Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- 14 Video Games and Learning
- 15 Embodiment and Embodied Design
- 16 Tangible and Full-Body Interfaces in Learning
- 17 Augmented Reality in the Learning Sciences
- 18 Mobile Learning
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
17 - Augmented Reality in the Learning Sciences
from Part III - Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- 14 Video Games and Learning
- 15 Embodiment and Embodied Design
- 16 Tangible and Full-Body Interfaces in Learning
- 17 Augmented Reality in the Learning Sciences
- 18 Mobile Learning
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
Augmented reality (AR) combines digitally generated 3D content with real-world objects that users are looking at. The “virtual” computer-generated 3D content is overlaid on a view of the real world through a specialized display. All augmented reality technologies involve some form of display technology that combines real and virtual content – including headset devices, camera-enabled smartphones and tablets, computer-based webcams, and projectors displaying interactive images on a physical surface. These technologies support real-time tracking of hands, 3D objects, and bodies as they push on or touch virtual objects. This enables a more-natural interaction between the learner and the virtual content. AR technologies support learning by allowing learners to interact with 3D representations; they enable embedded assessments; they support groups of learners engaging with shared virtual objects; and they tap into a child’s natural inclination to play and experiment by moving around and touching and manipulating objects.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 340 - 361Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.2013.02.018CrossRefGoogle 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_3CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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-yCrossRefGoogle 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:10.1145/3290605.3300774CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 1
- Cited by