Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to document how teachers and students describe and comprehend the ways in which participating in an augmented reality (AR) simulation aids or hinders teaching and learning. Like the multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) interface that underlies Internet games, AR is a good medium for immersive collaborative simulation, but has different strengths and limitations than MUVEs. Within a design-based research project, the researchers conducted multiple qualitative case studies across two middle schools (6th and 7th grade) and one high school (10th grade) in the northeastern United States to document the affordances and limitations of AR simulations from the student and teacher perspective. The researchers collected data through formal and informal interviews, direct observations, web site posts, and site documents. Teachers and students reported that the technology-mediated narrative and the interactive, situated, collaborative problem solving affordances of the AR simulation were highly engaging, especially among students who had previously presented behavioral and academic challenges for the teachers. However, while the AR simulation provided potentially transformative added value, it simultaneously presented unique technological, managerial, and cognitive challenges to teaching and learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert Shanker Institute (2005) From best research to what works: improving the teaching and learning of mathematics: a Forum. Albert Shanker Institute, Washington, D. C (May 5, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball DL, Cohen DK (1996) Reform by the book: what is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educ Res 25(9):6–8, 14

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):59–82. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9033-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown M (2002) Teaching by design: understanding the intersection between teacher practice and the design of curricular innovations. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University

  • Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid S (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiklin S, Lave J (1993) Understanding practice: perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn C, Malhotra B (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 82(2):175–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark RE (1983) Reconsidering research on learning from media. Rev Educ Res 53:445–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke J, Dede C (2007) MUVEs as a powerful means to study situated learning. In: Chinn CA, Erkens G, Putambekar S (eds) The 2007 computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2007. International Society for the Learning Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ, pp 141–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke J, Dede C, Ketelhut D, Nelson B, Bowman C (2006) A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educ Technol 46(3):27–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke J, Dede C, Dieterle E Emerging technologies for collaborative, mediated, immersive learning. In: Voogt J, Knezek G (eds) The international handbook of technology in primary and secondary education. Springer, New York (in press)

  • Cohen D (2001) A revolution in one classroom: the case of Mrs. Oublier. In: The Jossey-Bass reader on school reform. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 440–469

  • Dede C (2002) Vignettes about the future of learning technologies. In: 2020 visions: transforming education and training through advanced technologies. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, pp 18–25

  • Dede C (2005) Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 28(1):7–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieterle E, Dede C (2006) Building university faculty and student capacity to use wireless handheld devices for learning. In: van ‘t Hooft M (ed) Ubiquitous computing: invisible technology, visible impact. Erlbaum, Mahweh, NJ, pp 303–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieterle E, Dede C, Schrier KL (2007) “Neomillennial” learning styles propagated by wireless handheld devices. In: Lytras M, Naeve A (eds) Ubiquitous and pervasive knowledge and learning management: semantics, social networking and new media to their full potential. Idea Group, Inc, Hershey, PA, pp 35–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert P, Wenger E (1994) From school to work: an apprenticeship in institutional identity. Working papers on learning and identity, 1. Institute for Research on Learning, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Facer K (2004) Savannah: a futurelab prototype research report. Retrieved from the FutureLab website: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/savannah

  • Gado I, Ferguson R, Van’t Hooft M (2006) Using handheld-computers and probeware in a science methods course: preservice teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy. J Technol Teach Educ 14(3):501–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee JP (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno J (1998) The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. Am Psychol 53:5–26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin MM (1995) You can’t get there from here: situated learning, transfer, and map skills. Contemp Educ Psychol 20:65–87. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinecke WF, Milman NB, Washington LA, Blasi L (2001) New directions in the evaluation of the effectiveness of educational technology. Comput Schools 18(2/3):97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks CC (2001) Teaching causal reasoning through cognitive apprenticeship: what are results from situated learning? J Educ Res 94(5):302–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer E, Yoon S, Rivas L (2004) Comparative analysis of palm and wearable computers for participatory simulations. J Comput Assist Learn 20:347–359. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00094.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer E, Squire K Environmental detectives: the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educ Technol Res Dev (in press)

  • Lenhart A, Madden M (2007) Social networking websites and teens: an overview. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Means B, Haertel GD (2004) Using technology evaluation to enhance student learning. Teachers College Press, New York

  • Miles MB, Huberman MA (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Neulight N, Kafai YB, Kao L, Foley B, Galas C (2007) Children’s participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: making connections to natural infectious diseases. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):47–58. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9029-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar AS (1998) Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu Rev Psychol 49:345–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard J (2005) Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Rev Educ Res 75(2):211–246. doi:10.3102/00346543075002211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DF, Foehr UG, Rideout V (2005) Generation M: media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawada D, Piburn M, Judson E, Turley J, Falconer K, Benford R et al (2002) Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP). Sch Sci Math 102(6):245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire KD (2006) From content to context: videogames as designed experience. Educ Res 35(8):19–29. doi:10.3102/0013189X035008019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):5–29. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake R (1995) The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein MK, Remillard J, Smith MS (2007) How curriculum influences student learning. In: Lester Jr FK (ed) Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, vol 1. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp 319–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan K, van ‘t Hooft M, Kratcoski A, Unger D (2005) Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms. J Res Technol Educ 38(1):99–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Van’t Hooft M, Swan K, Cook D, Lin Y (2007) What is ubiquitous computing? In: van t Hooft M, Swan K (eds) Ubiquitous computing in education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University U. Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

    Matt Dunleavy

  2. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Chris Dede & Rebecca Mitchell

Authors
  1. Matt Dunleavy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Dede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matt Dunleavy.

Appendix A: Conceptual Framework

Appendix A: Conceptual Framework

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C. & Mitchell, R. Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18, 7–22 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation