Technological Innovations on the Horizon

  • David J. Shernoff
Part of the Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development book series (ARAD)


Increasingly, newer generations of students will be technologically savvy and consumer minded regarding how they obtain information. In this chapter, online learning, Audience Response Systems, educational video games, and other new immersive educational technologies are discussed from the perspective of engagement in learning. Online learning is an increasingly popular mode for educational delivery. While online learning has some advantages in terms of flexibility and autonomous learning, which typically support engagement in learning, relative absence of feedback, social cues, and other ways that students typically self-regulate learning can potentially undermine engagement. Research suggests that overall Audience Response Systems (ARSs), or clickers, enhance most students’ interest in the course, understanding, depth of processing, and thereby bolster achievement. There is also some evidence that students are engaged when using them, although it is difficult to conclude that students are engaged in more than a temporal way due to the nature of the available research. Certain video games skillfully employed within a broader curriculum can engage youth significantly more than traditional teaching approaches, as evidenced by Coller and colleague’s quasi-experimental research on a video game approach to mechanical engineering instruction using the experience sampling method. Overall, studies suggested that a video game approach can be effectively implemented into instruction to simulate real-world professional practice and foster optimal engagement. Results also suggested that students who took a game-based approach learned more and developed more competencies than students who took the same course using the traditional approach.


Video Game Intrinsic Motivation Online Learning Student Engagement Game Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, M., & Njus, D. (2007). Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty, I., Gerace, W. J., Leonar, W., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaty, L. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) Research Bulletin, 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunce, D. M., VandenPlas, J. R., & Havanki, K. L. (2006). Comparing the effectiveness on student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(3), 488–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns, R. A. (1985, May). Information impact and factors affecting recall. Paper presented at the Annual National Conference on Teaching Excellence and Conference Administrators, Austin.Google Scholar
  10. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 747–759. doi: 10.1002/acp.1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coller, B. D., & Shernoff, D. J. (2009). Video game-based education in mechanical engineering: A look at student engagement. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 308–317.Google Scholar
  13. Coller, B. D., Shernoff, D. J., & Strati, A. D. (2011). Measuring engagement as students learn Dynamic Systems & Control with a video game. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(3), 1–32.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (Perspectives in social psychology). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005, April). Students’ motivation and learning of science is a multi-user visual environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.Google Scholar
  17. d’Inverno, R., Davids, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22(4), 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Draper, S., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
  19. Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom resonse systems. New York: Addison Wesley and Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  20. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Washington, DC: Summit on Educational Games. on EducationalGames.pdf. Accessed 11 April 2013.
  21. Fischer, N., Kuhn, H. P., Zuechner, I., & Theis, D. (2011, August). Quality and dosage of extracurricular activities: Effects on motivational and social development. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter.Google Scholar
  22. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  23. Guthrie, R. W., & Carllin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. In Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Halloran, L. (1995). A comparison of two methods of teaching. Computer managed instruction and keypad questions versus traditional classroom lecture. Computers in Nursing, 13(6), 285–288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedley, N. R., Billinghurst, M., Postner, L., May, R., & Kato, H. (2002). Explorations in the use of augmented reality for geographic visualization. Presence; Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(2), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-­based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollenback, S. (2009). Technological innovations in the classroom related to student engagement (p. 17). DeKalb: Northern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  28. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students’ initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313–350.Google Scholar
  29. Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2005). The development of strategic thinking: Learning to impact human systems in a youth activism program. Human Development, 48, 327–349. doi: 10.1159/000088251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  32. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-time teaching in biology: Creating an active learner classroom using the internet. Cell Biology Education, 3, 49–61. doi: 10.1187/cbe.03-11-0022.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E., McNamara, A., & Adams, D. (2011, April). Is there an advantage to learning from narrative computer games? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  35. McGlynn, A. P. (2008). Millennials in college: How do we motivate them? Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 73(6), 19–22.Google Scholar
  36. Moher, T., Wiley, J., Jaeger, A., Lopez Silva, B., Novellis, F., & Kilb, D. (2010, June). Spatial and temporal embedding for science inquiry: An emperical study of student learning. In International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 826–833). Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Newman, R. S. (2002). How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: The role of adaptive help seeking. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 132–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Novak, G., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, D. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Plass, J. L., O’Keefe, B., Homer, B. D., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (2011, April). Motivational and educational outcomes associated with solo, competitive, and collaborative game play. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  40. Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reynolds, R., & Caperton, I. H. (2011). Contrasts in student engagement, meaning-making, dislikes, and challenges in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds, R., & Chiu, M. M. (2012, July). Contribution of motivational orientations to student outcomes in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Sydney.Google Scholar
  43. Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-­olds. Menlo Park: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in a social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commandments for a digital age. New York: OR Books.Google Scholar
  46. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merril Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Schweinle, A., & Helming, L. M. (2011). Social psychology of education. Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scoresby, J., & Shelton, B. E. (2007, April). Visual perspectives within educational computer games: Effects on presence and flow within virtual learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  50. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shernoff, D. J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow in schools: Cultivating engaged learners and optimal learning environments. In R. C. Gilman, E. S. Heubner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 131–145). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 187–208.Google Scholar
  53. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, B. K., & Reisner, B. J. (2005). Explaining behavior using video for observational inquiry and theory articulation. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 14(3), 315–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Squire, K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., & Durga, S. (2005). From users to designers: Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49(5), 34–43.Google Scholar
  56. Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Assessment, student confidence, and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 191–198.Google Scholar
  57. Thompson, H., & Vedantam, S. (2012). A lively mind: Your brain on jane austen. Accessed 17 Oct 2012.
  58. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Evaluation of evidence -based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.Google Scholar
  59. van Dijk, L. A., van den Ber, G. C., & van Keulen, H. (2001). Interactive lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wenger, E. (2003). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations. A practice-based approach (pp. 76–99). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Social, emotional, and personality development 6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 933–1002). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionaire. Presence; Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 267–295). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Shernoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations College of EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations