Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 301–304 | Cite as

Emerging Technologies for Learning Science: A Time of Rapid Advances

  • Chris Dede
  • Sasha Barab
Article

In February, 2007, we co-edited a special issue (Vol. 16, No. 1) that focused on technologies for learning science that are inquiry-based, leverage multiple media, and integrate game-design principles and scenarios to establish rich inquiry-based contexts for engaging scientific issues. Since that time, we have prepared a second special issue on emerging technologies, this time with a somewhat broader focus on new technology-based methods of learning science. As a field, we are in an era of very rapid advances in interactive media, and the seven articles in this issue span pedagogies based on Web 2.0 tools, immersive interfaces, and games.

The term Web 2.0 reflects a shift in leading-edge applications on the World Wide Web from the presentation of material by website providers to the active co-construction of resources by communities of contributors (Dede 2008a). Whereas the twentieth-century web centered on developer-created material (e.g., informational websites) generated primarily...

Keywords

Science Education Immersive Interface Teachable Agent Collaboration Script Science Education Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barab SA, Sadler TD, Heiselt C, Hickey D, Zuiker S (2007) Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Computing Research Association (2005) Cyberinfrastructure for education and learning for the future: a vision and research agenda. Computing Research Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Dede C (2008a) A seismic shift in epistemology. Educause Rev 43(3):80–81Google Scholar
  4. Dede C (2008b) Cyberinfrastructure and the evolution of higher education. Educause center for applied research research bulletin, issue 18. ECAR, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  5. Dede C (2009) Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323(5910):66–69. doi: 10.1126/science.1167311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R (2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18:7–22. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guzdial M, Kafai YB, Carroll JM, Fischer G, Schank R, Soloway E, Shneiderman B (1995) Learner-centered system design: HCI perspective for the future. proceedings of DIS95: designing Interactive systems: processes, practices, methods & techniques. ACM Press, New York, pp 143–147Google Scholar
  8. Hickey DT, Ingram-Goble AA, Jameson EM (2009) Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. J Sci Educ Technol 18:187–208. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9143-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klopfer E (2008) Augmented reality: research and design of mobile educational games. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. National Science Foundation Cyberinfrastructure Council (2007) NSF’s cyberinfrastructure vision for 21st century discovery. National Science Foundation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Squire KD, Jan M (2007) Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Steinkuehler C,  Duncan S (2008) Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. J Sci Educ Technol 17:540–543. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9120-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations