Smart clothing One of the wearable technologies is smart clothing. Smart clothing or intelligent clothing integrates functional clothing design and portable technology. It can provide interactive reactions by sending signals, processing information, and actuating the responses. According to Ariyatum & Holland (2003), the major applications of smart clothing can be categorized into military, medical, communication, entertainment and particularly sports. OMSignal's Biometric Smartwear , for example, is an amazing smart cloth which has all the sensors needed to track and monitor not only heart rate, breathing and steps during workout but also health, weight, activity, and stress during the day. In fact, this data can help us get healthier and fitter. Wearable technology presents many new challenges to designers. Designer of wearable technology should understand not only human interaction with computing devices but also human interaction with clothing for successful design. In general, “product strategists must embrace a human-centric approach to design — the person is the focus of innovation, not the device.” In fact, devices and garments hold very different cultural roles in terms of duration and frequency of use, range of usage situations, product life cycle, price point, care, cleaning, and many other factors. Hence, a team including textile technologist, electronic experts, garment engineers, biologist, computer scientists, and multimedia experts should work effectively together to design a new product. A great talented, curious fashion designer explains how wearable technologies can change our lives.
0 Comments
Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM) The Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) has been described as a comprehensive tool for empowering individuals to address changes in educational settings, and importantly, is noted for its inclusive perspective that pays attention to the individuals and the organization that are involved in the change process (Sashkin & Ergermeier, 1992). Also, this model is the most robust and empirically grounded theoretical model for the implementation of educational innovations to come out of educational change research in the 1970s and 1980s. The central underlying assumption of CBAM asserts that an important factor in any change process is the people involved, as an organization cannot change until the individuals within it change (Hall & Hord, 2001). Several assumptions about classroom change in curriculum and instruction underpin CBAM: (1) change is a process, not an event; (2) change is accomplished by individuals; (3) change is a highly personal experience; (4) change involves developmental growth in feelings and skills; and(5) change can be facilitated by interventions directed toward the individuals, innovations, and contexts involved (Anderson, 1997). Also, The CBAM model comprises three key dimensions, stages of concern (SoC), levels of use (LoU), and innovation configuration (IC). Each dimension represents a facet of the change process, stages of concern and levels of use focusing on the implementer, while the innovation configuration considers the nature of the innovation itself. Stages of Concern The SOC defines potential users, or adopters’ concerns, as composite representations of thoughts, feelings, preoccupations, and considerations relating to a particular issue (Hall & Hord, 2001). Importantly, potential users’ concerns seem to play an important role in the adoption process of innovations, and must be addressed during the implementation of a new innovation. The SOC consists of seven stages which are (1) awareness, (2) informational, (3) personal, (4) management, (5) consequence, (6) collaboration and (7) refocusing Levels of Use the CBAM Leve1s of Use framework focuses on general patterns of teacher behavior as they prepare to use, begin to use, and gain experience implementing a classroom change. Moreover, this dimension consists of several stages. Level 0, NONUSE, reflects a state in which the teacher has little know1edge of the change and no plans for its implementation. A teacher enters Level I, ORIENTATION, when she or he decides to seek more information about the change, but has not made a decision to implement it. At Level II, PREPARATION, a teacher is actively preparing to put the change into practice, but has not actually begun to implement it in the classroom. At Level III, MECHANICAL, the teacher begins change implementation. Now the teacher is struggling with the logistics of implementation and with the acquisition of new teaching skills. At this level teacher decision making is oriented toward making the innovation more manageable and easy to implement. At Level IVA, ROUTINE use. Most teachers settle in at a routine level of use. Some, however, may actively assess the impact of the innovation on their students and initiate changes in the innovation or their use of it on this basis. They have now reached level IVB, REFINEMENT. Changes in innovation use are student-centered. Level V, INTEGRATION, describes a state in which teachers collaborate with other teachers to make changes in implementation for the benefit of their students. At Level VI, RENEWAL. They feel the need to make a major change in the innovation and/or to explore alternative practices. Thus, the LoU dimension identifies what a teacher is doing or not doing relative to the innovation. It is the sequence that users pass through as they gain confidence and skill in using an innovation, resulting in higher levels of use from nonuse to institutionalization. The Innovation Configuration The Innovation Configuration is the third diagnostic dimension of the Concern based Adoption Model. It focuses on describing the innovation and its operational forms. Also, the CBAM concept of Innovation Configuration grew out of the recognition that teachers rarely implemented the same innovation in exactly the same way. In other words, ICs describes variations in what an innovation looks like in practice for different teachers. Different procedures can be used such as survey, interview, or observation for the purpose of measuring how teachers are implementing a change. Change Facilitators People in change facilitating roles such as school principals can assess teacher concerns about a change, their levels of use, and their configurations of use. This information can be used for planning and delivering interventions to assist individuals or groups of teachers in implementing the change. Hence, Understanding the concerns of teachers helps school principals to determine direction for professional development, and design interventions for effective innovation, adoption, and implementation. It also provides information for planning support services. Hence, the generative aspect of the CBAM promotes the facilitation of change through the recognition and validation of teachers’ concerns about technology integration. Refernces Anderson, S.E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model (Electronic version). Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sashkin, M. & Egermeier, J. (1992). School change models and processes: A review of research and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. |
Archives
October 2020
Categories |