You are here:

Modeling Augmented Reality Games with Preservice Elementary and Secondary Science Teachers ARTICLE

, , , , , , George Mason University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 19, Number 3, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


Cell phones are ever-present in daily life, yet vastly underused in the formal science classroom. The purpose of this study was to implement a novel learning tool on cell phones, Augmented Reality Games, and determine how the interaction influenced preservice teachers’ content knowledge and self-efficacy of cell phone use in schools. Results show a significant gain both elementary and secondary preservice teachers in content knowledge and self-efficacy of cell phone use in schools. Qualitative results demonstrated the ability of the preservice teachers to not only adopt this technology for the classroom, but illustrated their ability to create new learning experiences for their students beyond the model.


Peters Burton, E., Frazier, W., Annetta, L., Lamb, R., Cheng, R. & Chmiel, M. (2011). Modeling Augmented Reality Games with Preservice Elementary and Secondary Science Teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(3), 303-329. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved July 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Annetta, L.A. (2008). Why and how video games should be used in education. Theory Into Practice, 47 (3). 229-239.
  2. Annetta, L.A., and Bronack, S. (2011). Serious Educational Game Assessment: Practical Methods and Models for Educational Games, Simulations and Virtual Worlds. Amsterdam, the netherlands. Sense Publishers. Pp. 286.
  3. Baker, T. R., & White, S. H. (2003). The Effects of G.I.S. On students’ attitudes, self- efficacy, and achievement in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Geography, 102, 243-254.
  4. Campbell, S. W. (2004, november). The social construction of mobile telephony. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national communication association, chicago, iL.
  5. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications: thousand oaks, ca.
  6. Dunleavy, M., dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 18, 7-22. Doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1
  7. Gibbs, G. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Philadelphia, Pa: open university Press.
  8. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, ca: sociology Press.
  9. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: aldine.
  10. Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, texas: the new media consortium.
  11. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand oaks, ca: sage Publications.
  12. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications: thousand oaks, ca.
  13. National research council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science Education standards. Washington, D.C.: national academy Press.
  14. Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371 – 413.
  15. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand oaks, ca: sage.
  16. Wei, R., & Leung, L. (1999). Blurring public and private behaviors in public space: Policy challenges in the use and improper use of the cell phone. Telematics and Informatics, 16, 11–26.
  17. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand oaks, ca: sage.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact