Taha (Eds.), Toward Social Internet of Things (SIoT): Enabling technologies, architectures and applications. studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 846. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24513-9_12 .

Alshurideh, M., Al Kurdi, B., Salloum, S. A., Arpaci, I., & Al-Emran, M. (2020). Predicting the actual use of M-learning systems: A comparative approach using PLS-SEM and machine learning algorithms. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1826982 .

Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, Special Issue on Research Methodology, 2 (2), 285–309.

Basoglu, N., Ok, A. E., & Daim, T. U. (2017). What will it take to adopt smart glasses: A consumer choice based review? Technology in Society, 50 , 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.04.005 .

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 .

Berque, D. A., & Newman, J. T. (2015). GlassClass: Exploring the design, implementation, and acceptance of google glass in the classroom. In R. Shumaker & S. Lackey (Eds.), Virtual, augmented and mixed reality. VAMR 2015. Lecture notes in computer science (vol. 9179). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21067-4_25 .

Bola, S., Brighton, G., Shukla, R., & Powles, J. (2015). Can google glass be used as a training and assessment tool? International Journal of Surgery, 1 (23), S103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.07.479 .

Boykin, E. (2014). Google glass in the class: Wearable technology of the educational future. Retrieved January, 9, 2018.

Brewer, Z. E., Fann, H. C., Ogden, W. D., Burdon, T. A., & Sheikh, A. Y. (2016). Inheriting the learner’s view: A Google glass-based wearable computing platform for improving surgical trainee performance. Journal of Surgical Education, 73 (4), 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.02.005 .

Burke, M. (5AD) (n.d.). Ways google glass can be used in education.

Cheng, Y.-M., Lou, S.-J., Kuo, S.-H., & Shih, R.-C. (2013). Investigating elementary school students’ technology acceptance by applying digital game based learning to environmental education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29 (1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.65 .

Chuan, C. L., & Penyelidikan, J. (2006). Sample size estimation using Krejcie and Morgan and Cohen statistical power analysis: A comparison. Jurnal Penyelidikan IPBL, 7 , 78–86.

Google Scholar  

Dafoulas, G. A., Maia, C., & Loomes, M. (2016). Using optical head-mounted devices (OHMD) for provision of feedback in education. In 2016 12th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE) (pp. 159–162). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2016.34 .

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 .

Dehghani, M. (2016). An assessment towards adoption and diffusion of smart wearable technologies by consumers: The cases of smart watch and fitness wristband products. In HT (Extended Proceedings) (pp. 1–6).

Dickey, R. M., Srikishen, N., Lipshultz, L. I., Spiess, P. E., Carrion, R. E., & Hakky, T. S. (2016). Augmented reality assisted surgery: A urologic training tool. Asian Journal of Andrology, 18 (5), 732–734.

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 81 , 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.07.008 .

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Dingfield, L., Kassutto, S., & Dine, J. (2017). Use of Google glass to enhance communication education. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 53 (2), 390–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.12.172 .

Drummond, H. (2008). The Icarus paradox: An analysis of a totally destructive system. Journal of Information Technology, 23 (3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000119 .

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 .

Göken, M., Başoğlu, A. N., & Dabic, M. (2016). Exploring adoption of smart glasses: Applications in medical industry. In 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 3175–3184). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806835 .

Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012). Does PLS have adavantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Quaterly, 36 , 891–1001. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703490 .

Haesner, M., Wolf, S., Steinert, A., & Steinhagen-Thiessen, E. (2018). Touch interaction with Google glass–is it suitable for older adults? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 110 , 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.09.006 .

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 .

Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 (3), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130 .

Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (8), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150912 .

He, J., McCarley, J. S., Crager, K., Jadliwala, M., Hua, L., & Huang, S. (2018). Does wearable device bring distraction closer to drivers? Comparing smartphones and Google glass. Applied Ergonomics, 70 , 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.022 .

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing 22 (pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 .

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen Jr., D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17 (2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928 .

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 .

Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation . Durham: Education Endowment Foundation and Durham University.

Hsu, J.-Y., Chen, C.-C., & Ting, P.-F. (2018). Understanding MOOC continuance: An empirical examination of social support theory. Interactive Learning Environments, 26 (8), 1100–1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1446990 .

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3 (4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 .

Huang, J., Lin, Y., & Chuang, S. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning. The Electronic Library, Elucidating User Behavior of Mobile Learning., 25 (5), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710829569 .

Keskin, S., Şahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2019). Online learners’ navigational patterns based on data mining in terms of learning achievement. In D. Sampson, J. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, P. Isaías, & S. Sergis (Eds.), Learning technologies for transforming large-scale teaching, learning, and assessment (pp. 105–121). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15130-0_7 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Khlaisang, J., Teo, T., & Huang, F. (2019). Acceptance of a flipped smart application for learning: A study among Thai University students. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612447 .

Kinsella, B. (2016). 46.3 Artificial intelligence: Utilizing Google glass and other mobile applications for social skills training in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 10 (55), S70–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.07.715 .

Kirkham, R., & Greenhalgh, C. (2015). Social access vs. privacy in wearable computing: A case study of autism. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 14 (1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2015.14 .

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . New York: Guilford Publications.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Knight, H. M., Gajendragadkar, P. R., & Bokhari, A. (2015). Wearable technology: Using Google glass as a teaching tool. Case Reports, 2015 , 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2014-208768 .

Koelle, M., El Ali, A., Cobus, V., Heuten, W., & Boll, S. C. J. (2017). All about acceptability? Identifying factors for the adoption of data glasses. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 295–300). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025749 .

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30 (3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308 .

Kumar, N. M., Krishna, P. R., Pagadala, P. K., & Kumar, N. M. S. (2018). Use of smart glasses in education-a study. In 2018 2nd International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud)(I-SMAC) I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud)(I-SMAC), 2018 2nd International Conference on (pp. 56–59). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/I-SMAC.2018.8653666 .

Larabi Marie-Sainte, S., Alrazgan, M. S., Bousbahi, F., Ghouzali, S., & Abdul, W. (2016). From mobile to wearable system: A wearable RFID system to enhance teaching and learning conditions. Mobile Information Systems, 2016 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8364909 .

Leue M.C., Jung T., Tom Dieck D. (2015) Google glass augmented reality: generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In: Tussyadiah I., Inversini A. (eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 (pp. 463–476). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_34

Lindberg, R., Seo, J., & Laine, T. H. (2016). Enhancing physical education with exergames and wearable technology. IEEE Transactions on LearningTechnologies, 9 (4), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2556671 .

Liu, S.-H., Liao, H.-L., & Pratt, J. A. (2009). Impact of media richness and flow on E-learning technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 52 (3), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.002 .

Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML. In Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares (pp. 199–226). Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52512-4_5 .

Marakhimov, A., & Joo, J. (2017). Consumer adaptation and infusion of wearable devices for healthcare. Computers in Human Behavior, 76 , 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.016 .

Nicosia, S. N. (2015). Google glass in the classroom. http://hdl.handle.net/1951/65851

Nunes, G. S., & Arruda Filho, E. J. M. (2018). Consumer behavior regarding wearable technologies: Google glass. Innovation & Management Review, 15 (3), 230–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-06-2018-0034 .

Nunnally, J. C, & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory .

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (vol. 24, p. 599). New York: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/018882 .

Pace, S. (2013). Looking at innovation through CCT glasses: Consumer culture theory and Google glass innovation. Journal of Innovation Management, 1 (1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_001.001_0005 .

Park, Y. J., & Skoric, M. (2017). Personalized ad in your google glass? Wearable technology, hands-off data collection, and new policy imperative. Journal of Business Ethics, 142 , 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2766-2 .

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20751 .

Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ro, Y. K. (2016). Augmented reality smart glasses: An investigation of technology acceptance drivers. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11 (2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2016.075690 .

Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A., & Ivens, B. S. (2015a). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.003 .

Rauschnabel, P. A., Brem, A., & Ro, Y. (2015b). Augmented reality smart glasses: Definition, conceptual insights, and managerial importance. Unpublished working paper . The University of Michigan-Dearborn, College of Business.

Rauschnabel, P. A., Hein, D. W. E., He, J., Ro, Y. K., Rawashdeh, S., & Krulikowski, B. (2016). Fashion or technology? A fashnology perspective on the perception and adoption of augmented reality smart glasses. I-Com, 15 (2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2016-0021 .

Rauschnabel, P. A., He, J., & Ro, Y. K. (2018). Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: A closer look at privacy risks. Journal of Business Research, 92 , 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.008 .

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3 . Bönningstedt: SmartPLS.

Sahin, N. T., Keshav, N. U., Salisbury, J. P., & Vahabzadeh, A. (2017). Cool enough for school: Second version of Google glass rated by children facing challenges to social integration as desirable to wear at school (p. 171033). BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/171033 .

Salamin, A.-D. (2014). Using Google glass to enrich printed textbooks in a blended learning environment to meet digital natives’ expectations. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1741–1748). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Salloum, S. A., Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., et al. (2019). Factors affecting the E-learning acceptance: A case study from UAE. Education and Information Technologies, 24 , 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9786-3 .

Sidiya, K., Alzanbagi, N., & Bensenouci, A. (2015). Google glass and apple watch will they become our learning tools? In 2015 12th Learning and Technology Conference (pp. 6–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/LT.2015.7587222

Silva, M., Freitas, D., Neto, E., Lins, C., Teichrieb, V., & Teixeira, J. M. (2014). Glassist: Using augmented reality on Google glass as an aid to classroom management. In 2014 XVI symposium on virtual and augmented reality (pp. 37–44). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SVR.2014.41 .

Sivakumar, R. (2014). Google glass in education. Journal of Cognitive Discourses, 2 (02), 24–27.

Trial, D. (n.d.). Model fit.

Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology, Theory and Applications, 11 (2), 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710 .

Voo, B. (2014). Everything you need to know about Google glass. Retrieved, 11(8), 2014.

Woodside, J. M. (2015). Wearable technology acceptance model: Google glass. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1800–1802). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Wu, T., Dameff, C., & Tully, J. (2014). Integrating Google glass into simulation-based training: Experiences and future directions. Journal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing, 4 (2), 49.

Zarraonandia, T., Díaz, P., Montero, Á., Aedo, I., & Onorati, T. (2019). Using a Google glass-based classroom feedback system to improve students to teacher communication. IEEE Access, 7 , 16837–16846. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2893971 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

English Language & Linguistics, Al-Buraimi University College, Al-Buraimi, Oman

Rana Saeed Al-Maroof

Department of Languages and Translation, Arar Community College, Arar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Aseel M. Alfaisal

Research Institute of Sciences and Engineering (RISE), University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Said A. Salloum

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Said A. Salloum .

Ethics declarations

Declarations of interest, additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1.1 Instrument development

Adoption of Google Glass (GGL)

GGL1: I will adopt Google Glass in my future activities assignments as a search tool.

GGL2: I will adopt Google Glass in my university daily.

Functionality (FUN)

FUN1: Google Glass saves time.

FUN2: Google Glass keeps my hand free while studying.

FUN3: Google Glass helps in recording my classes.

Functionality (MOT)

MOT1: I was motivated to study using Google Glass

MOT2: I was motivated when Google Glass translate texts easily.

MOT3: I was motivated when Google Glass replaces the printed textbooks.

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)

PEOU1: Goggle Glass makes it easy to do my homework.

PEOU2: It is easy to use Google Glass daily.

PEOU3: Google Glass has features that can be easily applied.

Perceived Usefulness (PU)

PU1: Google Glass helps me in my studies.

PU2: Google Glass makes my daily achievements higher.

PU3: Google Glass helps me a lot in my flipped classroom.

Trust & privacy (TRUPRV)

TRUPRV1: Overall Google Glass is trustworthy.

TRUPRV2: Google Glass saves my data safe in my drive.

TRUPRV3: Google Glass keeps the privacy of my data and other shared data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Al-Maroof, R.S., Alfaisal, A.M. & Salloum, S.A. Google glass adoption in the educational environment: A case study in the Gulf area. Educ Inf Technol 26 , 2477–2500 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10367-1

Download citation

Received : 28 July 2020

Accepted : 23 October 2020

Published : 03 November 2020

Issue Date : May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10367-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Google glass
• Technology acceptance model
• Functionality
• Trust & privacy
• Perceived usefulness
• Perceived ease of use
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research