New technologies are providing opportunities to guide and enhance learning that were unimagined even a few years ago. The promise of technology to help turn the tide on the declining effectiveness of the U.S. educational system has led to a swell of policies: placing technologies in our schools, mandates to use these technologies, and funding research on technology-enabled learning environments. This article reviews the impact of these endeavors, focusing on what is known about the use of contemporary technologies (i.e., digital games, social media, Massively Open Online Courses [MOOCs], and augmented reality) as tools for learners. While not comprehensive, the aggregate findings offer a means to stimulate dialogue on how we can alter our conception of formal education in the United States, as well as additional research and policy implications to support instantiation of new conceptions.
AndujarJ. M.MejíasA.MarquezM. A. (2011). Augmented reality for the improvement of remote laboratories: An augmented remote laboratory. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 54, 492-500.
3.
ArgottiY.DavisL.OuttersV.RollandJ. P. (2002). Dynamic superimposition of synthetic objects on rigid and simple-deformable real objects. Computers & Graphics, 26, 919-930. doi:10.1016/S0097-8493(02)00180-2
4.
AvilesM.EastmanJ. K. (2012). Utilizing technology effectively to improve millennials’ educational performance. Journal of International Education in Business, 5, 96-113.
5.
AzumaR. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6, 355-385.
6.
BaekY. K. (2008). What hinders teachers in using computer and video games in the classroom? Exploring factors inhibiting the uptake of computer and video games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 665-671.
7.
BeckenhamA. (2008). Face off online: Pedagogy and engagement in social network sites. Canberra, Australia: University of Canberra.
8.
BlakeM. B.Butcher-GreenJ. D. (2009). Agent-customized training for human learning performance enhancement. Computers & Education, 53, 966-976. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.014
9.
BowmanR. (1982). A “Pac-Man” theory of motivation: Tactical implications for classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 22(9), 14-16.
10.
BransfordJ.BrownA. L.CockingR. R., U.S. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
ChengK. H.TsaiC. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 449-462.
12.
ClaràM.BarberàE. (2013). Learning online: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34, 129-136.
13.
ClowD. (2013, April). MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 185-189). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
DayE. A.ArthurW.GettmanD. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1022-1033.
16.
Di SerioA.IbáñezM. B.KloosC. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586-596.
17.
DunleavyM.DedeC. (2013). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In SpectorJ. M.MerrillM. D.ElenJ.BishopM. J. (Eds.), The handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 735-745). New York: Springer.
18.
DynarskiM.AgodiniR.HeavisideS.NovakT.CareyN.CampuzanoL. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.
EllisonN. (2008). Social networking sites. Students and Information Technology, Study, 8, 81-98.
20.
El SayedN. A. M.ZayedH. H.SharawyM. I. (2011). ARSC: Augmented reality student card—An augmented reality solution for the education field. Computers & Education, 56, 1045-1061.
21.
EurschA. (2007, October). Increased safety for manual tasks in the field of nuclear science using the technology of augmented reality. In Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2007 (NSS’07, IEEE, Vol. 3, pp. 2053-2059). Honolulu, HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
22.
GeeJ. P. (2009). Deep learning properties of good digital games: How far can they go? In RitterfeldU.CodyM.VordererP. (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 67-82). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
GentileD. A.LynchP. J.LinderJ. R.WalshD. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5-22.
24.
GirardC.EcalleJ.MagnanA. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 207-219.
25.
GrayL.ThomasN.LewisL. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (First Look, NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
26.
GreeneJ. A.OswaldC. A.PomerantzJ. (2015). Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 925-955.
27.
GreenfieldP. M.BrannonC.LohrD. (1994). Two-dimensional representation of movement through three-dimensional space: The role of video game expertise. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 87-103.
28.
HalversonR.SmithA. (2009). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 49-54.
29.
HewK. F.CheungW. S. (2013). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47-64.
KafaiY. B. (1996). Electronic play worlds: Gender differences in children’s construction of video games. In KafaiY.ResnickM. (Eds.), Constructivism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 97-123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
KaufmannH.SchmalstiegD. (2003). Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 27, 339-345.
33.
KeF. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In FerdigR. E. (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (vol. 1, pp. 1-32). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
34.
KerawallaL.LuckinR.SeljeflotS.WoolardA. (2006). “Making it real”: Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, 10, 163-174.
35.
KleinJ. I.RiceC. (2014). U.S. education reform and national security (No. 68). New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations.
36.
KlopferE.SquireK. (2008). Environmental detectives: The development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 203-228. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6
37.
KozmaR. B. (2011). ICT, education transformation, and economic development: An analysis of the U.S. National Educational Technology Plan. e-Learning and Digital Media, 8, 106-120.
38.
KutnerL. A.OlsonC. K.WarnerD. E.HertzogS. M. (2008). Parents’ and sons’ perspectives on video game play: A qualitative study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 76-96.
39.
LawlessK. A.PellegrinoJ. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575-614.
LenhartA.KahneJ.MiddaughE.MacgillA. R.EvansC.VitakJ. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
42.
LinH. C. K.HsiehM. C.WangC. H.SieZ. Y.ChangS. H. (2011). Establishment and usability evaluation of an interactive AR learning system on conservation of fish. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 181-187.
43.
LiyanagunawardenaT. R.AdamsA. A.WilliamsS. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14, 202-227.
44.
MaloufD. B. (1987). The effect of instructional computer games on continuing student motivation. The Journal of Special Education, 21(4), 27-38.
45.
ManeA. M.AdamsJ. A.DonchinE. (1989). Adaptive and part: Whole training in the acquisition of a complex perceptual-motor skill. Acta Psychologica, 71, 179-196.
46.
MartensR. L.GulikersJ.BastiaensT. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 368-376.
47.
Martin-GutierrezJ.Luıs SaorınJ.ConteroM.AlcanizM.Perez-LopezD. C.OrtegaM. (2010). Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students. Computer Graphics, 34, 77-91.
MeansB. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 285-307.
52.
MillarA.NavarickD. J. (1984). Self-control and choice in humans: Effects of video game playing as a positive reinforcer. Learning and Motivation, 15, 203-218.
53.
MoranM.SeamanJ.Tinti-KaneH. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher education faculty use social media for work and for play. New York, NY: Pearson Learning Solutions. Accessed June 20, 2011. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/pearsonstudy.
54.
MouzaC.LavigneN. C. (2013). Introduction to emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective. In MouzaC.LavigneN. (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Springer.
55.
NunezM.QuirosR.NunezI.CardaJ. B.CamahortE. (2008, July22-24). Collaborative augmented reality for inorganic chemistry education. In MauriJ.ZaharimA.KolyshkinA.HatziprokopiouM.LazakidouA.KalogiannakisM.SiassiakosK.BardisN. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Engineering Education (pp. 271-277). Stevens Point, WI: World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS).
56.
O’BrienD.LawlessK.SchraderP. (2011). A taxonomy of educational games. In Information Resources Management Association (Eds.), Gaming and simulations: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications (pp. 1-23). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-195-9.ch101
57.
Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology Plan 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
58.
PellegrinoJ. W.GoldmanS. R.BertenthalM.LawlessK. (2007). Teacher education and technology: Initial results from the “what works and why” project. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2), 52-86.
59.
PellegrinoJ. W.HiltonM. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Research Academy.
RielJ.LawlessK. A. (in press). Developments in MOOC Technologies and Participation Since 2012. In Khosrow-PourM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (4th ed.). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
62.
SalgueroR. A.MoranR. M. (2002). Measuring problem video game playing in adolescents. Addiction, 97, 1601-1606.
63.
SchraderP. G.LawlessK. A. (2010). The hidden literacies of massively multiplayer online games. In PullenD.GitsakiC.BaguleyM. (Eds.), Technoliteracy, discourse, and social practice: Frameworks and applications in the digital age (pp. 200-219). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
64.
SchraderP. G.LawlessK. A.McCreeryM. (2009). Intertextuality in massively multiplayer online games. In FerdigR. E. (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. III, pp. 791-807). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
65.
SchraderP. G.McCreeryM. (2007). The acquisition of skill and expertise in massively multiplayer online games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 557-574.
66.
ShapiroL. A. S.MargolinG. (2014). Growing up wired: Social networking sites and adolescent psychosocial development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17, 1-18.
67.
SheltonB.StevensR. (2004, June). Using coordination classes to interpret conceptual change in astronomical thinking. In KafaiY.SandovalW.EnyedyN.NixonA.HerreraF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference for the Learning Sciences (pp. 634-634). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68.
SquireK. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29.
69.
SquireK.KlopferE. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 371-413. doi:10.1080/10508400701413435
70.
SteinkuehlerC.WilliamsD. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as “third places.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 26.
71.
SubrahmanyamK.GreenfieldP. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 13-32.
72.
SuhrK. A.HernandezD. A.GrimesD.WarschauerM. (2010). Laptops and fourth grade literacy: Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(5). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1610/
73.
TerrasM. M.RamsayJ. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Insights and challenges from a psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 472-487. doi:10.1111/bjet.12274
74.
TessP. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual): A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 60-68.
75.
ThomasM. K. (in press). Globalization, ironic binaries, and instructional technology: Toward the emergence of a robust critical theory of technology. In BensonA.JosephR.MooreJ. L. (Eds.), Culture, learning and technology: Research and practice. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
76.
VoornR. J.KommersP. (2013). Social media and higher education: Introversion and collaborative learning from the student’s perspective. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 59-71.
77.
WaksL. J. (2011). Transforming American Education: Revolution or counter-revolution?e-Learning and Digital Media, 8, 145-153.
78.
WarschauerM. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
79.
WarschauerM.KnobelM.StoneL. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18, 562-588.
80.
WarschauerM.MatuchniakT. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 179-225.
81.
WebberR.RitterfeldU.MathiakK. (2006). Does playing violent video games induce aggression? Empirical evidence of a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Media Psychology, 8, 39-60.
82.
WoutersP.van NimwegenC.van OostendorpH.van der SpekE. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249-265.
83.
WuH. K.LeeS. W. Y.ChangH. Y.LiangJ. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49.
84.
YoungM.SchraderP. G.ZhengD. (2006) MMOGs as learning environments: An ecological journey into Quest Atlantis and The Sims Online. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(4), Article 2. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol2/iss4/2
85.
YoungM. F.SlotaS.CutterA. B.JaletteG.MullinG.LaiB.YukhymenkoM. (2012). Our princess is in another castle a review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82, 61-89.
86.
ZhaoY. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
