“Alexa, play today’s Flash Briefing”: utilizing conversational agents in educator preparation

Abstract

Purpose

This grant-funded research utilized conversational agents (CAs), specifically Alexa Flash Briefings, to deliver supplemental audio content across educational settings, expanding the online learning environment of graduate students, residency teachers and mentors. The study aimed to determine the perceived usability of Flash Briefings and explore participant experiences related to Flash Briefings.

Design/methodology/approach

To explore Flash Briefing usability and participant perceptions, a review of relevant literature and researcher experience feedback was conducted. Additionally, graduate student feedback was sought via a modified Children’s Usage Rating Profile (CURP) Assessment survey, which also included questions related to listening habits and provided space for participants to share open-ended qualitative feedback. Data were analyzed for themes and descriptive statistics were calculated.

Findings

Findings suggest an overall positive perception of the use of Flash Briefings. A mix of positive experiences and challenges are identified based on user population. The study provides valuable insights for refining the utilization of Flash Briefings in higher education settings.

Research limitations/implications

Variable levels of participation across a small sample size minimizes the generalizability of the results and fails to explore perceptions of student teachers and mentors.

Practical implications

The study offers an initial indication of benefits and challenges found in the implementation of an innovative technological intervention.

Originality/value

There is a continued need and demand for extending online instructional accessibility and communication across broad geographic areas. This study considers a unique approach and provides a step toward closing this gap by analyzing the effectiveness this content modality offers in higher education.

Citation

Hunt, T. and Hudson, M. (2024), "“Alexa, play today’s Flash Briefing”: utilizing conversational agents in educator preparation", PDS Partners: Bridging Research to Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 140-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/PDSP-05-2024-0008

Education is continually changing due to emerging technologies which create unprecedented possibilities for learning and digital connection (Anthony, Levine-Brown, Fynn, Gadzekpo, & Spinks, 2020). With an increasing demand for online and distance education, it is imperative for educators to explore, utilize, and assess easily accessible and adaptive content delivery and communication modalities (O’Keefe, Rafferty, Gunder, & Vignare, 2020). Prompted by technological advancements, the landscape of education is rapidly shifting, creating opportunities for learning to occur anywhere, at any time, unconstrained by the traditional boundaries of brick-and-mortar buildings or home computers (Gurcan & Cagiltay, 2020). Such opportunities are particularly pronounced in educator preparation programs, which cater to the unique circumstances of undergraduate students, graduate students, and field mentors, all of whom are balancing professional, personal, and educational responsibilities.

Intrigued with the ability to rethink the typical learning environment, this study examined the utilization of conversational agents (CAs) as a novel modality for sharing content and information in university courses and programs. More specifically, we created and published Amazon Alexa Flash Briefings as an intervention to share supplemental audio information and content aligned to course objectives and standards, research, best practices and programmatic updates. With CA voice command integration, it was our intention to provide an opportunity for students to access course information outside our typical online learning spaces, allowing them to multitask while consuming new material (e.g. cooking, cleaning, driving or getting ready in the morning). Despite CAs gaining prevalence, limited research examines their use in education (Terzopoulos & Satratzemi, 2020). Therefore, this project aims to contribute insight to this developing field by examining the efficacy of integrating CA technologies in educational settings. Below, we further explore technology-driven learning and online platforms, define CAs and Flash Briefings, present information regarding how Flash Briefings work within the CA context and explore CAs in education.

Connection to the literature

Technological advancements are shaping learning experiences, expanding access to education and providing a vast array of information, including books, audio, images, videos and podcasts (Anthony et al., 2020). Along with this increase in information, the rising use of instant communication is changing the needs of learners and the way they learn (Lapointe, Molyneaux, Kondratova, & Viejo, 2016). The US Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology (2017) emphasized the ease of accessing educational opportunities through platforms such as Khan Academy, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), podcasts, traditional online degree programs, and other learning resources. Furthermore, Learning Management Systems (LMSs) have become integral to learning, especially in the context of online education (Kyzy, Smailova, & Dündar, 2018; Morgado et al., 2016).

While primarily designed for online learning delivery, LMSs provide a platform for both asynchronous and synchronous-based courses. Interaction between teachers and students within LMSs is steadily increasing (Ochoa-Orihuel, Marticorena-Sánchez, & Sáiz-Manzanares, 2020) not only for content presentation but also for fostering engagement among students, teachers and course content (Harris & Greer, 2017). Despite their effectiveness in elevating communication and online instruction, LMSs require students to interact directly with computers, smartphones or tablets (Ochoa-Orihuel et al., 2020). CAs, however, are more broadly accessible and may be employed while multitasking.

Conversational agents defined

CAs are agents or devices awaiting user prompts (either written or oral) from which to produce a relevant response using natural language (Allouch, Azaria, & Azoulay, 2021). For example, a user may ask a CA to recommend a popular pizza restaurant in their area, set a timer or give directions. Often relying on voice activation, individuals may interact with CAs on multiple devices, such as computers, cell phones, tablets and smart speakers (Myers, Furqan, & Zhu, 2019). With this level of accessibility, it is not surprising an estimated 123.5 million US adults communicate with CAs at least once a month (Lis, 2022). While CAs utilize multiple personas to engage users (e.g. Amazon Alexa and Apple’s Siri) (Carter et al., 2023), individuals may perceive voice interactions to be more efficient, enjoyable and require less cognitive effort than interactions with text (Rzepka, Berger, & Hess, 2022). CAs are expected to increasingly be embedded in our everyday lives (Newman, 2018) and CAs in the form of smart speakers have witnessed a surge in popularity (Tsourakas, Terzopoulos, & Goumas, 2021). In addition, Newman (2018) reports smart speakers are regularly used by more than one in ten US adults and most users express high satisfaction with the device.

Alexa flash briefings defined

As CAs become more prevalent, they continue to evolve, providing new services and capabilities which may be extended with third-party applications known as skills through Amazon Alexa and actions through Google Assistant (Tsourakas et al., 2021). Alexa skills are divided into three categories: custom skills, smart home skills and Flash Briefing skills (Tristan, Sharma, & Gonzalez, 2020). Similar to podcasts, Flash Briefings deliver developer-produced audio content, such as daily news reports, weather forecasts or sports updates. They are intended to air daily and run for only a few minutes (Alexa Developer Documentation, 2024a). As such, past episodes are typically unavailable for replay. Users may subscribe to Flash Briefings within the Alexa App or Alexa Skill Store. Once enabled, Flash Briefings are readily accessible via voice command (e.g. “Alexa, play today’s Flash Briefing.”), creating opportunities for multitasking while consuming new content (Alexa Developer Documentation, 2024b). Consequently, Flash Briefings are positioned to extend learning opportunities to Alexa devices at home, on phones, and embedded in vehicles, watches, rings and eyeglasses (Tristan et al., 2020). The adoption of Flash Briefings in educational contexts, as with other emerging technologies, has piqued the interest of educators (Davie & Hilber, 2018), encouraging researchers to explore this new methodology.

Conversational agents in education

The integration of technology in teaching and learning is critical as educational systems strive to adapt to a generation of digital native students with distinct cognitive approaches (Şerban & Todericiu, 2020). Notably, immersive learning technologies hold the potential to revolutionize the current education system (Terzopoulos & Satratzemi, 2020). AI-driven technology will play a pivotal role in reshaping the future of education, and CAs in particular, are expected to receive significant attention in the coming years (Şerban & Todericiu, 2020). Supporting this, Bidarra, Simonsen, and Holmes (2020) observed AI is already integrated into daily life through personal CAs like Siri and Alexa and noted that AI-powered learning systems are being increasingly implemented in K-12 schools and universities. Due to positive adult and child reception of CAs, there is a growing likelihood of expanded usage in educational settings (Tsourakas et al., 2021).

Davie and Hilber (2018) reviewed classroom applications specific to the Amazon Echo smart speaker. They identified several uses, including routine tasks like setting a timer, playing calming music during quiet study time, and using built-in dictionary and thesaurus functionality. Other learning applications integrate Quizlet for flashcards or provide listening comprehension exercises. At the primary level, Dousay and Hall (2018) found CA integration to be constructive and exciting for both students and teachers. Similarly, Hales et al. (2019) reported positive secondary school experiences for both students and teachers, with students expressing optimism about the future of CAs and identifying practical everyday applications. In a higher education setting, Davie and Hilber (2018) created a customized CA quiz for the Echo device and received positive student feedback on its use. These studies found the benefits of using CAs for educational tasks and content delivery, supporting the potential value of using Flash Briefings in education.

Despite these positive findings, a limited number of studies explore the use of CAs in education, prompting the need for more research on this topic (Şerban & Todericiu, 2020). Tsourakas et al. (2021) acknowledged the potential of CAs to provide new learning experiences and advance existing educational systems yet stressed the scarcity of studies demonstrating educational impacts. Terzopoulos and Satratzemi (2020) suggested additional research focused on the use of CAs to provide communication and content in education. Serban and Todericiu (2020) added it is essential to understand and determine appropriate methods for incorporating CAs into teaching and learning. To date, there is a notable lack of research on Flash Briefings in education, particularly their use as a modality for sharing content and information in university courses and programs. This study seeks to address this gap and contribute to understanding the efficacy of using CAs to incorporate Flash Briefings into educational settings.

Project purpose, plan and implementation

The intention of this research was to explore how Flash Briefings may extend the learning of online and distance students beyond the LMS by providing highly accessible, predictable, and manageable audio content. Our research team is particularly sensitive to the scheduling challenges and unforeseen conflicts between students and mentor teachers. The majority of our graduate students are full-time educators. Most are navigating teaching and family responsibilities while engaging in courses to advance their skills and generate new career opportunities. A notable number of graduate students in our programs are working under an exception authorization license. Consequently, these individuals are learning the requirements and responsibilities of a new position while completing their graduate degrees. Additionally, our undergraduate students, completing their residency requirements, are also learning new positions and negotiating multiple responsibilities. With the majority of residency teachers placed in rural districts, it is easy to feel disconnected from the university. Furthermore, mentor teachers are impacted by busy schedules and additional requirements related to supervision and evaluation. Given the scheduling complications and overwhelm our graduate, residency teachers and mentors often experience, we hypothesized that Flash Briefings could serve as an intervention to extend the learning environment while building/maintaining community between faculty, students and mentors.

To study this hypothesis, in 2021, the first author pursued and was awarded the Everett D. and Elizabeth M. Lantz Distinguished Professorship in Education. The initial year of the project centered around learning to create Flash Briefings and investigating their potential as an intervention to enhance student engagement. Within this year, Flash Briefings were generated and shared with graduate students in a single Special Education Law course. Concise and focused episodes provided daily reinforcement of key course topics, serving as an intervention to enrich student learning and connection.

As directed by the grant and guided by initial results as well as multidisciplinary collaboration, this research was expanded to additional settings in year two. The broadening of this work included graduate students in an Educational Leadership course, as well as undergraduate students and mentor teachers in a Residency Program. Extending this work across disciplines, enabled exploration of the versatility and applicability of Flash Briefings in diverse educator preparation contexts. Reflections from our research team played a pivotal role in addressing the research questions. Additionally, a survey was administered in two of the researchers’ courses to assess student perceptions of the Flash Briefing intervention, their listening habits and preferences, and to gather open-ended feedback. This assessment provided quantitative and qualitative self-report data, offering a comprehensive understanding of the impact and nuances of incorporating Flash Briefings.

This study was guided by the following research questions:

RQ1.

What are the perceived benefits of incorporating Flash Briefings in university courses and programs?

RQ2.

What are the perceived challenges of incorporating Flash Briefings in university courses and programs?

RQ3.

As informed by the experiences of faculty and students, how can Flash Briefings be refined and better utilized in higher education settings to support educator preparation?

These research questions underscore the study’s multifaceted nature, seeking insights into positive aspects and potential challenges with integrating Flash Briefings into educator preparation. Meanwhile, the incorporation of stakeholder experiences emphasizes the importance of an interactive process, allowing for continuous improvement based on authentic feedback and perspectives.

Alignment with NAPDS essentials

This research aligns closely with four National Association of Professional Development Schools Essentials (NAPDS, 2021), demonstrating a commitment to enhancing educator preparation and professional learning through school-university partnerships. The study connects with Essential 2, emphasizing the preparation of educators through clinical practice. By integrating Flash Briefings, the research contributes a novel approach to preparing educators for the dynamic challenges of the profession. Our research also aligns with Essential 3, highlighting a commitment to continuous professional learning and leading for all partnership participants guided by a spirit and practice of inquiry. The study was implemented as part of a school-university partnership to support educator preparation and foster professional development of university faculty and teacher mentors through an innovative practice. Essential 4, focusing on a shared commitment to reflective practice, responsive innovation and generative knowledge, is evident in the study’s design and implementation. The use of Flash Briefings is examined through reflective practice, generating knowledge in an area with limited research. Finally, the study embraces Essential 5, actively engaging in collaborative research and sharing results with the wider community. The researchers aimed to contribute to a collective knowledge base by presenting their findings at a national conference and by writing about the study. This commitment reflects the dedication to the dissemination of valuable insights and practices.

Methodology

The study employed an exploratory design to investigate the research questions. This approach combined information from professional literature with qualitative and quantitative data.

Context of the study

This research qualified for Institutional Review Board exempt review and received approval as a study involving minimal risk to participants. Over the spring semester of 2023, Flash Briefings were incorporated in three settings at a public land-grant university: a graduate-level Special Education Law course, a graduate-level Educational Leadership course, and an undergraduate Residency Program.

Flash Briefings were submitted to Amazon for certification and approved for publication on Alexa devices. Subsequently, project participants were given detailed instructions for enabling the Flash Briefings on their CA device (e.g. smart speaker) or their smartphone via the Alexa app. Participants were asked to listen to regularly scheduled Flash Briefings, airing each day, Monday through Friday. They were reminded about the importance of developing a daily routine as only the current day’s content would be available.

The content and organization of the Flash Briefings differed in each setting. In the Special Education Law course, non-scripted Flash Briefings were provided for six consecutive weeks throughout the semester, totaling 30 episodes. Episodes ranged from 3 to 7 minutes and included one introduction episode, thanking students for listening and outlining the episode release schedule. This introduction also provided a brief overview of content students should expect to encounter while listening to course Flash Briefings. The following episodes provided supplemental course content (e.g. tips in writing Individualized Education Programs), responses to student-generated questions and content misconceptions (e.g. optimal education versus what the law requires), definitions under the law (e.g. definition of a weapon under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), analysis and feedback related to the group assigned case studies (e.g. case study 6 review – evaluation under the IDEA), and an analysis of a newly settled legal case (i.e. Perez vs. Sturgis Public Schools). A final concluding episode was also published, thanking students for participating in the course and inviting students to reconnect with the course instructor in the event they have questions or need support related to disability law. A transcript of Episode 13: Reacting to Progress Monitoring Data has been provided in Appendix 1.

The Educational Leadership course incorporated 19 scripted Flash Briefing episodes to supplement a four-week module focused on principal leadership in school improvement processes. For example, Episode 2 introduced reports about school leadership commissioned by the Wallace Foundation in 2004 and 2021 and provided key findings and promising evidence of the skills and expertise leaders need to be successful. Episode 3 built upon this foundation, providing additional content related to principal engagement in instructionally focused interactions and the need for effective instructional leaders to demonstrate strong knowledge about high-quality instruction (a transcript of Episode 3 is provided in Appendix 2). Ultimately, episodes in week one focused on best practices for instruction and the role of the principal in supporting the school’s instructional program. In week two, Flash Briefings addressed professional development as a critical component of school improvement and emphasized the principal’s role in determining, designing, and facilitating effective professional learning opportunities. Week three episodes explored the principal’s role in using data to inform, monitor, and evaluate school improvement, while week four addressed the principal’s responsibility in engaging the community to benefit school improvement.

The Residency Program also provided scripted daily Flash Briefings, intended for student teachers and their mentors in the field. Residency Program briefings were between 3 and 6 minutes in length and aired daily for over 12 weeks of the spring semester. The content was driven by recurring daily themes such as Try It Tuesday (i.e. classroom application ideas) and What Works Wednesday (i.e. evidence-based research on teaching and learning). Briefings were marketed specifically to resident teachers and their mentors as an optional means to extend college communication about research, best practices, and programmatic updates and reminders.

Participants

All four members of our research team engaged as study participants. Our team was intentionally selected through purposive sampling based on interest in Flash Briefings, experience working with and teaching pre-service and in-service educators, and an opportunity to utilize Flash Briefings with post-secondary students. Two researchers (i.e. the first and second authors) are college faculty members teaching primarily online graduate courses. The third member of our team serves as the director of student teaching for our college, while the final member works as a university/school district facilitator, overseeing and supporting residency teachers in her region. Both these members also serve as online adjuncts in our college.

Convenience sampling was utilized to secure 23 consenting graduate student participants (Table 1) from the first author’s Special Education Law course and the second author’s Educational Leadership course. Students in both courses are typically practicing K-12 educators, often working on an exception authorization license and seeking an advanced degree in special education or Educational Leadership.

Because members of the research team implemented Flash Briefings for resident teachers and their mentors, they are included as an important component of this project. However, resulting of unexpected time limitations, we were unable to secure consent and survey resident or mentor teachers. Consequently, survey data from this population is not reflected in our results.

Data collection

To explore the efficacy of integrating CAs in educational settings, this study synthesized information emerging from a review of the literature and the research team’s reflective feedback documented in meeting notes. The researchers met regularly to share experiences creating and implementing Flash Briefings and to discuss informal feedback from participants. Research notes were kept from meetings, which occurred from January to June of 2023. These notes were housed in a secure Google file.

Complementing the professional literature and qualitative data from meeting notes, a survey including modified statements from the Children’s Usage Rating Profile (CURP) Assessment, was administered at the end of the semester in two courses facilitated by the researchers. Originally developed by Briesch and Chafouleas (2009a), the CURP Assessment is a self-report Likert scale utilized to gauge student’s perceptions of interventions, encompassing three interconnected aspects: personal desirability or propensity to utilize the intervention (a = 0.92), understanding or awareness of intervention applicability (a = 0.82), and feasibility or a perception that steps to implement the intervention are manageable (a = 0.75) (Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009b). Though designed to assess the perceptions of children and youth, this tool was selected for its unique ability to explore interventions from the viewpoint of students. To align with an adult population and our intervention specifically (i.e. Flash Briefings), we modified CURP Assessment items for use in our survey. Despite making alterations, however, we retained the intent and Likert scale from the original assessment. For example, the statement “This was too much work for me” was changed to “Downloading the Alexa app and enabling the course Flash Briefing was too much work for me.” The statement “I was able to do every step of this method” was altered to “I was able to listen to over 75% of the Flash Briefings.” Participants were asked to express their level of agreement using a four-point scale ranging from “totally disagree” to “totally agree” on 11 statements about Flash Briefing usage.

To understand participant listening habits and preferences (e.g. device type, listening consistency and listening while multitasking) participants were asked to report on five statements by selecting from one of four Likert scale options (i.e. “never,” “sometimes,” “often,” “always,” or “not applicable”). These statements were originated by the first author and added to the modified CURP Assessment statements to explore this specific aspect of Flash Briefing engagement. At the end of the survey, participants were offered the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback at the end of the survey, adding to the qualitative data set.

Data analysis

A systematic approach was taken to analyze both qualitative and quantitative data in this study. First, a deductive analysis was employed to evaluate the research team’s reflective feedback. This analysis focused on predetermined themes derived directly from the first three research questions: (RQ1) benefits of incorporating Flash Briefings, (RQ2) challenges of incorporating Flash Briefings and (RQ3) suggestions for refining the use of Flash Briefings. This approach allowed for a structured analysis guided by our research questions while remaining open to other insights within each theme. To enhance the credibility and validity of our findings, the first and second authors of this study employed member checking by presenting the information back to the other two research team participants for their feedback. In doing so, we were able to verify the accuracy of our analysis and provide additional insights and clarifications, ensuring our findings reflected the experiences and perspectives of the entire research team. Next, descriptive statistics were used to describe the research sample based on responses to the survey. Frequencies and percentages were determined for each scale rating, taking into account reverse coding for negatively worded statements. Means and standard deviations were also computed for each item. In addition, overall means were calculated for the three categories: feasibility, understanding and personal desirability. Finally, qualitative responses from the open-ended survey questions were analyzed using a deductive approach, again focusing on three predetermined themes to provide a structured analysis directly connected to the research questions.

Results

Results from this study include reflections on the research team’s experiences related to Flash Briefings and survey results exploring the perceptions of graduate students in utilizing Flash Briefings as an intervention within their online course. Below, we present results from each data set.

Research team reflective feedback

An analysis of the research team’s anecdotal notes and conversations revealed a range of overlapping benefits and challenges associated with incorporating Flash Briefings, along with suggestions for refining the use of Flash Briefings.

Benefits of incorporating Flash Briefing theme

A key finding identified within this predetermined theme was the opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration, enabling colleagues from different departments to jointly explore, implement and assess the utilization of this novel tool. Connecting with students daily to deliver course content and disseminate programmatic information emerged as an additional benefit.

Challenges of incorporating Flash Briefing theme

While using Flash Briefings to regularly share content was viewed as advantageous, it was also found to be a challenge. The research team encountered a steep learning curve for developing and publishing Flash Briefing episodes, including creating icons, designing and integrating introductory and concluding music clips, developing content, recording episodes and providing instructions for participants to access the Flash Briefings. Another challenge identified was the time investment required to consistently create and publish content via this new methodology.

Suggestions for refining the Flash Briefings theme

Connected to this theme were recommendations such as starting Flash Briefings earlier in the semester and batching episodes ahead of time. Broadening promotion and offering incentives to listeners to establish a daily listening routine were also suggested.

Quantitative survey responses

Course-specific results derived from the survey provided student data regarding the perceived feasibility, understanding and personal desirability of the Alexa app and Flash Briefings as an intervention for delivering content (Table 2). Additional course survey results demonstrated participant listening habits (Table 3). Results specific to each category and student population (i.e. Special Education Law and Educational Leadership) are presented below.

