Making the invisible observable by Augmented Reality in informal science education context

References

• Alberts, B. (2009). Making a science of education. Science, 323(5910), 15. doi:10.1126/science.1169941
   Google Scholar
• Andújar, J. M., Mejías, A., & Márquez, M. A. (2011). Augmented reality for the improvement of remote laboratories: An augmented remote laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(3), 492–500. doi: 10.1109/TE.2010.2085047
   Google Scholar
• Antonioli, M., Blake, C., & Sparks, K. (2014). Augmented reality applications in education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 40(2), 96–107. doi: 10.21061/jots.v40i2.a.4
   Google Scholar
• Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. doi: 10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
   Google Scholar
• Bacca, J., Baldris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Education Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149.
   Google Scholar
• Balling, J., & Falk, J. (1980). A perspective on field trips: Environmental effects on learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 23(4), 229–240. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.1980.tb01672.x
   Google Scholar
• Bilek, M., Zemanova, M., & Turcani, M. (2007). ICT for the workday activity of chemistry teachers in the Czech Republic (pp. 29–32). In Information & Communication Technology in Science Education 2007/Proceedings of international scientific practical conference, Siauliai.
   Google Scholar
• Bower, M., Howe, K., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education – Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/09523987.2014.889400
   Google Scholar
• Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2007). What does out-of-school learning offer school science? The Science Education Review, 6, 35–37.
   Google Scholar
• Buchholz, H., & Brosda, C. (2012). Melting interfaces – Learning in mixed realities a retrospective on transitional objects (pp. 69–80). Proceedings of the EDEN 2011 ‘science center to go’ workshops. Athens: Ellinogermaniki Agogi. ISBN 978-960-473-328-6. www.sctg.eu/materials/sctgo_proceedings_low.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chiang, T.-H.-C., Yang, S.-J.-H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations I natural science inquiry activities. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352–365.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed., p. 174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers (p. 272). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, T., Boyle, E., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59, 661–686. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Dede, C., & Barab, S. (2009). Emerging technologies for learning science: A time of rapid advances. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 301–304. doi: 10.1007/s10956-009-9172-4
   Google Scholar
• Durik, A. M., Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How personal interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 597–610. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.597
   Google Scholar
• Echeverría, A., Gil, F., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Classroom Augmented Reality games: A model for the creation of immersive collaborative games in the classroom. Retrieved April 2016 in www.ceppe.cl/images/stories/articulos/tic/2.2-Nussbaum-Classroom-Augmented-Reality-Games-A-model-for-the-creation-of-immersive-collaborative-games-in-the-classroom.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (1992). The museum experience. Washington DC: Whalesbak Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, H. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments. Board of Science education, Centre of education, Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freitas, R., & Campos, P. (2008). SMART: A system of Augmented Reality for teaching 2nd grade students (pp. 27–30). In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: Culture, creativity, interaction, Vol. 2. Swinton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Gargalakos, M., Rogalas, D., Lazoudis, A., & Sotiriou, S. (2012). The exploar project: Visualizing the invisible (pp. 57–68). Proceedings of the EDEN 2011 ‘science center to go’ workshops. Athens: Ellinogermaniki Agogi. ISBN 978-960-473-328-6. Retrieved from www.sctg.eu/materials/sctgo_proceedings_low.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Giallouri, E., Lazuodis, A., & Sotiriou, S. (2012). Assessing the impact of the science center to go system on understanding of quantum interpretation of the double slit experiment. In Proceedings of the EDEN 2011 ‘science center to go’ workshops (pp. 41–46). Athens: Ellinogermaniki Agogi. ISBN 978-960-473-328-6. Retrieved from www.sctg.eu/materials/sctgo_proceedings_low.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lazoudis, A., Sotiriou, S., & Salmi, H. (2012). Science center to go: Guide of good practice. (p. (p. 212). Athens, Greece: Ellinogermaniki Agogi. Retrieved from http://www.sctg.eu/materials/SCTGO_GoGP-low.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Haller, M., Billinghurst, M., & Thomas, B. (2007). Emerging technologies of augmented reality: Interfaces and design ( 399 p). New York, NY: Idea Group.
   Google Scholar
• Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
   Google Scholar
• Hsiao, K., Chen, N., & Huang, S. (2012). Learning while exercising for science education in augmented reality among adolescents. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(4), 331–349. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2010.486682
   Google Scholar
• Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M., & Dede, C. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers & Education, 68, 545–556. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.018
   Google Scholar
• Lamanauskas, V., & Vilkonis, R. (2007). Information communication technologies in natural science education: Situational analysis and prospects in baltic countries. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(2), 35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, Y., & Bogner, F. (2012). Evaluation of a portable and interactive AR learning system by teachers and students: Augmented reality in education. Proceedings of the EDEN 2011 ‘science center to go’ workshops (pp. 47–56). Athens: Ellinogermaniki Agogi. ISBN 978-960-473-328-6. Retrieved from www.sctg.eu/materials/sctgo_proceedings_low.pdf
   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(2), 1893–1906. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003
   Google Scholar
• Mattila, A. (2001). Seeing things in a new light: Reframing in therapeutic conversation. Helsinki: Rehabilitation Foundation, Research Reports 67/2001
   Google Scholar
• Milgram, P., & Kishino, A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.
   Google Scholar
• Nincarean, D., Bilal Alia, M., Halim, N., & Rahman, M. (2013). Mobile augmented reality: The potential for education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 657–664. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.385
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe. London: Nuffield Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Osgood, C. E. (1964). Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. American Anthropologist, 66(3), 171–200. doi: 10.1525/aa.1964.66.3.02a00880
   Google Scholar
• Owen, M., Owen, S., Barajas, M., & Trifonova, A. (2012). Pedagogical issues and questions from Augmented Reality: Augmented reality in Education (pp. 13–30). Proceedings of the EDEN 2011 ‘science center to go’ workshops. Athens: Ellinogermaniki Agogi. ISBN 978-960-473-328-6. www.sctg.eu/materials/sctgo_proceedings_low.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Radu, J. (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-y
   Google Scholar
• Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. (2000). Section 3. Standard progressive matrices, 2000 edition. Oxford: Elsfield Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. (2003). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford: OPP.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, L. (2014). Learning science outside of school. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (vol. II, pp. 120–144). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Renninger, K. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harakiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp. 373–404). Sand Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renninger, K.A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualisation, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587723
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, E., Klopfer, E., & Perry, J. (2007). On location learning: Authentic applied science with networked augmented realities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 31–45. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9036-0
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R., & Connell, J. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalisation: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, H. (2003). Science centres as learning laboratories: Experiences of Heureka, the Finnish science centre. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(5), 460–476. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2003.003113
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, H. (2011). Evidence of bridging the gap between formal and informal learning through teacher education. Reflecting Education, 8(2), 45–61.
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, H. (2012). Augmented reality in education. Proceedings of the ‘science center to go’ workshops. Athens: Ellinogermaniki Agogi. ISBN 978-960-473-328-6. www.sctg.eu/materials/sctgo_proceedings_low.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, H., Kaasinen, A., & Kallunki, V. (2012). Towards an open learning environment via Augmented Reality (AR): Visualising the invisible in science centres and schools for teacher education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 284–295. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.565
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, H., Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. (2010). Visualising the invisible in science centres and science museums: Augmented Reality (AR) technology application and science teaching. In N. Karacapilidis (Ed.), Web-based learning solutions for communities of practice: Developing virtual environments for social and pedagogical advancement (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Information Science Reference. Hershey. ISBN 978-1-60566-711-9.
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, H., Thuneberg, H., & Vainikainen, M.-P. (2016). How do engineering attitudes vary by gender and motivation? Attractiveness of outreach science exhibition in four countries. European Journal of Engineering Education, 18(1), 2–22. doi:10.1080/03043797.2015.1121466
   Google Scholar
• Salmi, H., Vainikainen, M-P., & Thuneberg, H. (2015) Mathematical thinking skills, self-concept and learning outcomes of 12-year-olds visiting a mathematics science centre exhibition in Latvia and Sweden. Journal of Science Communication, 14(4), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• TanWee Hin, L. & Subramaniam, R. (2003). Science and technology centres as agents for promoting science culture in developing nations. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(5), 413–426. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2003.003110
   Google Scholar
• Vainikainen, M-P., Salmi, H., & Thuneberg, H. (2015). Situational interest and learning in a science centre mathematics exhibition. Journal of Science Communication, 14(4), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Vilkoniené, M. (2009). Influence of augmented reality upon pupil’s knowledge about Human Digestive System: The Results of the Experiment. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database.
   Google Scholar
• Vilkoniené, M., Lamanauskas, V., & Vilkonis, R. (2008). Pedagogical evaluation of the teaching/learning platform based on augmented reality technology: The opinion of science teachers and the experts providing assistance with teaching/learning (pp. 407–412). Proceedings of Internat. Scientific Practical Conference ‘Science Education Technologic – 2008’.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, C., & Alexander, A. (2009). Attentional tunneling and task management in synthetic vision displays. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(2), 182–199. doi: 10.1080/10508410902766549
   Google Scholar