Advertisement

Maximizing the Affordances of Contemporary Technologies in Education: Promises and Possibilities

  • Olusola O. AdesopeEmail author
  • A. G. Rud
Chapter

Abstract

Rapid advances in contemporary educational technologies are reshaping how students learn around the globe. Today’s students are growing up in technology-rich environments that are contextually integrated into their daily lives. The field of educational technology is faced with conceptual, methodological, and practical challenges requiring immediate attention. In this chapter, we discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical developments as well as challenges with contemporary forms of educational technologies. We conclude with a focus on the road ahead that each chapter delineated. More specifically, we summarize where current trends lie to predict affordances of the technologies and how the technologies might be able to advance student engagement, motivation, and learning in the future.

Keywords

Affordance Educational technologies Engagement Motivation 

References

  1. Annetta, L. (2008). Serious educational games: From theory to practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An issue brief. U.S. Department of Education Report. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2012/03/edm-la-brief.pdf
  4. Bottou, L. (2014). From machine learning to machine reasoning: An essay. Machine Learning, 94, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadbent, D. E. (1956). Successive responses to simultaneous stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calders, T., & Pechenizkiy, M. (2012). Introduction to the special section on educational data mining. ACM SIGKDD Explorations, 13(2), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, A. S., Hundhausen, C. D., & Adesope, O. O. (2017). Blending measures of programming and social behavior into predictive models of student achievement in early computing courses. ACM Transactions in Computing Education, 17(3). Article 12, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2013). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), The handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 723–734). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “course”: Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dede, C. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in embedding diagnostic assessments into immersive interfaces. Educational Designer, 2(6), 1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Feng, M., Heffernan, N. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). User modeling and user-adapted interaction: Addressing the assessment challenge in an online system that tutors as it assesses. The Journal of Personalization Research, 19(3), 243–266.Google Scholar
  15. Graesser, A. C., Rus, V., D’Mello, S. K., & Jackson, G. T. (2008). AutoTutor: Learning through natural language dialogue that adapts to the cognitive and affective states of the learner. In D. H. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 95–125). Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Greenhow, C., Robelia, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guri-Rosenblit, S., & Gros, B. (2011). E-learning: Confusing terminology, research gaps and inherent challenges. Journal of Distance Education, 25, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamlen, K. R. (2011). Children’s choices and strategies in video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 532–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hundhausen, C. D., & Carter, A., & Adesope, O. O. (2015). Does social interaction predict learning outcomes? An empirical study in an early computing course. Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) Conference Proceedings. Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Kaufer, D., Gunawardena, A., Tan, A., & Cheek, A. (2011). Bringing social media to the writing classroom: Classroom Salon. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25(3), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinchla, R. A. (1974). Detecting target elements in multi-element arrays: A confusability model. Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kramer, S. R., & Benson, S. A. (2013). Changing faculty use of technology—One cohort at a time. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 5(2), 5–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, C. D. (2010). 2010 presidential address: Soaring above the clouds, delving the ocean’s depths: Understanding the ecologies of human learning and the challenge for education science. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 643–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analytic survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markauskaite, L. (2010). Digital media, technologies and scholarship: Some shapes of eResearch in educational inquiry. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(4), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, T., & Sherin, B. (2013). Learning analytics and computational techniques for detecting and evaluating patterns in learning: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 511–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, R., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A., Mislevy, J., & Hafter, A. (2014). Research on the use of Khan Academy in schools. Menlo Park: SRI Education.Google Scholar
  37. Myneni, S., Narayanan, N. H., Ruinfar, A., Rebello, S., & Puntambekar, S. (2013). An interactive and intelligent learning system for physics education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies Special Issue on Learning Systems for Science & Technology, 6(3), 228–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plass, J., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Reich, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2012). The state of Wiki usage in U.S. K-12 schools: Leveraging web 2.0 data warehouses to assess quality and equity in online learning environments. Educational Researcher, 41, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reigeluth, C. M. (2012). Instructional theory and technology for a post-industrial world. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 75–83). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  41. Rus, V., D’Mello, S. K., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Recent advances in intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 34, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Severin, W. J. (1967). Another look at cue summation. Audio Visual Communication Review.Google Scholar
  43. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
  44. Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Digital Education Review, 3, 27–37.Google Scholar
  45. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Waks, L. J. (2013). Education 2.0: The LearningWeb revolution and the transformation of the school. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Yarbro, J., Arfstrom, K. M. McKnight, K., & McKnight, P. (2014). Extension of a review of flipped learning. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Extension-of-FLipped-Learning-LIt-Review-June-2014.pdf
  48. Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations