Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:10:15.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 279 - 382
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Anderson, C., Dalsen, J., Kumar, V., Berland, M., & Steinkuehler, C. (2018). Failing up: How failure in a game environment promotes learning through discourse. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arena, D. A. (2012). Commercial video games as preparation for future learning. [Dissertation]. Stanford University, School of Education.Google Scholar
Baek, Y., Kim, B., & Park, H. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using metacognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800–810.Google Scholar
Barab, S., Arica, A., & Jackson, C. (2005). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design-based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 45(1), 15–21.Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.Google Scholar
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782.Google Scholar
Bartle, R. (2003). Designing virtual worlds. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.Google Scholar
Bebbington, S., & Vellino, A. (2015). Can playing Minecraft improve teenagers’ information literacy? Journal of Information Literacy, 9(2), 6–26. doi:10.11645/9.2.2029Google Scholar
Behrens, J. T., Mislevy, R. J., Bauer, M., Williamson, D. M., & Levy, R. (2004). Introduction to evidence centered design and lessons learned from its application in a global e-learning program. The International Journal of Testing, 4(4), 295–301.Google Scholar
Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 399–432.Google Scholar
Blanton, W. E., Moorman, G. B., Hayes, B. A., & Warner, M. W. (1997). Effects of participation in the Fifth Dimension on far transfer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(4), 371–396.Google Scholar
Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In Iran-Nejad, A. & Pearson, P. (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–101). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., & Thomas, D. (2006, January 4). You play World of Warcraft? You’re hired! Wired, 14(4). Retrieved from www.wired.com/2006/04/learn/Google Scholar
Charsky, D., & Mims, C. (2008). Integrating commercial off-the-shelf video games into school curriculums. Tech Trends, 52(5), 38–44.Google Scholar
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. doi:10.3102/0034654315582065Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided training methods. In Silber, K. H. & Foshay, R. (Eds.), Handbook of training and improving workplace performance: Vol. I. Instructional design and training delivery (pp. 263–297). Somerset, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, M. (2006). The Fifth Dimension: An after school program built on diversity. New York, NY: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.Google Scholar
Corredor, J., Gaydos, M., & Squire, K. (2014). Seeing change in time: Video games to teach about temporal change in scientific phenomena. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 324–343.Google Scholar
Dangauthier, P., Herbrich, R., Minka, T., & Graepel, T. (2008). TrueSkill through time: Revisiting the history of chess. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 931–938.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Well played. Pittsburgh, PA: Entertainment Technology Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D., & Lemarchand, R. (2012). Uncharted 2: Among Thieves – How to become a hero. In Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.), Games + Learning + Society (pp. 75–107). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deterding, S. (2013). Designing gamification: Creating gameful and playful experiences. SIG-CHI Workshop. Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin-Scherer, R., & Sardone, N. B. (2010). Digital simulation games for social studies classrooms. Clearing House, 83(4), 138–144.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. C. (2011, October 29). Minecraft, beyond construction and survival. Well Played, 1(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Eiben, C. B., Siegel, J. B., Bale, J. B., et al. (2012, January 22). Increased Diels-Alderase activity through backbone remodeling guided by Foldit players. Nature Biotechnology, 30(2), 190–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekaputra, G., Lim, C., & Eng, K. I. (2013, December). Minecraft: A game as an education and scientific learning tool. In The Information Systems International Conference (ISICO) 2013 (pp. 237–242). Retrieved from http://is.its.ac.id/pubs/oajis/index.php/home/detail/1219/Minecraft-A-Game-as-an-Education-and-Scientific-Learning-TooGoogle Scholar
Gaydos, M. (2013). Design-based research and video game based learning: Developing the educational video game “citizen science” [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Gee, J. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2010). Women and gaming: The Sims and 21st century learning. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, O. (2015, May). Mobile, location-based game design for teaching Jewish history: A design-based research study (Publication No. 3705255). [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, O. (2018). Time travel, labour history, and the null curriculum: New design knowledge for mobile augmented reality history games. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24(3), 287–299. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1325768Google Scholar
Gottlieb, O., Mathews, J., Schrier, K., & Sly, J. (2014). Mobile history games: Challenges, frameworks, and design principles. In Proceedings GLS 10 Games + Learning + Society Conference, Madison, WI (pp. 14–16). ETC.Google Scholar
Graf, D. L., Pratt, L. V., Hester, C. N., & Short, K. R. (2009). Playing active video games increases energy expenditure in children. Pediatrics, 124(2), 534–540.Google Scholar
Green, C., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action videogame modifies visual attention. Nature, 423(6939), 534–537.Google Scholar
Green, C. S., Pouget, A., & Bavelier, D. (2010). Improved probabilistic inference as a general mechanism for learning with action video games. Current Biology, 23(17), 1573–1579.Google Scholar
Griffin, L., Kim, S., Sigoloff, J., et al. (2016). Designing scientific argumentation into the Mission HydroSci game based learning curriculum. Paper presented at the 2016 Games + Learning + Society Conference, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Halverson, E. R. (2008). Fantasy baseball: The case for competitive fandom. Games and Culture, 3(3–4), 286–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halverson, R., Berland, M., & Owen, V. (2015). Games-based assessment. In Spector, J. M. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (Vol. 1, pp. 45–48). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Halverson, R., Owen, E., Wills, N., Shapiro, R. B. (2012, July). Game-based assessment: An integrating model for capturing learning in play. ERIA Working Paper.Google Scholar
Hammer, J., & Black, J. (2009). Games and (preparation for future) learning. Educational Technology, 49(2), 29–34.Google Scholar
Harris, A., Yuill, N., & Luckin, R. (2008). The influence of context-specific and dispositional achievement goals on children’s paired collaborative interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 355–374.Google Scholar
Hayes, E. (2008). Game content creation & IT proficiency. Computers & Education, 51(1), 97–108.Google Scholar
Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., & Jameson, E. (2009). Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 187–208.Google Scholar
Honey, M. A., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Horn, M. S., Banerjee, A., Davis, P., Stevens, R. (2017). Invasion of the Energy Monsters: A spooky game about saving. In Proceedings from the 12th Annual Games + Learning + Society Conference, Madison, WI. Entertainment Technology Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., Deterding, S., Kuhn, K. A., Staneva, A., Stoyanov, S., & Hides, L. (2016). Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Internet Interventions, 6, 89–106. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.002Google Scholar
Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B., & Dede, C. (2014). Learning in virtual worlds. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 522–542). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers & Education, 51(4), 1609–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In Ferdig, R. E. (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. 1, pp. 1–32). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward. Cambridge, MA: Education Arcade.Google Scholar
Leander, K., & Lovvorn, J. (2006). Literacy networks. Curriculum & Instruction, 24(3), 291–340.Google Scholar
Lee, J. K., & Probert, J. (2010). Civilization III and whole-class play in high school social studies. Journal of Social Studies Research, 34(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Levy, R., & Mislevy, R. J. (2004). Specifying and refining a measurement model for a simulation-based assessment. International Journal of Testing, 4(4), 333–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, B., Winter, V., Corritore, C., & Faimon, D. (2016). Creating an environment in which elementary educators can teach coding. In Proceedings of The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 643–648). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2930674.2936008Google Scholar
Magnussen, R., & Elming, A. (2015). Cities at play: Children’s redesign of deprived neighbourhoods in Minecraft. In Munkvold, R. & Kolås, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Games Based Learning: ECGBL 2015 (pp. 331–337). Reading, England: Academic Conferences and Publishing International. Academic Bookshop Proceedings Series.Google Scholar
Malkiewich, L. J., Lee, A., Slater, S., & Chase, C. C. (2017). Tenacious assessments using in-game behaviors to measure student persistence and challenge navigation. In Proceedings from the 12th Annual Games + Learning + Society Conference, Madison, WI. Entertainment Technology Press.Google Scholar
Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.Google Scholar
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomic model of intrinsic motivations for learning. In Snow, R. E. & Farr, M. J. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Blanton, W., Duran, R., & Schustack, M. (1999). Using new information technologies in the creation of sustainable afterschool literacy activities: Evaluation of cognitive outcomes. Final Report to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Quilici, J. H., Moreno, R., Duran, R., Woodbridge, S., & Simon, R. (1997). Cognitive consequences of participation in a Fifth Dimension after-school computer club. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 353–370.Google Scholar
Méndez, M. D. C. L., Arrieta, A. G., Dios, M. Q., Encinas, A. H., & Queiruga-Dios, A. (2016). Minecraft as a tool in the teaching-learning process of the fundamental elements of circulation in architecture. In International Joint Conference SOCO’16-CISIS’16-ICEU-TE’16 (pp. 728–735). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47364-2_7Google Scholar
Moshirnia, A., & Israel, M. (2010). The educational efficacy of distinct information delivery systems in modified video games. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(3), 383–405.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations (Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education, Honey, M. A. & Hilton, M. L., Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Google Scholar
Owen, V., & Baker, R. (2020). Fueling prediction of player decisions: Foundations of feature engineering for optimized behavior modeling in serious games. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(2), 225–250. doi:10.1007/s10758–018-9393-9Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010). Computerized games and simulations in computer-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis of research. Simulation & Gaming, 41(1), 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pusey, M., & Pusey, G. (2015). Using Minecraft in the science classroom. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 23(3), 22–34.Google Scholar
Puttick, G., Tucker-Raymond, E., & Barnes, J. (2017). Environmental attitudes in youth-created computer games about climate change. In Proceedings from the 12th Annual Games + Learning + Society Conference, Madison, WI (pp. 181–187). Entertainment Technology Press.Google Scholar
Reese, D. D. (2007). First steps and beyond: Serious games as preparation for future learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 283–300.Google Scholar
Ringland, K. E., Wolf, C. T., Faucett, H., Dombrowski, L., & Hayes, G. R. (2016). Will I always be not social?: Re-conceptualizing sociality in the context of a Minecraft community for autism. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1256–1269). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858038Google Scholar
Russoniello, C. V., O’Brien, K., & Parks, J. M. (2009). EEG, HRV and psychological correlates while playing Bejeweled II: A randomized controlled study. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 7, 189–192.Google Scholar
Sawyer, B. (2003). Monster gaming. Phoenix, AZ: Paraglyph.Google Scholar
Schoettler, S. (2012). Learning analytics: What could you do with five orders of magnitude more data about learning? Keynote address at the 2012 Strata conference, February 29, Santa Clara, CA.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J., & Becker, B. J. (2010). Innovative assessment for the 21st century. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Simkins, D., & Steinkuehler, C. (2008). Critical ethical reasoning & role-play. Games & Culture, 3(3–4), 333–355.Google Scholar
Simmons, E. C., Blanton, W. E., & Greene, M. W. (1999). The Fifth Dimension clearinghouse: One strategy for diffusing, implementing and sustaining core principles. In Price, J. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1135–1140). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.Google Scholar
Sousa, C., & Costa, C. (2018). Videogames as a learning tool: Is game-based learning more effective?. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 40, 199–210. doi:10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle40.13Google Scholar
Squire, K. D. (2005a). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6). Retrieved from www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=82Google Scholar
Squire, K. D. (2005b). Educating the fighter. On the Horizon, 13(2), 75–88.Google Scholar
Squire, K., & Barab, S. A. (2004). Replaying history. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 505–512). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Press.Google Scholar
Squire, K. D., DeVane, B., & Durga, S. (2008). Designing centers of expertise for academic learning through video games. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 240–251.Google Scholar
Squire, K. D., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., & Durga, S. (2005). From users to designers: Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment. Technology Trends, 49(5), 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statista. (2021). Market size of the video games industry in the United States from 2010 to 2021. Retrieved from www.statista.com/statistics/246892/value-of-the-video-game-market-in-the-us/Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online games: A critical approach [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 13(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. eLearning, 4(3), 297–318.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611–634). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. (2012). The mismeasure of boys: Reading and online videogames. In Kaminski, W. & Lorber, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of Game-Based Learning: Clash of Realities Conference (pp. 33–50). Munich, Germany: Kopaed Publishers.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. (2016). Video games, language and literacy. Keynote address to Cambridge Language University, Cambridge, England, April 26.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 17(6), 530–543.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thai, A., Lowenstein, D., Ching, D., & Rejeski, D. (2009). Game changer: Investing in digital play to advance children’s learning and health. New York, NY: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
Virk, S. S., Clark, D. B., & Sengupta, P. (2017). The design of disciplinarily-integrated games as multirepresentational systems. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 9(3), 67–95. doi:10.4018/IJGCMS.2017070103Google Scholar
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.Google Scholar
Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of in-class use of a video game for teaching high school history. Computers & Education, 56(2), 466–474.Google Scholar
Wernholm, M., & Vigmo, S. (2015). Capturing children’s knowledge-making dialogues in Minecraft. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(3), 230–246. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2015.1033392Google Scholar
Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265.Google Scholar
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(6), 772–775.Google Scholar
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., et al. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.Google Scholar

References

Abrahamson, D. (2009). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 27–47. Electronic supplementary material at http://edrl.berkeley.edu/publications/journals/ESM/Abrahamson-ESM/Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (2012). Mathematical Imagery Trainer – Proportion (MIT-P) iPhone/iPad application (Terasoft): iTunes. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/mathematical-imagery-trainer/id563185943Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: An elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (Chair & Organizer). (2018). Moving forward: In search of synergy across diverse views on the role of physical movement in design for STEM education [symposium]. In Kay, J. & Luckin, R. (Eds.), “Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count,” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2018) (Vol. 2, pp. 1243–1250). London, England: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (2019). A new world: Educational research on the sensorimotor roots of mathematical reasoning. In Shvarts, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Russian chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) & Yandex (pp. 48–68). Moscow, Russia: Yandex.Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., Flood, V. J., Miele, J. A., & Siu, Y.-T. (2019). Enactivism and ethnomethodological conversation analysis as tools for expanding Universal Design for Learning: The case of visually impaired mathematics students. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(2), 291–303. doi:10.1007/s11858-018-0998-1Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (2014). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(1), 79–93. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0521-7Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., Nathan, M. J., Williams-Pierce, C., et al. (2020). The future of embodied design for mathematics teaching and learning [Original research]. In Ramanathan, S. (Guest Ed.), Future of STEM education: Multiple perspectives from researchers [Special issue]. Frontiers in Education, 5(147). doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00147Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370Google Scholar
Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Bevans, A. (2013). Balancing justice: Exploring embodied metaphor and whole body interaction for an abstract domain. In England, D. & Bryan-Kinns, N. (Eds.), Whole body interaction [Special issue]. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(4), 388–409.Google Scholar
Bamberger, J., & diSessa, A. A. (2003). Music as embodied mathematics: A study of a mutually informing affinity. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(2), 123–160.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.Google Scholar
Becvar Weddle, L. A., & Hollan, J. D. (2010). Scaffolding embodied practices in professional education. Mind, Culture & Activity, 17(2), 119–148.Google Scholar
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.Google Scholar
Bernstein, N. A. (1996). On dexterity and its development. In Latash, M. L. & Turvey, M. T. (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 3–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–253.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1927).Google Scholar
Diénès, Z. P. (1971). An example of the passage from the concrete to the manipulation of formal systems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(3/4), 337–352.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2008). A note from the editor. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 427–429.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1999). The challenge of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodiment for cognitive science. In Weiss, G. & Haber, H. F. (Eds.), Perspectives on embodiment: The intersections of nature and culture (pp. 103–120). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duijzer, A. C. G., Shayan, S., Bakker, A., Van der Schaaf, M. F., & Abrahamson, D. (2017). Touchscreen tablets: Coordinating action and perception for mathematical cognition. In Tarasuik, J., Strouse, G., & Kaufman, J. (Eds.), Touchscreen tablets touching children’s lives [Special issue]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(144). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00144Google Scholar
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Flood, V. J. (2018). Multimodal revoicing as an interactional mechanism for connecting scientific and everyday concepts. Human Development, 61(3), 145–173. doi:10.1159/000488693Google Scholar
Flood, V. J., Amar, F. G., Nemirovsky, R., Harrer, B. W., Bruce, M. R., & Wittmann, M. C. (2015). Paying attention to gesture when students talk chemistry: Interactional resources for responsive teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 11–22.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 391–404.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 664–674.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2009). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 265–284.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 603–633.Google Scholar
Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (Eds.). (1994). The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. New York, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., Miyake, Y., & Binks, M. (1977). Performance of expert abacus operators. Cognition, 5, 47–55.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2011). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport, 7, 2325–2330.Google Scholar
Jasmin, K., & Casasanto, D. (2012). The QWERTY effect: How typing shapes the meanings of words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 499–504.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. In Marshall, P., Antle, A. N., Hoven, E. v.d., & Rogers, Y. (Eds.), The theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design (Special issue). ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 20(1), 3:1–30.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., Kuuti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 333–347.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. L. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., & Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.Google Scholar
Lindgren, R., Wallon, R. C., Brown, D. E., Mathayas, N., & Kimball, N. (2016). “Show me” what you mean: Learning and design implications of eliciting gesture in student explanations. In Looi, C.-K., Polman, J., Cress, U., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), “Transforming learning, empowering learners,” Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016) (pp. 1014–1017). Singapore: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind (Claremont, C. M., Trans.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. (Original work published 1949).Google Scholar
Nemirovsky, R., & Borba, M. C. (2004). PME Special Issue: Bodily activity and imagination in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 303–321.Google Scholar
Nemirovsky, R., Ferrara, F., Ferrari, G., & Adamuz-Povedano, N. (2020). Body motion, early algebra, and the colours of abstraction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104, 261–283. doi:10.1007/s10649–020-09955-2Google Scholar
Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 45–65.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1968). Genetic epistemology (Duckworth, E., Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (Weaver, H., Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published 1966).Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2010). Designing for mathematical abstraction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, W.-M. (2009). The emergence of 3D geometry from children’s (teacher-guided) classification tasks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 45–99.Google Scholar
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligences with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (Eds.). (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning (Special Issue). Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2 & 3).Google Scholar
Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2019). Dual-eye-tracking Vygotsky: A microgenetic account of a teaching/learning collaboration in an embodied-interaction technological tutorial for mathematics. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, 100316. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.05.003Google Scholar
Singer, M., Radinsky, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2008). The role of gesture in meaning construction. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 365–386.Google Scholar
Sklar, A. Y., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2012). Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(48), 19614–19619.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. P., Austin, A., & Schutte, A. R. (2012). Contributions of dynamic systems theory to cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 27(4), 401–418.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product experience. Design Studies, 26(4), 359–377.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (Silverman, R. H., Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC. (Original work published 1926).Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193–204). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

References

Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning. Presented at AERA 2011. Retrieved from https://edrl.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Abrahamson-et-al.AERA2011-EmbLearnSymp.pdfGoogle Scholar
Alexander, J., Barton, J., & Goeser, C. (2013). Transforming the art museum experience: Gallery One. The annual conference of Museums and the Web. Retrieved from https://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/transforming-the-art-museum-experience-gallery-one-2/Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers. New York, NY: Crown.Google Scholar
Antle, A. (2009). Embodied child-computer interaction: Why embodiment matters. ACM Interactions, (March/April), 27–30.Google Scholar
Antle, A. (2013). Research opportunities: Embodied child-computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 30–36.Google Scholar
Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interacting with Computers, 21(1–2) (January), 66–75.Google Scholar
Barbour, A. (1999). The impact of playground design on the play behaviors of children with differing levels of physical competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(1), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthouze, N., Kim, W. W., & Patel, D. (2007). Does body movement engage you more in digital game play? and why? In Paiva, A. C. R., Prada, R., & Picard, R. W. (Eds.), Affective computing and intelligent interaction (pp. 102–113). Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Buechley, L., & Perner-Wilson, H. (2012). Crafting technology: Reimagining the processes, materials, and cultures of electronics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 19(3), Article 21.Google Scholar
Carreras, A., & Pares, N. (2009). Designing an interactive installation for children to experience abstract concepts. In Macías, J. A., Saltiveri, A. G., & Latorre, P. M. (Eds.), New trends on human–computer interaction (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Casas, X., Herrera, G., Coma, I., & Fernández, M. (2012). A kinect-based augmented reality system for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. In GRAPP/IVAPP (pp. 440–446).Google Scholar
Castañer, M., Camerino, O., Pares, N., & Landry, P. (2011). Fostering body movement in children through an exertion interface as an educational tool. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 236–240.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1997). Being there. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, M., & Nishioka, A. (1997). Orihedra: Mathematical sculptures in paper. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 225–261.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1987). The mind’s new science. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gershenfeld, N. (2005). Fab. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grudin, J. (1990). The computer reaches out: The historical continuity of interface design. Proceedings of CHI’90, 261–268.Google Scholar
Hodgkins, P., Caine, M., Rothberg, S., Spencer, M., & Mallison, P. (2008). Design and testing of a novel interactive playground device. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 222(4), 559–564.Google Scholar
Hourcade, J. P. (2015). Child-computer interaction. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved from http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~hourcade/book/index.phpGoogle Scholar
Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse. New York, NY: Twelve.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), Article 3.Google Scholar
Kourakis, S., & Pares, N. (2012). We hunters: Interactive communication for young cavemen (Special Issue on Interaction Design and Children). International Journal of Arts and Technology, 5(2–3–4), 199–220.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Nuñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landry, P., & Pares, N. (2014). Controlling and modulating physical activity through interaction tempo in exergames: A quantitative empirical analysis. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 6(3), 277–294.Google Scholar
Moher, T., Wiley, J., Jaeger, A., Silva, B. L., & Novellis, F. (2010). Spatial and temporal embedding for science inquiry: An empirical study of student learning. Proceedings International Conference of the Learning Sciences. June, Chicago, 1, 826–833.Google Scholar
Mora, J., Pares, N., & Rodriguez, N. (2012). Analysis of an embodied interaction installation for museum to enhance learning of the nanoscale. In Workshop designing interactive technology for teens, NordiCHI 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Mora-Guiard, J., Crowell, C., Pares, N., & Heaton, P. (2017). Sparking social initiation behaviors in children with autism through full-body interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 11(4), 62–71.Google Scholar
Mueller, F., Agamanolis, S., & Picard, R. (2003). Exertion interfaces: Sports over a distance for social bonding and fun. Proceedings of CHI’03, 561–568.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Price, S., & Rogers, Y. (2004). Let’s get physical: The learning benefits of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces. Journal of Computers and Education, 15(2), 169–185.Google Scholar
Resnick, M., Martin, F. L., Berg, R., & Borovoy, R. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. Proceedings of CHI’98 (pp. 281–287).Google Scholar
Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Gabrielli, S., Harris, E., & Smith, H. (2002). A conceptual framework for mixed reality environments: Designing novel learning activities for young children. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(6), 677–686.Google Scholar
Roussos, M., Johnson, A., Moher, T., Leigh, J., Vasilakis, C., & Barnes, C. (1999). Learning and building together in an immersive virtual world. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 247–263.Google Scholar
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schaper, M. M., Iversen, O., Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2019). FUBImethod: Strategies to engage children in the co-design of full-body interactive experiences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies; 132, 52–69.Google Scholar
Schaper, M., Santos, M., Malinverni, L., Zerbini, J., & Pares, N. (2018). Learning about the past through situatedness, embodied exploration and digital augmentation of cultural heritage sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 114, 36–50.Google Scholar
Soler-Adillon, J., Ferrer, J., & Pares, N. (2009). A novel approach to interactive playgrounds: The interactive slide project. Proceedings of IDC 2009, 131–139.Google Scholar
Trudeau, R. (1987). The non-Euclidean revolution. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zaman, B., Abeele, V. V., Markopoulos, P., & Marshall, P. (2012). Editorial: The evolving field of tangible interaction for children: The challenge of empirical validation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 367–378.Google Scholar

References

Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of mediated discovery. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(1), 55–85.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.Google Scholar
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11.Google Scholar
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.Google Scholar
Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Baum, L. F. (1901). The master key: An electrical fairy tale founded upon the mysteries of electricity and the optimism of its devotees. It was written for boys, but others may read it. Indianapolis, IN: Bowen-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal learning analytics and education data mining: Using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 220–238. doi:10.18608/jla.2016.32.11Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557–569.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In Khine, M. S. & Saleh, I. M. (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 525–552). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_26Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Nussbaum, M., Dimitriadis, Y., & Roschelle, J. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In Spector, M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Falcão, T. P., & Price, S. (2009). What have you done! The role of “interference” in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 325–334.Google Scholar
Jetter, J., Eimecke, J., & Rese, A. (2018). Augmented reality tools for industrial applications: What are potential key performance indicators and who benefits? Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 18–33.Google Scholar
Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., et al. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers & Education, 68, 545–556. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.018Google Scholar
Kamarainen, A. M., Thompson, M., Metcalf, S. J., Grotzer, T. A., Tutwiler, M. S., & Dede, C. (2018). Prompting connections between content and context: Blending immersive virtual environments and augmented reality for environmental science learning. In Beck, D., Allison, C., Morgado, L., et al. (Eds.), Immersive learning research network (pp. 36–54). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93596-6_3Google Scholar
Kaufmann, H., Schmalstieg, D., & Wagner, M. (2000). Construct3D: A virtual reality application for mathematics and geometry education. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 263–276. doi:10.1023/A:1012049406877Google Scholar
Küçük, S., Kapakin, S., & Göktaş, Y. (2016). Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(5), 411–421. doi:10.1002/ase.1603Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindgren, R., & Moshell, J. M. (2011). Supporting children’s learning with body-based metaphors in a mixed reality environment. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 177–180.Google Scholar
Lukosch, S., Billinghurst, M., Alem, L., & Kiyokawa, K. (2015). Collaboration in augmented reality. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 24(6), 515–525.Google Scholar
Niantic Inc. (2016). Pokémon GO. https://pokemongolive.com/en/Google Scholar
Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533–1543. doi:10.1007/s00779–013-0747-yGoogle Scholar
Radu, I., Guzdial, K., & Avram, S. (2017). An observational coding scheme for detecting children's usability problems in augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 643–649).Google Scholar
Radu, I., & Schneider, B. (2019a). Impacts of augmented reality on collaborative physics learning, leadership, and knowledge imbalance. The 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 128–135.Google Scholar
Radu, I., & Schneider, B. (2019b). What can we learn from augmented reality (AR)? Benefits and drawbacks of AR for inquiry-based learning of physics. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300774Google Scholar
Radu, I., Xu, Y., & MacIntyre, B. (2013). Embodied metaphor elicitation through augmented-reality game design. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 412–414.Google Scholar
Sánchez, S. Á., Martín, L. D., Gimeno-González, M. Á., et al. (2016). Augmented reality sandbox: A platform for educative experiences. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, 599–602.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Tangible user interfaces and contrasting cases as a preparation for future learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(4), 369–384. doi:10.1007/s10956–018-9730-8Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Benefits of a tangible interface for collaborative learning and interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(3), 222–232. doi:10.1109/TLT.2010.36Google Scholar
Schneider, B., Sharma, K., Cuendet, S., Zufferey, G., Dillenbourg, P., & Pea, R. (2018). Leveraging mobile eye-trackers to capture joint visual attention in co-located collaborative learning groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 241–261.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.Google Scholar
Sutherland, I. E. (1968). A head-mounted three dimensional display. Proceedings of AFIPS 68, 757–764.Google Scholar
Tang, A., Owen, C., Biocca, F., & Mou, W. (2003). Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 73–80).Google Scholar
Weise, K. (2019, July 10). You’re hired. Now wear this headset to learn the job. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/microsoft-hololens-job-training.htmlGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, G., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). A tabletop learning environment for logistics assistants: Activating teachers. Proceedings of the Third IASTED International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, 37–42.Google Scholar

References

Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11.Google Scholar
Anastopoulou, A., Sharples, M., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., & Wright, M. (2012). Creating personal meaning through technology-supported science learning across formal and informal settings. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 251–273.Google Scholar
Barron, B., & Bell, P. (2015). Learning environments in and out of school. In Corno, L. & Anderman, E. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 337–350). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
BBC. (2019, October 22). Gardenwatch survey results. BBC Winterwatch blog. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/natureuk/entries/f421628e-c50b-44dd-996a-a53fd3740b42Google Scholar
Bevan, B., Bell, P., Stevens, R., & Razfar, A. (Eds.). (2013). LOST opportunities: Learning in out-of-school time. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Bo, G. (2005). MOBIlearn: Project final report. Retrieved December 1, 2012 from http://www.mobilearn.org/results/results.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Barron, B., Pea, R., et al. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In Evertson, C. M. & Weinstein, C. S. (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 17–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Chan, T.-W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., et al. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning Journal, 1(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
Claeys, M. (2001). Instrumentation of buildings to enhance student learning – A case study at Marquette University’s Discovery Learning Complex [Master’s theses (2009–)]. Paper 86. Retrieved from http://epublications.marquette.edu/theses_open/86Google Scholar
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modelling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500.Google Scholar
Collins, T., Mulholland, P., & Gaved, M. (2011). Scripting personal inquiry. In Littleton, K., Scanlon, E., & Sharples, M. (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp. 87–104). Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clement, J. (2020, January). Share of global mobile website traffic 2015–2019. Statistica. Retrieved April 15, 2020 from www.statista.com/statistics/277125/share-of-website-traffic-coming-from-mobile-devices/Google Scholar
Coughlan, T., Adams, A., Rogers, Y., & Davies, S.-J. (2011). Enabling live dialogic and collaborative learning between field and indoor contexts. In Proceedings of the 25th BCS Conference on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 88–98). Newcastle upon Tyne, England.Google Scholar
Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Berge, Z. L. & Muilenburg, L. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 3–14). Florence, KY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
de Jong, T., Van Joolingen, W. R., Giemza, A., Girault, I., Hoppe, U., Kindermann, J., & the SCY Team (2010). Learning by creating and exchanging objects: The SCY experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 909–921.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77–80.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., Jong, T., Lazonder, A., & Barnes, S. (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In Khine, M. S. & Saleh, I. M. (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 525–552). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Facer, K., Joiner, R., Stanton, D., Reid, J., Hull, R., & Kirk, D. (2004). Savannah: Mobile gaming and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 399–409.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (2016, July 14). Jerome Bruner (1915–2016): Psychologist who shaped ideas about perception, cognition and education. Nature, 535(7611), 232.Google Scholar
GSMA. (2014, October 3). Mobile for Development case study. BBC Janala. Retrieved from www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/resources/bbc-janala/Google Scholar
Gureckis, T. M., & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 464–481.Google Scholar
Healey, J., Nachman, L., Subramanian, S., Shahabdeen, J., & Morris, M. (2010). Out of the lab and into the fray: Towards modeling emotion in everyday life. Pervasive Computing, 156–173.Google Scholar
Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., & Scanlon, E. (Eds.). (2017). Citizen inquiry: Synthesizing science and inquiry learning. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Intel. (2013). Context Awareness Activity Recognition: Project. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/PIJy4Google Scholar
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., et al. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design [Report]. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
Kay, A. C. (1972, August). A personal computer for children of all ages. Proceedings of the ACM National Conference, 1(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives – the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203–228.Google Scholar
Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 135–148.Google Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2019). Mobile language learning innovation inspired by migrants. Journal of Learning for Development, 6(2). Retrieved from https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/349Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zheng, D. (2018). Self-directed use of mobile devices for language learning beyond the classroom. ReCALL, 30(3), 299–318.Google Scholar
Li, L., Zheng, Y., Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2005). A conceptual framework of computer-supported ubiquitous learning environments. International Journal of Advanced Technology for Learning, 2(4), 187–197.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, P. (2011). Design and evaluation of mobile games to support active and reflective learning outdoors [PhD Thesis]. University of Nottingham. Retrieved from http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2076/Google Scholar
Nasir, N. S., de Royston, M. M., Barron, B., et al. (2020). Learning pathways: How learning is culturally organized. In Nasir, N. S., Lee, C., Pea, R., & de Royston, M. M. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the cultural foundations of learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nasir, N. S., Lee, C., Pea, R., & de Royston, M. M. (Eds.). (2020). Routledge handbook of the cultural foundations of learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments (Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A., Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century (Pellegrino, J. W. & Hilton, M. L., Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers & Education, 52(1), 147–153.Google Scholar
Ogata, H., Miyata, M., & Yano, Y. (2010). JAMIOLAS2: Supporting Japanese mimetic words and onomatopoeia learning with wireless sensor networks for overseas students. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 4(4), 333–345.Google Scholar
Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2004). CLUE: Computer supported ubiquitous learning environment for language learning. IPSJ, 45(10), 2354–2363.Google Scholar
Panke, S. (2017, July 7). Crossover learning. AACE Review. Retrieved from www-dev.aace.org/review/crossover-learning/Google Scholar
Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), 639–663.Google Scholar
Pea, R., Milrad, M., Maldonado, H., Vogel, B., Kurti, A., & Spikol, D. (2012). Learning and technological designs for mobile science inquiry collaboratories. In Littleton, K., Scanlon, E., & Sharples, M. (Eds.), Orchestrating inquiry learning (pp. 105–127). Abingdon, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rogers, Y., Price, S., Fitzpatrick, G., et al. (2004). Ambient wood: Designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Interaction Design and Children: Building a community (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., Patton, C., Schank, P., et al. (2011). CSCL and innovation: In classrooms, with teachers, among school leaders, in schools of education. In Spada, H., Stahl, G., Miyake, N., & Law, N. (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 conference proceedings: Vol. III. Community events proceedings (pp. 1073–1080). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., Patton, C., & Tatar, D. (2007). Designing networked handheld devices to enhance school learning. Advances in Computers, 70, 1–60.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. D. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). The International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145–168.Google Scholar
Sawyer, K. (2019). The creative classroom: Innovative teaching for 21st-century learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., & Arena, D. (2013). Measuring what matters most: Choice-based assessment in the digital age. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & Education, 34, 177–193.Google Scholar
Sharples, M. (2002). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12(5/6), 504–520.Google Scholar
Shi, Z., Luo, G., & He, L. (2017). Mobile-assisted language learning using WeChat instant messaging. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 12(2), 16–26.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J., Harvery, M., Greenwood, R., et al. (2015). Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: A case study of iSpot. ZooKeys, 480, 125–146.Google Scholar
Sun, D., & Looi, C. K. (2017). Focusing a mobile science learning process: Difference in activity participation. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), Article 3.Google Scholar
Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Meek, J., & Lonsdale, P. (2009). Myartspace: Design and evaluation of support for learning with multimedia phones between classrooms and museums. Computers & Education, 53(2), 286–299.Google Scholar
Walsh, C. S., Shaheen, R., Power, T., Hedges, C., Katoon, M., & Mondol, S. (2012). Low-cost mobile phones for large scale teacher professional development in Bangladesh. In 11th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2012), October 15–18, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Wong, L.-H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E19–E23.Google Scholar
Wong, L.-H., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.Google Scholar
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42(3), 289–314.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×