Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Identification and evaluation of technology trends in K-12 education from 2011 to 2021

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educational technologies have captured the attention of researchers, policy makers, and parents. Each year, considerable effort and money are invested into new technologies, hoping to find the next effective learning tool. However, technology changes rapidly and little attention is paid to the changes after they occur. This paper provides an overall picture of the changing trends in educational technology by analyzing the Horizon Reports’ predictions of the most influential educational technologies from 2011 to 2021, identifying larger trends across these yearly predictions, and by using bibliometric analysis to evaluate the accuracy of the identified trends. The results suggest that mobile and analytics technologies trended consistently across the period, there was a trend towards maker technologies and games in the early part of the decade, and emerging technologies (e.g., VR, AI) are predicted to trend in the future. Overall, the specific technologies focused on by the HRs’ predictions and by educational researchers’ publications seem to coincide with the availability of consumer grade technologies, suggesting that the marketplace and technology industry is driving trends (cf., pedagogy or theory).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Data availability

Source data used for this study can be found on the authors’ website.

References

  • Anderson, P. L., Price, M., Edwards, S. M., Obasaju, M. A., Schmertz, S. K., Zimand, E., & Calamaras, M. R. (2013). Virtual reality exposure therapy for social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(5), 751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M.-T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53, 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artym, C., Carbonaro, M., & Boechler, P. (2016). Pre-service teachers designing and constructing “good digital games”. Australian Educational Computing, 31(1).

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, E. M. L. (2012). Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 370–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education (pp. 3371–3380). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers and Education, 94, 178–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byun, J., & Joung, E. (2018). Digital game-based learning for K–12 mathematics education: A meta-analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3–4), 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(8), 981–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, A. K., & Keenan, A. (2016). Are games a viable home numeracy practice? In B. Blevins-Knabe & A. M. B. Austin (Eds.), Early childhood mathematics skill development in the home environment (pp. 165–184). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, A. K., & McEwen, R. N. (2015). Do gestures matter? The implications of using touchscreen devices in mathematics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 40, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, A. K., & McEwen, R. (2017). Abilities and affordances: Factors influencing successful child-tablet interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65, 889–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, M. (2013). 3D printing for children: What to build next? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, D. P. (1996). Trends in educational technology 1995. Information Resources Publications.

  • Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. Basic Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, S., & Minshall, T. (2019). Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing, 25, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fourie, I., & Meyer, A. (2015). What to make of makerspaces. Library High Tech, 33, 519–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A., Becker, S. A., & Cummins, M. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017. The New Media Consortium.

  • Games, I. A. (2010). “Gamestar Mechanic”: Learning a designer mindset through communicational competence with the language of games. Learning, Media, and Technology, 35, 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, K., & Shin, J. (2014). A systematic way of identifying and forecasting technological reverse salients using QFD, bibliometrics, and trend impact analysis: A carbon nanotube biosensor case. Technovation, 34(9), 559–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harold A., Linstone Murray, Turoff (2011) Delphi: A brief look backward and forward. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78(9) 1712–1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2010). The publish or perish book. Tarma Software Research Pty Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615569721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Zhu, D., & Porter, A. L. (2014). Four dimensional science and technology planning: A new approach based on bibliometrics and technology roadmapping. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, A., & Makridou, E. (2018). Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2531–2544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, L., & Konradsen, F. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). NMC Horizon Report: 2011 K-12 Edition. The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karvounidis, T., Chimos, K., Bersimis, S., & Douligeris, C. (2018). Factors, issues and interdependencies in the incorporation of a Web 2.0 based learning environment in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9644-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of Virtual Reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 85–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, K., Ketamo, H., Koivisto, A., & Finn, E. (2014). Studying the user experience of a tablet based math game. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 4(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2014010104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2017). Big data, health informatics, and the future of cardiovascular medicine. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 69, 899–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 752–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: A review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Linke, B. S., Voet, H., Falk, B., Schmitt, R., & Lam, M. (2017). Cost, sustainability and surface roughness quality—A comprehensive analysis of products made with personal 3D printers. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 16, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y., & Lim, M. (2014). A look at research on mobile learning in K–12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 325–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loup, G., Serna, A., Iksal, S., & George, S. (2016) Immersion and persistence: Improving learners’ engagement in authentic learning situations. Vol. 9891 LNCS. In 11th European conference on technology enhanced learning, EC-TEL 2016 (pp. 410–415). Springer.

  • Loy, J. (2014). eLearning and eMaking: 3D printing blurring the digital and the physical. Education Sciences, 4, 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machin, S. J., McNally, S., & Silva, O. (2006). New technology in schools: Is there a payoff?

  • Madrigal, E., Prajapati, S., & Hernandez-Prera, J. C. (2016). Introducing a virtual reality experience in anatomic pathology education. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 146(4), 462–468. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqw133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnisalis, I., Demetriadis, S., & Karakostas, A. (2011). Adaptive and intelligent systems for collaborative learning support: A review of the field. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893–1906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S., López-Martín, A., Lopez-Rey, J., Cubillo, A., Moreno-Pulido, A., & Castro, M. (2018). Analysis of new technology trends in education: 2010–2015. IEEE Access, 6, 36840–36848. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2851748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, R., & Dubé, A. K. (2017). Understanding tablets from early childhood to adulthood: Encounters with touch technology. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, V. K., Calderon, S. H., & Tonelli, R. D. (2013). Big data and consumer financial information. Business Law Today, Nov, 1–4.

  • McLean, K. J. (2016). The implementation of bring your own device (BYOD) in primary [elementary] schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merino-Campos, C., & del Castillo Fernndez, H. (2016). The benefits of active video games for educational and physical activity approaches: A systematic review. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 5(2), 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moro, A., Boelman, E., Joanny, G., & Garcia, J. L. (2018). A bibliometric-based technique to identify emerging photovoltaic technologies in a comparative assessment with expert review. Renewable Energy, 123, 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morries, S. (2002). A visualization system for exploring document databases for technology forecasting. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 43(4), 841–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevski, E., & Siibak, A. (2016). The role of parents and parental mediation on 0–3-year olds’ digital play with smart devices: Estonian parents’ attitudes and practices. Early Years, 36(3), 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, M. J. (2001). Introductory concepts in information science. Information Processing & Management, 37(5), 764–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Internet access (indicator). Retrieved July 6, 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1787/69c2b997-en

  • Outhwaite, L. A., Gulliford, A., & Pitchford, N. J. (2017). Closing the gap: Efficacy of a tablet intervention to support the development of early mathematical skills in UK primary school.

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful idea. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010). Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning. Computers & Education, 54, 498–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Mayer, R. E., & Homer, B. D. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of game-based learning. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasheed, F., Onkar, P., & Narula, M. (2015). Immersive virtual reality to enhance the spatial awareness of students. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on human computer interaction, India.

  • Richey, E. C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the Field. TechTrends, 52(1), 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0108-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A., & Ely, D. P. (1997). The field of educational technology as reflected through its definitions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, A. (2019, October). Google is discontinuing the Daydream View VR headset, and the Pixel 4 won’t support Daydream. https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/15/20915609/google-pixel-4-no-daydream-support-view-vr-headset-discontinued

  • Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn: A content analysis of the iTunes App Store's Education Section. New York

  • Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), 86–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines: From the experimental study of learning come devices which arrange optimal conditions for self-instruction. Science, 128(3330), 969–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzer, B., Meyer-Brötz, F., Schiebel, E., & Brecht, L. (2015). Combining the scenario technique with bibliometrics for technology foresight: The case of personalized medicine. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 98, 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., & Stich, A. (2016). Intended and unintended consequences of educational technology on social inequality. TechTrends, 60(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0109-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, C., Chen, J., & Chen, Z. (2018). Impact of augmented reality on programming language learning: Efficiency and perception. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(2), 254–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toh, L. P. R., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.-W., Chen, I., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robotics in education and young children. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, H., Resch, G., Southwick, D., McEwen, R., Dubé, A. K., & Record, I. (2017). Using 3D printing to enhance understanding and engagement with young audiences: Lessons from workshops in a museum. Curator: the Museum Journal, 60(3), 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderlinde, R., Hermans, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). ICT research and school performance feedback: A perfect marriage? Educational Studies, 36(3), 341–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voivonta, T., & Avraamidou, L. (2018). Facebook: A potentially valuable educational tool? Educational Media International, 55(1), 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, J., Basham, J. D., Marino, M. T., & Rice, M. (2018). Reviewing research on mobile learning for students with and without disabilities in k-12 educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, W., Kim, S., Park, H., & Kang, J. (2015). A bibliometric method for measuring the degree of technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 95, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., SiTran, M., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312436980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, T., & Jo, I-H. (2014). Educational technology approach toward learning analytics: Relationship between student online behavior and learning performance in higher education. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (LAK '14), ACM, New York, NY (pp. 269–270).

  • Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015). Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom. TechTrends, 59(2), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0837-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Zhang, X., Jiang, S., Ordóñez de Pablos, P., & Sun, Y. (2018). Mapping the study of learning analytics in higher education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(10–11), 1142–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was used in support of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1Y2, Canada

    Adam Kenneth Dubé & Run Wen

Authors
  1. Adam Kenneth Dubé
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Run Wen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Kenneth Dubé.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no potential conflict of interest in the working being described here.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Systematic reviews for each technology cluster
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dubé, A.K., Wen, R. Identification and evaluation of technology trends in K-12 education from 2011 to 2021. Educ Inf Technol 27, 1929–1958 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10689-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10689-8

Keywords