Feasibility

Respondents across both classes indicated they found the process of downloading the Alexa app and enabling course Flash Briefings to be manageable. Specifically, 77.78% (M = 3.78) of students in the Special Education Law course and 61.54% (M = 3.46) of students in the Educational Leadership course totally disagreed that enabling Flash Briefings was too much work. However, opinions differed on the work required to engage with this methodology. When asked to consider the effort required to listen to Flash Briefings, over half the students in the Special Education Law course (55.56%, M –2.56) somewhat agreed listening daily was too much work, while only 30.77% (M –2.93) of students in the Educational Leadership course reported the same. Of note, no students (0%) from either course strongly agreed listening daily was too much work. In addition, most students found the amount of time required to engage with Flash Briefings to be reasonable, indicating they somewhat disagreed (Special Education Law: 20%; Educational Leadership: 46.15%) or totally disagreed (Special Education Law: 60%; Educational Leadership: 46.15%). It took too long to listen to Flash Briefings (Special Education Law: M = 3.4; Educational Leadership: M = 3.38). Reporting on Flash Briefing frequency, 20% of Special Education Law students somewhat agreed and 20% totally agreed they had to listen too often (M = 2.6). In contrast, 30.77% of Educational Leadership students somewhat agreed and 15.38% totally agreed listening frequency occurred too often (M = 2.54). When combining the above statements for overall feasibility, students across both courses aligned. The mean score of Special Education Law students for overall feasibility was 3.09, while the mean score of Educational Leadership students was 3.08.

Understanding

Over half of Special Education Law students (60%, M = 3.40) were able to listen to 75% or more of course Flash Briefings. While just under half of Educational Leadership students (46.15%, M = 1.14) reported an ability to do the same. A majority of participants in both classes indicated at least some level of understanding of why the instructor chose this methodology, reporting somewhat agreement (Special Education Law: 33.33%; Educational Leadership: 53.85%) and total agreement (Special Education Law: 66.67%; Educational Leadership: 30.77%) to this statement (Special Education Law: M = 3.67; Educational Leadership: M = 3.15). The majority of Educational Leadership students somewhat agreed (46.15%) or totally agreed (30.77%) that it was clear what was required to engage with the Flash Briefings (M = 3.08). Whereas 70% of Special Education Law students totally agreed with this same statement and 0% somewhat agreed (M = 3.4). The overall mean scores of both populations as related to understanding were relatively high, though Special Education Law students demonstrated a higher overall rating than Educational Leadership students (Special Education Law: M = 3.49; Educational Leadership: M = 3.05).

Personal desirability

When reporting on personal desirability, most participants showed some level of agreement (Special Education Law: 40%; Educational Leadership: 61.54%) or total agreement (Special Education Law: 40%; Educational Leadership: 15.38%) that Flash Briefings are a good way to help students (Special Education Law: M = 3.10; Educational Leadership: M = 2.92). As it relates to recommending this methodology to a colleague to learn course content, nearly all students in the Special Education Law course (90%) indicated at least some level of agreement (30% somewhat agreed, 60% totally agreed, M = 3.40). This is in stark contrast to the more than 60% of Educational Leadership students who either somewhat disagreed or totally disagreed with this statement (7.69% totally disagreed, 53.85% somewhat disagreed, M = 2.31). Nonetheless, the majority of Special Education Law (88.88%) and Educational Leadership (69.23%) students reported some level of agreement (Special Education Law: 44.44%; Educational Leadership: 38.46%) or total agreement (Special Education Law: 44.44%; Educational Leadership: 30.77%) to their willingness to utilize this same methodology in another class (Special Education Law: M = 3.22; Educational Leadership: M = 3.00). In contrast, 10% of Special Education Law students totally agreed they would not want to try this methodology in another class (M = 3.1), while 38.46% of Educational Leadership students somewhat agreed with this statement (M = 2.77). The overall mean rating specific to personal desirability differed between populations with Special Education Law students reporting a mean score of 3.21 and Educational Leadership students reporting a mean score of 2.75.

Listening habits

Survey items and ratings related to listening habits and preferences (Table 3) determined the majority of students often (Special Education Law: 30%; Educational Leadership: 30.77%) or always (Special Education Law: 30%; Educational Leadership: 38.46%) listened to course Flash Briefings while engaging in other activities (Special Education Law: M = 2.90; Educational Leadership: M = 2.92). Consistent with the above utilization ratings, responses revealed challenges with incorporating Flash Briefings into daily routines. Although many students often (Special Education Law: 40%; Educational Leadership: 23.08%) or always (Educational Leadership: 15.38%) listened to course Flash Briefings at about the same time each day (Special Education Law: M = 2.50; Educational Leadership: M = 2.38), over 60% of students in the Educational Leadership course found it often (46.15%) or always (15.38%) difficult to incorporate course Flash Briefings into their daily routine (M = 2.38). This was slightly less true for students in the Special Education Law course, as 50% indicated it was never (10%) or only sometimes (40%) a challenge to incorporate listening into their daily routine (M = 2.10). Device choice varied between students in the Special Education Law course and Educational Leadership course. While 30% of students in the Special Education Law course who owned an Alexa Device primarily listened to course Flash Briefings on their phones (0% often, 30% always, M = 2.80), over 60% of students in the Educational Leadership course reported the same (15.38% often, 46.15% always, M = 3.38). Additionally, 50% of students in the Special Education Law course (20% often, 30% always, M = 3.10) primarily listened to Flash Briefings on their Alexa Device, as compared to less than 25% (7.69% often, 15.38% always, M = 2.08) of students in the Educational Leadership course.

Qualitative survey responses

Responses to open-ended questions offered insight into participant experiences related to the three predetermined themes: benefits of incorporating Flash Briefings, challenges of incorporating Flash Briefings and suggestions for refining the use of Flash Briefings.

Benefits of incorporating Flash Briefing theme

Respondents from both classes emphasized benefits, such as the time-saving nature of Flash Briefings (“This…was a pretty good time saver for me.”) and their overall helpfulness (“…It helped to quickly clarify answers…”) In addition, some participants appreciated the brevity and convenience of Flash Briefings, particularly while multitasking (“I really enjoyed the Flash Briefing each day on my drive to work.”).

Challenges of incorporating the Flash Briefings theme

Some participants expressed difficulty in incorporating Flash Briefings into their daily routines given their busy schedules (“It was really hard to get into a routine with all the other expectations I have on my plate…”). Challenges related to access issues were also noted (“I… found the Flash Briefings difficult to access.”). A key challenge revealed by participants was the inability to access missed or past episodes via the Alexa Device (“I…missed some and had to go [to] the course links to catch up.”) Finally, though multitasking was identified as a benefit, one participant questioned the feasibility of learning new content while multitasking (“…one cannot simply dedicate focus to multiple things at the same time…”).

Suggestions for refining the Flash Briefings theme

Within this theme, one student noted including the briefings on Google devices could increase use. Others recommended Flash Briefings be provided once a week rather than daily (“I would have liked them 1x per week…”). Many students expressed a preference for alternative methods allowing for more flexibility such as voice recordings posted in the course LMS or visual formats (“I think it would have been easier to read them at times…). One respondent encouraged the use of recorded videos rather than audio-only content (“… I felt more connected to listen and watch the recording of the teacher.”).

Discussion

Data from this study suggests an overall positive perception of the use of Flash Briefings in university courses. However, variation between participant groups occurred in specific aspects like personal desirability and listening habits. Below, we explore the implications of our findings, suggest considerations for future research, and denote the limitations of our study.

Implications for practice

While innovative learning tools can enhance communication and online instruction (Anthony et al., 2020; Lapointe et al., 2016), the level of effort required to implement new technology may counteract these benefits. Considering the temporary nature of Flash Briefings with no archiving and single-day accessibility, the amount of time and preparation required to implement Flash Briefings may be impractical for some instructors. Additionally, with the multiple steps required to set up and teach students how to utilize Flash Briefings, many instructors may opt for alternative communication strategies. Instructors looking to employ Flash Briefings are encouraged to create their Flash Briefings within the Amazon system early and batch episodes ahead of time. Front-loading episodes will ease the burden of content creation throughout the semester. It is also possible that content may be reutilized from one semester to the next, again easing instructor effort once Flash Briefings have been generated. Conversely, Flash Briefings may be particularly useful in providing real-time updates and reminders to students. Instructors hoping to build connections and maintain consistent communication may consider using Flash Briefings within their courses and/or programs.

Regarding student perspectives, despite some variability between classes, students in both the Special Education Law and Educational Leadership courses shared similar perspectives about the feasibility of Flash Briefings and an understanding of why this methodology was selected to provide content. Both groups largely found the length of Flash Briefings reasonable, encouraging instructors interested in generating Flash Briefings to maintain short, 3- to 7-minute episodes. Students from both courses also found it relatively manageable to enable Flash Briefings. This may be credited to the researchers’ specific step-by-step directions, potentially pointing to the importance of providing clear instructions to future listeners. Though Flash Briefings were overall feasible for students to enact and students largely understood expectations related to their participation, some students indicated the requirement to listen daily was sometimes challenging. This challenge was compounded by the inability to replay missed episodes.

The majority of participants across both courses could identify benefits to students in using Flash Briefings and could envision themselves, on some level, using them in another class. However, more students in the Special Education Law course would recommend Flash Briefings to colleagues than in the Educational Leadership course. Of particular interest, the overall personal desirability to engage with Flash Briefings between both groups was misaligned. Special Education Law students were more motivated to listen to Flash Briefings, demonstrating an overall perspective they understood why and how Flash Briefings were utilized, viewed them as feasible, and found them personally motivating. On the contrary, while Educational Leadership students understood Flash Briefings and found them feasible to enact, they were far less personally motivated to engage in this intervention.

Differences in Flash Briefing usage between both participant groups may have been influenced by the length of time each group engaged with Flash Briefings. Students in the Special Education Law course listened to daily Flash Briefings for six weeks (30 episodes), while students in the Educational Leadership course engaged with Flash Briefings for just four weeks (19 episodes). Spending an additional two weeks listening to Flash Briefings may have helped more of the Special Education Law students become accustomed to Flash Briefings and build a listening routine. Paradoxically, with more than half the students in the Special Education Law course indicating on some level that Flash Briefings were too much work, six weeks may not have been optimal. It is important to consider participant feedback relating to the regularity of Flash Briefings. Although we felt it necessary to provide new content daily so students could develop a listening routine, this regularity may have unintentionally created barriers for students requiring more flexibility to accommodate their busy schedules. Despite turning to Flash Briefings to improve accessibility, by making the routine a priority, we may have inadvertently restricted accessibility for students.

Still, the significant number of participants who reported listening to Flash Briefings at about the same time each day suggests many were starting to develop a listening habit. It may be advantageous for future instructors to utilize Flash Briefings to begin the semester with a listening expectation, which may be daily, weekly, or when announced. In doing so, students may more readily anticipate Flash Briefing engagement and develop a semester-long listening habit.

Of interest, the majority of participants listened to Flash Briefings while multitasking. This finding aligns with research demonstrating primary users of CAs access information while engaging in other activities (Alexa Developer Documentation, 2024a, b). Though significantly more students in the Special Education Law course listened to Flash Briefings on an Alexa Device as compared to students in the Educational Leadership course, this was likely a result of grant funding, which provided Alexa devices to interested Special Education Law students. Regardless, with many students indicating their use of phones to access Flash Briefings, owning an Alexa Device did not prevent participation, nor should it prevent the participation of future listeners or instructors looking to develop their own Flash Briefings.

Throughout this project, our research team extensively discussed adopting Flash Briefings and similar technology tools, such as podcasts, to compare advantages and disadvantages. Based on feedback indicating the preference of some students to access Flash Briefing material using different modalities, it is important to consider multiple ways to share this content, such as podcasts, LMS-hosted audio clips and Flash Briefing transcripts. Of importance, providing both audio and visual options will also ensure accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

While Flash Briefings show promise (Davie & Hilber, 2018), sustainable implementation may require archiving for anytime access and longer adoption periods to experience full benefits. Combining with complementary formats, like podcasts, could further enhance the learning experience and potentially increase personal desirability. Continued research relating to Flash Briefing regularity, timeline, listener engagement, mastery of content, and the impact on accessibility remains crucial to both understanding and optimizing this innovative technology. Additionally, future research may directly study the impact Flash Briefings have on the social connection in online asynchronous courses, as past research specific to podcasting has demonstrated the ability of podcasts to build relationships and personal connections between the listener and host (Chan-Olmsted & Wang, 2020).

Limitations

This study included a research team and graduate students at a relatively small public land-grant research university. Therefore, the results may not generalize to other settings. Additionally, while we successfully collected data from all participating researchers related to their experiences in creating and implementing Flash Briefings, and we collected data specific to the experiences of graduate students within two unique courses and programs, we were unable to garner feedback from residency teachers and mentors. Data specific to this population would likely have revealed unique perspectives worth considering. Consequently, future research may also explore the experiences of residency teachers and mentors as they relate to Flash Briefing engagement.

Other limitations include the self-reporting nature of the survey as the study does not provide additional research methods to verify the accuracy of participant reports. Additionally, with the CURP survey’s normed population of children and youth, questions utilized from this tool may impact results given our population of adults. Finally, despite collecting anonymous data, the relationship and power dynamics among university faculty and participants may have impacted reflections and ratings.

Conclusion

There is a critical need for educational research to better understand how student learning is mediated by emerging technologies (Oliveira et al., 2019). Despite acknowledged limitations, this study sheds light on the intriguing intersection of CA technology and learning. Through a novel intervention of employing Flash Briefings, our study explored the delivery of course/program content to university students, resident teachers and mentors. The findings provide a preliminary understanding of the efficacy of Flash Briefings at the university level, capturing the perceived benefits and challenges of participants. Furthermore, this work contributes valuable insights from which to refine the integration of Flash Briefings and similar technologies into higher education courses and programs. Of course, this exploration is just beginning, and there is a clear call for continued research in the realm of emerging technologies (Şerban & Todericiu, 2020; Terzopoulos & Satratzemi, 2020). Ongoing investigation is needed to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the evolving relationship between CAs, Flash Briefings and education, paving the way for innovation and continuous improvement.

Table 1

Number of study participants within participant groups

Group	Special Education Law students	Educational Leadership students	Research team
Number	10	13	4

Source(s): Authors' own work

Table 2

Response percentages and mean scores of perceived intervention feasibility, understanding, and personal desirability

Survey item	Group	Totally disagree	Somewhat disagree	Somewhat agree	Totally agree	Mean	Standard deviation
Feasibility
Downloading the Alexa app and enabling the course Flash Briefing was not too much work for me	SEL	77.78	22.22	0.00	0.00	3.78*	0.42
	EL	61.54	30.779	0.00	7.69	3.46*	0.84
Listening to the Flash Briefings every weekday was too much work for me	SEL	11.11	33.33	55.56	0.00	2.56*	0.68
	EL	23.08	46.15	30.77	0.00	2.93*	0.73
Listening to the Flash Briefings took too long to do	SEL	60.00	20.00	20.00	0.00	3.40*	0.80
	EL	46.15	46.15	7.69	0.00	3.38*	0.62
I felt like I had to listen to the Flash Briefings too often	SEL	20.00	40.00	20.00	20.00	2.60*	1.02
	EL	15.38	38.46	30.77	15.38	2.54*	0.93
Overall	SEL					3.09
	EL					3.08
Understanding
I understand why my instructor chose this methodology to present content	SEL	0.00	0.00	33.33	66.67	3.67	0.47
	EL	0.00	15.38	53.38	30.77	3.15	0.66
I was clear what I had to do to engage with the Flash Briefings	SEL	0.00	30.00	0.00	70.00	3.40	0.92
	EL	0.00	23.08	46.15	30.77	3.08	0.73
I was able to listen to over 75% of the Flash Briefings	SEL	0.00	20.00	20.00	60.00	3.40	0.80
	EL	15.38	23.08	15.38	46.15	2.92	1.14
Overall	SEL	–	–	–	–	3.49	–
	EL	–	–	–	–	3.05	–
Personal desirability
I could see myself using this methodology in another class	SEL	11.11	0.00	44.44	44.44	3.22	0.92
	EL	0.00	30.77	38.46	30.77	3.00	0.78
This is a good way to help students	SEL	10.00	10.00	40.00	40.00	3.10	0.94
	EL	0.00	23.08	61.54	15.38	2.92	0.62
I would not want to try this methodology in another class	SEL	30.00	60.00	0.00	10.00	3.10*	0.83
	EL	15.38	46.15	38.46	0.00	2.77*	0.70
If a colleague wanted to know content specific to the course, I would recommend they try this methodology	SEL	10.00	0.00	30.00	60.00	3.40	0.92
	EL	7.69	53.85	38.46	0.00	2.31	0.61
Overall		–	–	–	–	3.21	–
		–	–	–	–	2.75	–

Note(s): Mean range = 1–4. Prompts marked with an asterisk (*) indicate the Mean has been reverse coded. SEL = Special Education Law students. EL = Educational Leadership students

Source(s): Authors' own work

Table 3

Percentages and mean scores of participants reported listening habits

Survey item	Group	Never (%)	Sometimes (%)	Often (%)	Always (%)	NA (%)	Mean	Standard deviation
Although I own an Alexa Device, I primarily listen to course Flash Briefings on my phone	SEL	40.00	10.00	0.00	30.00	20.00	2.80	1.66
	EL	15.38	7.69	15.38	46.15	15.38	3.38	1.27
I listened primarily to the course Flash Briefings on my Alexa Device	SEL	30.00	0.00	20.00	30.00	20.00	3.10	1.51
	EL	53.85	15.38	7.69	15.38	7.69	2.08	1.38
I listened to the course Flash Briefings at about the same time every day	SEL	20.00	30.00	40.00	0.00	10.00	2.50	1.12
	EL	15.38	46.15	23.08	15.38	0.00	2.38	0.92
I found it difficult to incorporate the course Flash Briefings into my daily routine	SEL	10.00	40.00	10.00	30.00	10.00	2.33*	1.22
	EL	15.38	23.08	46.15	15.38	0.00	2.38*	0.92
I listened to the course Flash Briefings while doing other activities (e.g. getting ready in the morning, driving to work, cooking dinner, etc.)	SEL	30.00	0.00	30.00	30.00	10.00	2.90	1.37
	EL	15.38	15.38	30.77	38.46	0.00	2.92	1.07

Note(s): Mean range = 1–4. Prompts marked with an asterisk (*) indicate the Mean has been reverse coded. SEL = Special Education Law students. EL = Educational Leadership students

Source(s): Authors' own work

Appendix 1 Special Education Law non-scripted Flash Briefing transcript

Episode 13: reacting to Progress Monitoring Data

Welcome to Special Education and Disability Law. Today, I want to talk about reacting to Progress Monitoring Data. So yesterday, you may recall, I pointed out that we are responsible to create and provide an  individualized education program (IEP) that allows our students to make progress in light of their unique circumstances. Now, we cannot make a student make progress. We cannot force a student to progress, and this is why the word “allows” is so important. It emphasizes that while we cannot make a student make progress, we can offer the support and services necessary to “allow” them to make progress.

Now, that’s not to say that if students aren’t making progress, we can wash our hands of it and say, “Well, we created a program that would allow the student to make progress and they’re just choosing not to,” or “they are just incapable of making any progress.” We can’t do that, right? What we need to do, in situations when students are showing a lack of progress, is to make a change. There are multiple changes we might consider both as an educator and as an IEP team.

For example, maybe we need to consider the goal. Did we write this goal so that it is actually achievable? Were we too ambitious in believing that this student would be able to accomplish the goal within a year? Maybe that’s what needs to change.

Maybe we need to look at the services being provided in the IEP. Do we need to add a new service? Do we need to increase our service minutes? Do we need to push our services into the classroom rather than pulling the students out to receive them in a separate location? Do we need to change our instructional strategies?

Maybe we need to look at the accommodations being provided. Does the student have the accommodations in place to allow progress? Do we need to look at incorporating assistive technology? Do we need to change or update the assistive technology currently being utilized? Do we need to allow for additional time on tests? Do we need to provide additional support during core instruction?

As you can see, there are multiple areas we can review and consider when addressing a student’s lack of progress. Also, as you can see, I am not saying exactly what needs to be changed. What I am saying, and what is critically important, is that we change something, that we do not simply sit idle while our student is failing to make progress. We want to demonstrate that we are not only monitoring our student’s progress (or lack thereof) but when we see that our students are failing to make the progress we would expect based on their unique circumstances, we do something about it.

We have to show that we are active participants in our students’ education that we are monitoring our students’ progress, and we are making changes as the data indicates. We are reacting to the progress, or the lack of progress, that we are seeing from our students. Ultimately, while we cannot force a student to make progress, we can demonstrate that we are doing everything we can to allow them to make progress in light of their unique circumstances.

Appendix 2 Educational Leadership non-scripted Flash Briefing transcript

Episode 3: principal engagement in instructionally focused interactions

Welcome to Wyo-ConECT Leadership – where the University of Wyoming’s Educational Leadership Department is connecting with our graduate students around the state, the nation and the world.

Thank you for joining today’s Flash Briefing episode for EDAD 5040 – Leadership for Instruction. As part of our module on school improvement, this week’s Flash Briefings will focus on best practices for instruction and the role of the principal in supporting the school’s instructional program.

Yesterday’s Flash Briefing introduced the reports about school leadership commissioned by the Wallace Foundation in 2004 and 2021. Key findings from the 2021 report related to the role of the principal as an instructional leader were provided. The 2021 synthesis of the relevant research was also used to identify promising evidence of the skills and expertise that leaders need to be successful. It is no surprise that the first set of skills and expertise focuses on supporting and leading the school’s instructional program.

A key behavior of the school principal that produces positive school outcomes is engaging in instructionally focused interactions with teachers. Forms of engagement that center on instructional practice include teacher evaluation, instructional coaching, and the establishment of a data-driven school-wide instructional program through which instructionally focused interactions are facilitated.

Effective instructional leaders demonstrate strong knowledge of high-quality instruction. This expertise helps the principal to observe and evaluate teachers and classrooms in a constructive manner, offering responsive and actionable feedback to improve teaching and learning. The school principal needs to be able to distinguish high-quality from low-quality instructional practices and produce meaningful variation in observation ratings. The principal must possess the skills that allow them to provide effective, structured feedback to teachers with the goal of motivating them to refine and improve their instruction.

From an equity perspective, principals can also have an important impact on key populations, including low-income students and students and teachers of color. One way of making this type of impact might be through working with teachers to implement culturally responsive teaching practices.

Tomorrow’s Flash Briefing will provide information about culturally responsive education.

Thank you for listening to today’s Flash Briefing. Remember, if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.