Abstract
While justifications have been made for emerging technologies’ transformative potential in STEM education, the roadmap for their eventual implementation in schools is underexplored. To this end, we review research works in artificial intelligence (AI) and immersive technologies which have been applied to facilitate STEM learning. Through a systematic literature search, we identified 82 papers and analyzed them for three aspects—(1) types of emerging technologies used, (2) science education goals, and (3) implementation value. Our findings indicate that augmented reality and natural language processing are common technologies used to enhance students’ learning experiences. These technologies helped students build conceptual understanding as well as epistemic practices in science. On the other hand, mixed reality and computer vision were the least popular technologies, which may be indicative of the low maturity of these technologies. Of all the science education goals, social aspects were the least commonly tackled through emerging technologies. Moreover, 58.9% of technological applications transformed science teaching and learning through automated ways of providing individualized feedback to students involved in argumentation and reasoning activities. Finally, based on our findings, we derive three research agenda that we believe would further the eventual implementation of emerging technologies in schools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Data Availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
References
Ahalt, S., & Fecho, K. (2015). Ten emerging technologies for higher education. RENCI University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://doi.org/10.7921/G0PN93HQ
Allcoat, D., Hatchard, T., Azmat, F., Stansfield, K., Watson, D., & von Mühlenen, A. (2021). Education in the digital age: Learning experience in virtual and mixed realities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 795–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120985120
Bird, K. A., Castleman, B. L., Mabel, Z., & Song, Y. (2021). Bringing transparency to predictive analytics: a systematic comparison of predictive modeling methods in higher education. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211037630
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Cipresso, P., Giglioli, I. A. C., Raya, M. A., & Riva, G. (2018). The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: a network and cluster analysis of the literature. Front Psychol, 6(9), Article 2086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02086
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers and Education, 72, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.014
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649609526919
Gardner, H. (2006). How education changes: considerations of history, science, and values. In the Development and Education of the Mind (pp. 213–225). Routledge.
Haag, S., Maeve, C., & James, D. (1998). Management information systems for information age. Irwin McGraw-Hill USA.
Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modelling theory in science education. Kluwer Academic Press.
Hirschberg, J. & Manning, C. D. (2015). Advances in natural language processing. Science, 349(6245), 261–266. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24748572
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive Failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5
Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2015). Epistemic practices and science education. In Matthews, M. (Eds). History, philosophy and science teaching. (pp. 139–165). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1_5
Kelly, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Kenndy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.
Khan, A. I., & Al-Habsi, S. (2020). Machine learning in computer vision. Procedia Computer Science, 167, 1444–1451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.355
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2016). Introduction to technology-enabled learning. In L. Cameron (Ed.), Technology-enabled learning implementation handbook. Commonwealth of Learning.
Krusberg, Z. A. (2007). Emerging technologies in physics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9068-0
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, e1–e34.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: the three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020
Pelletier, K., McCormack, M., Reeves, M., Robert, J., & Arbino, N. (2022). 2022 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report. EDUCAUSE: Teaching and Learning Edition.
Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: moving from enhancement to transformation [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html. Accessed 24 Jun 2022.
Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.2190/4UJE-B6VW-A30N-MC
Roussel, P. A. (1984). Technological maturity proves a valid and important concept. Research Management, 27(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00345334.1984.11756815
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Open Court.
Sedlmeier, P. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, (pp. 7674–7678). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01618-1.
Spector, J. M. (2013). Emerging educational technologies and research directions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 21–30.
Ustun, A. B. (2021). The power of using emerging technologies in MOOCs: Accelerating globalization in higher education. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 6(2), 141–148.
Veletsianos, G. (2010). Emerging technology in distance education. Athabasca University.
Xu, W., & Ouyang, F. (2022). The application of AI technologies in STEM education: a systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(59), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chng, E., Tan, A.L. & Tan, S.C. Examining the Use of Emerging Technologies in Schools: a Review of Artificial Intelligence and Immersive Technologies in STEM Education. Journal for STEM Educ Res 6, 385–407 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00092-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00092-y