93
American Association for
the Advancement of
Science Education Programs
Daryl E. Chubin and Shirley M. Malcom
T
he American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) is the world’s largest general sci-
entific society and publisher of the journal Science,
with the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed gen-
eral science journal in the world—an estimated total reader-
ship of 1 million. Founded in 1848, AAAS includes some
262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving
10 million individuals. It has a storied history. But educa-
tion is often obscured by everything else that the associa-
tion does. This chapter seeks to remedy the emphasis on
science policy, international programs, and the reporting of
science news by highlighting how the nonprofit AAAS
fulfills its mission to “advance science and serve society”
through initiatives in science education and more.
AAAS is composed of its membership, an elected board
of directors, a chief executive officer, and a staff of nearly
400. AAAS has a history of taking stands as well as taking
action. This is reflected in the resolutions issued by the
board and council. For example, the association committed
never to meet again in the segregated U.S. South after a
disastrous experience in 1955 where its members con-
fronted “Jim Crow” laws and their effects on the free
exchange of scientific ideas. AAAS did not meet again in
the Deep South until almost 40 years later.
Education at AAAS
Education programming at AAAS has evolved organization-
ally: from the Office of Opportunities in Science (OOS) and
the Office of Science and Technology Education (OSTE)
emerged Project 2061 and the Directorate for Education and
Human Resources (EHR).
The OOS and the Committee on Opportunities in Science
(COOS) were established in 1973 to address the need to
increase the diversity of the science and engineering com-
munities. In 1972, women received less than 30 percent of
bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering, and less than
10 percent of doctorates in almost all fields of natural sci-
ences and engineering except biology. Annual PhD produc-
tion of African Americans and Hispanics was in the single
digits in most fields. Although the initial target populations
were women and underrepresented minorities, persons with
disabilities were added to the populations at risk in 1975.
Even among underrepresented minorities, some such as
American Indian populations were recognized as more
disadvantaged than others. The Project on Native Americans
in Science was created to focus special attention, to help
Indian communities to define their needs, and to craft pos-
sible programmatic strategies for change. One need was to
temper a focus on so-called Western science through recog-
nition of the contributions of Native peoples, a condition
that was addressed in an AAAS Council resolution of 1975.
The OOS undertook many efforts to document and
characterize the extent of the problem of underrepresen-
tation, as well as to identify specific initiatives that had
been employed successfully to “move the numbers.” The
first effort placed OOS in a close working relationship
with the then Scientific Manpower Commission (now
the Commission on Professionals in Science and
Technology) and other data-gathering entities. OOS was
a major “consu­mer” of data. Its offspring, COOS and
815
816–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
EHR, have worked tirelessly to ensure that timely data in
their most disaggregated form remain available for
analysis to measure progress and to guide action.
Understanding the nature of the problems and crafting
efforts to address them led OOS to develop “inventories” of
initiatives, first for minorities (Malcom, Hall, and Brown
1976) and later for women in what today is known as sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
disciplines. Although it was always understood that cross-
program analysis of the interventions would provide the
greatest yield, the opportunity and funding to conduct such
work did not appear until the National Science Board
(NSB) Commission on Pre-College Education in Mathe­
matics, Science and Technology undertook its work to
reestablish the place of K–12 in the mission of the National
Science Foundation (NSF). The resulting analytical docu-
ment, Equity and Excellence: Compatible Goals (Malcom
1984), became a beacon for those attempting to understand
the direction for the next generation of interventions. As the
evidence mounted, it became clear that underrepresentation
was the result of failures in all parts of the system, that
these system failures manifested themselves differently for
different groups, and that nothing less than a nuanced but
holistic approach would in the long term be effective in
changing the face of science and engineering.
Highlighting issues in the formal education community
was the focus of the OSTE and then, to a certain extent,
Project 2061. OOS sought to explore how the formal sys-
tem engaged with girls/women, minority populations, and
persons with disabilities to ascertain how the informal
system was more effective at that time as a vehicle for
meeting the needs of these populations, and imagining
how more informal education—community and parental
engagement—might contribute to better STEM education
for all. In other words, connecting the informal to the for-
mal education system, embedding schools and the class-
room in the environment of it surrounding community
became the AAAS modus operandi.
A Community-Based Approach
The first idea was to take what was known and try to
push it out to the larger community of advocates. The theo-
retical frame had been set in a report prepared for a National
Research Council (NRC) committee (Cole and Griffin
1987). AAAS applied to engage more people in work,
through such efforts as Science Linkages in the Community
(SLIC) and several collaborations with Black churches, that
demonstrated the relevance of science to their communities.
The effectiveness of this strategy is illustrated by the respo­nse
of one group, the National Urban League. When the interac-
tions began, there was little affinity for science in the Black
community, some likely related to long-standing mistrust.
Fewer than 30 leagues were engaged in programming that
focused on some area of STEM. When the formal phase
of Linkages ended, 103 of 107 leagues were engaged in a
science-focused activity, building capacity and awareness.
From increasing the numbers of community-based
organizations and youth-serving groups doing STEM-
related work, OOS moved to a “place-based” strategy. The
idea was to aggregate and assess the community resources
that might be available to work on these issues in a geo-
graphic region and to collect them around a single table to
imagine what they wanted for the children. The starting
point was a vision for the most underserved and disadvan-
taged. The incentive was the possibility of significant seed
monies to begin implementing the vision. Science Linkages
in the Community (SLIC) was initially supported by what
is now known as the Wallace Foundation. The idea was to
build capacity in communities, to help them connect their
area resources to serve local needs, and to pull the various
segments of the community together. Remnants of these
programs remain in the pilot communities through institu-
tionalized initiatives (such as Micrecycle in Rochester,
New York), as well as through relationships across organi-
zations and individuals that had not existed before the
SLIC efforts. And in the spirit of true capacity building,
current participants have little idea of the roots of their
work because it is now “owned” by the communities.
What began as “intuitive programming” is now gaining
theoretical support in the “learning” research community.
Learning in Informal and Formal Environments (LIFE), the
NSF-supported center for the science of learning based at
the University of Washington, Stanford University and SRI
International, carries this idea forward even in its title:
Learning in Informal and Formal Environments. A focus on
informal learning began as a necessity because underrepre-
sented populations did not have the resources or political
clout to effect change of the formal system, but has led to
deeper understanding about what must be our goal for all
children: an emphasis on learning and not just on education.
Most of the time available for learning is outside of the
school day and school year. Indeed, most of the learning that
adults do is in the informal setting. And much of the time for
exploration has been stripped away from the formal setting
with its focus on testing. So reuniting the “learning spaces”
for children and adults has become a major effort of AAAS
along with developing quality products and programming to
fill the learning opportunity spaces.
Leading by Example:
The Founding of Kinetic City
In many cases, AAAS efforts have been purely opportu-
nistic. Kinetic City is a case in point. Information passed
through an informal social network and a chance meeting on
a plane were crucial to the launching of this initiative. An
intern in OOS aware of AAAS interest in beginning chil-
dren’s radio in several markets across the United States
wondered if there might be space for a children’s radio
drama. The Kinetic City Super Crew was born—imaginary
kids who solved mysteries using science. This radio drama
was a departure for AAAS. Although AAAS has done radio
programming since 1988—short science clips on commercial

broadcasting known as Science Update—an effort of this
magnitude was a different undertaking. AAAS had to build
a studio, hire production and creative talent (writers and
directors), and find and manage child talent. With support
from NSF, as well as AAAS’s own sensibilities about dem-
onstrating how “science within story” could promote learn-
ing, evaluation of the efforts was also carried out.
The series became a creative and educational success. It
did support learning, and its quality as a creative product
was recognized with the receipt in 1996 of the George
Foster Peabody Award. Kinetic City gained its own follow-
ing and secured a contract for a related series of books
extending from a chance meeting on a plane when the unit
head found herself seated next to an executive of a book
publishing company. But despite its educational and cre-
ative success, the product was not sustainable because the
medium that it then relied on faded as “online” replaced
“radio” in serving children’s interest within their informal
learning spaces. Kinetic City had to reinvent itself, joining
the online community. But solely as an online product, it
couldn’t compete with commercial products. Still, as an
after-school learning opportunity that included online and
offline components, Kinetic City: Mission to Vearth dem-
onstrated exactly what its creators had imagined: the
power of lore and teamwork to motivate and drive learning
for elementary-age children.
The evaluations of this program have consistently
shown significant science learning gains for participating
children. But in the age of No Child Left Behind, a federal
educational policy in which science was “demoted” to a
second-tier subject in the formal setting, it became neces-
sary to demonstrate that it could affect reading and writing
in schools (which, in many cases, had become providers of
after-school programming). Then it would be seen as a
legitimate intervention for the target age group. Evaluations
showed gains in reading and writing—and over relatively
short periods and to quite high levels of achievement.
Despite these findings, less effective but better marketed
products have been able to gain far more penetration in this
now highly competitive market.
Project 2061
AAAS founded Project 2061 in 1985 to help all
Americans become literate in science, mathematics, and
technology. With its landmark publication Science for All
Americans (AAAS 1989), Project 2061 set out recommen-
dations for what all students should know and be able to do
in science, mathematics, and technology by the time they
graduate from high school. Science for All Americans laid
the groundwork for the nationwide science standards
movement of the 1990s. Benchmarks for Science Literacy
(AAAS 1993) translated the science literacy goals in
Science for All Americans into learning goals or bench-
marks for grades K–12. Many of today’s state and national
standards documents have drawn their content from
Benchmarks. These AAAS publications are the foundation
93.   AAAS Education Programs–•–817
for Project 2061’s ongoing efforts to reform curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. With the Atlas of Science
Literacy and Designs for Science Literacy, Project 2061
continues to influence the direction of science education
reform, through translations in foreign countries as well as
in the United States.
As Project 2061 articulated what the learning goals
for science (in the context of STEM) should be, expecta-
tions were raised about what systems changes would be
needed to realize these learning goals and what experi-
ences over time lead to understanding of key concepts.
Project 2061 has developed products and constructed
tools, and it has delivered trainings and conducted
research—all as part of the AAAS long-term commitment
to transform science education.
The Education Division of Labor at AAAS
AAAS has thus maintained a division of labor in its
education programming by having two separate units—
2061 and EHR—pursue complementary agendas. Project
2061 has worked within the formal K–12 system focused
on science standards, frameworks, benchmarks, and student
assessments and educational research, whereas EHR contin-
ues to work “from the outside in” focused on informal sci-
ence in the community collaborating with organizations
that offer science support—programs for underrepresented
groups, internships, fellowships, and “public engagement”
(appreciation, understanding) on science issues of the day.
These include the teaching of evolution and the threat of
creationism and intelligent design, opportunities to combat
dread diseases that may emerge from stem cell research, and
the relation of the federal research and development (R&D)
budget or voting machine technology to citizen behavior in
a participatory democracy.
This “hit ’em high, hit ’em low” approach seeks to do
more than connect science to formal (school-based) and
informal (community-based) educational institutions. It is
intended to demonstrate how science and technology are
suffused throughout life in the twenty-first century, that
they can be instruments to serve the public good or sub-
verted to preserve ignorance in the name of religion or
anti-big government. Such simplistic dualities lack a com-
mitment to dialogue, epitomized by the AAAS Dialogue
on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DOSER). Because con-
tentious issues tend to divide instead of unite, they also
perpetuate misconceptions of what science is and is not,
as well as its proper place in a world now shrunk by a
global economy.
As for its mission, EHR has sought in the last 20 years to
understand, support, and move the system as it currently
exists to one that can accommodate higher standards and
achievement for all. EHR also developed partnerships to
build professional development programs and outreach
activities to address the needs of today’s schools, even as
Project 2061 developed next-generation resources. The focus
on present and future, on research-based implementation, has
818–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
led EHR to commit to a larger focus on learning (as opposed
to education) and to embrace a more “ecosystem” approach
that looks across the entire pathway, from prekindergarten
to workforce.
Today, AAAS offers a full suite of activities—programs,
projects, services—that make it a “one-stop shop” for all
who are interested in how science and engineering affect
their lives, aspirations, and knowledge about the natural
world. This is a profound responsibility, recognizing the
needs and formulating responses to various communities
that seek to interact with science in some way. For some,
the AAAS role is informational and fulfilled by connecting
to digital resources; for others, the role is more personal,
hands-on, intensive, and sustained, such as training for
middle school mathematics teachers or assistance in
applying national data and new evaluation techniques to a
local project. AAAS has a history of working with all
“comers”—at headquarters in Washington, D.C., and in the
field, which today means anywhere in the world. For many,
however, AAAS is known mainly for and by its reports.
Reports
AAAS has consistently been consulted for its “on the
ground,” practice-oriented knowledge of education and
human resources—from literacy to careers—in science.
This has yielded a stream of requests from political actors
(both sides of the aisle, all branches of government), which
in turn result in reports that various stakeholders (public
and private) can use for their particular purposes (legisla-
tion, program design, convening specialists on a topic,
corporate initiatives, etc.).
Landmarks
Although Shirley M. Malcom came to AAAS in 1975
as a research assistant to work on the original “inventory”
of programs in science, what soon emerged was the semi-
nal document The Double Bind: The Price of Being a
Minority Woman in Science (Malcom, Hall, and Brown
1976). Dr. Janet Welsh Brown, head of OOS, attended a
meeting of project directors for the minority-focused proj-
ects supported by the NSF, including the inventory. All the
other project directors were male. When she returned from
a project directors meeting for NSF projects focused on
women where all of the women were White, she raised
with Malcom the issues of whether there were challenges
to being both minority and female. This discussion, and the
need to understand “the double bind,” led to the workshop
and subsequent publication discussed later.
For too long, the goal of equity—equal opportunity to
participate—had been cast as an enemy of excellence, for
example, a lowering of standards to be more inclusive.
Some saw equity as a rhetorical assault on the merit basis of
science. Yet here was a value synonymous with everything
education had historically been to citizens of the United
States—a democratizing force creating a path to upward
mobility, and the opportunity to convert aspirations into
achievements through hard work. In Equity and Excellence
(Malcom 1984), AAAS asserted that this was no either-or
proposition. One practiced both or neither in a participatory
democracy, and those who argued otherwise were misread-
ing history and denying that the teaching and learning of
science mattered. That scientists “are made and not born”
placed responsibility for the composition of the future sci-
ence workforce on those in positions of authority and influ-
ence. The adage “best and brightest” had become a mantra
of manifest destiny that would haunt the science community
if it could not expand its ranks by drawing from all segments
of the population, excuses aside. We are still waiting today
for action that affirms the community role as talent devel-
oper instead of purveyor of low expectations for students of
color and women who “need not apply.”
The Volatile 1990s
The urgency of demographic change, starkly challeng-
ing the science community through reports such as the
congressional Office of Technology Assessment’s 1988
report, Educating Scientists and Engineers—Grade School
to Grad School, began to register in the decade of the
1990s. AAAS was out front, shining a bright light on the
implications—academic, economic, and social—of exclud-
ing, or failing to attract, large segments of the student popu-
lation that were racially and ethnically diverse. Women,
too, were still grossly underrepresented on faculties and in
the science workforce.
In the span of 10 years, AAAS issued five major,
research-based reports, each providing an angle on the
unfolding crisis of under-participation that heralded the
warnings of the new millennium—a “perfect storm” of
science and technology capability dogged by excessive
waste of talent and lack of opportunity for those trapped in
inferior K–12 schools or unable to pay for a college educa-
tion (Jackson 2004). Science and engineering were acutely
affected by these inequities, or at least their impact was
more clearly seen in the underrepresentation patterns.
AAAS etched those patterns in a series of reports, typi-
cally built around a conference or workshop where the
ideas of many stakeholders could be heard and debated.
The titles, in chronological order were Investing in Human
Potential (Matyas and Malcom 1991), a collection of
analyses targeted to interventions in higher education and
their return on investment; The Effect of the Changing
Policy Climate on Science, Mathematics and Engineering
Diversity (Malcom, George, and Van Horne 1996), which
speculated on the institutional responses to the Adarand
decision requiring strict scrutiny of racial classifications in
government programs; Science Education Reform for All
(George and Van Horne 1998), featuring views and actions
from the field directed to K–12 science education; Losing

Ground: Science and Engineering Graduate Education of
Black and Hispanic Americans (Malcom et al. 1998),
which documented the impact of the policy ambiguity in
the wake of the 1995 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
U. S. Supreme Court decision on minority graduate enroll-
ments and degrees; and In Pursuit of a Diverse Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce
(George et al. 2001), which offered a research agenda
stratified by education level for increasing minority par-
ticipation in the STEM workforce.
Looking back on these reports, Changing Policy
Climate (Malcom et al. 1996) correctly anticipated the
shift in tone around affirmative action as well as changes
in programming. The workshop and resulting report sug-
gested possible strategies that would begin to integrate the
concerns of under-participation in STEM into the “core
business” of institutions. In the review of targeted fed-
eral programs after the 1995 Supreme Court decision in
Adarand, a number of important initiatives were termi-
nated, including the NSF Minority Graduate Fellows pro-
gram. Declining numbers of minorities in law schools and
medical schools had already been documented, especially
in states affected by the Hopwood decision (Texas, 1996)
and in California, where a state ballot initiative had cut off
use of affirmative action in admission and hiring decisions.
Losing Ground (Malcom, Teich, et al. 2005) was the first
attempt to look for enrollment and participation impact on
STEM graduate education, documenting how institutions
and affected groups responded to the uncertain policy sig-
nals of that time. The declining numbers were not a sur-
prise, but their extent among African Americans and
Hispanics enrolling in STEM graduate education was sig-
nificant. The Supreme Court rulings in the University of
Michigan admissions cases, not issued until June 2003 in
Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, brought more
clarity to the national questions of what, programmatically,
was allowed and what was forbidden in efforts to diversify
higher education, including STEM.
The New Millennium—Focus on the Law
The first report issued under the aegis of the AAAS
Center for Advancing Science and Engineering Capacity
was a collaborative effort with the National Action Council
for Minorities in Engineering (NACME), though the confer-
ence and work on the report predated the Center’s founding.
Standing Our Ground: A Guidebook for STEM Educators in
the Post-Michigan Era (Malcom, Chubin, and Jesse 2004),
was issued in October 2004, and coauthor Jolene K. Jesse
soon thereafter became the program director for NSF’s
Gender in Science and Engineering Program. Distilling
legal precedents applicable to institutions of higher educa-
tion and offering a set of design principles derived from
programs successfully operating on U.S. university cam-
puses circa 2003, Standing Our Ground (SOG) was intended
to foster conversations between general counsels and those
93.   AAAS Education Programs–•–819
operating intervention programs on campus—the very
programs under legal threat by the Office for Civil Rights at
the U.S. Department of Education.
The problem addressed by SOG was the lack of guidance
on issues other than admissions, to which the Grutter
and Gratz rulings by the Supreme Court had spoken. What
in addition to race-neutral alternatives in precollege out-
reach, financial aid for those already matriculated, and
ways to diversify the faculty was permissible? The STEM
community was as uninformed as everyone else. SOG
sought to clarify options, warning that documenting how
targeted programs advanced the institutional mission and
demonstrated the educational value of diversity was vital.
A subsequent roundtable, cohosted by AAAS and
NACME in 2008, with leaders from all sectors, showcased
a panel of legal scholars who admitted they needed help in
understanding how anti-affirmative action at federal and
state levels would be devastating to STEM and the nation.
Work began in collaboration with the Association of
American Universities (AAU) to intensify the dialogue
between counsels and the academic leadership (provosts
and vice provosts) to construct a handbook that would be
more comprehensive and more usable than SOG.
Two law firms were contracted to work with the AAAS-
AAU team, spearheaded by Jamie Lewis Keith, general
counsel at the University of Florida and Daryl E. Chubin
and Shirley M. Malcom’s collaborator from the days of
SOG (when she was counsel at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology [MIT]). Two workshops and many drafts later,
Navigating the Complex Landscape to Foster Greater
Faculty and Student Diversity in Higher Education, was
released in April 2010. Like all AAAS publications, it can
be downloaded for free and was rereleased in June 2010 at
the 50th Annual Meeting of National Association of
College and University Attorneys (NACUA) in Washington,
D.C., as part of a panel featuring participants in the AAAS-
AAU project, as the Handbook on Diversity and the Law
(Burgoyne et al. 2010).
Nothing epitomizes the AAAS tag line “advancing
science, serving society” as much as the Handbook on
Diversity and the Law. Although oriented to science and
engineering, it addresses what must be done campuswide.
Diversifying institutions of higher education extend from
the undergraduate student body through the faculty, staff,
and leadership. Demographic change and globalization
render campuses hotbeds of multiculturalism. Ever a micro­
cosm of societal inequalities, universities today define how
“difference” (gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability,
etc.) can become a strength or a divisive dynamic. Continuing
guidance will be needed. AAAS has codified some of it,
enlarging the field of vision for academic leaders to act
prudently, fairly, and decisively in the best interest of the
members of their campus community.
Finally, in 2005, AAAS published two other analyses of
note—one (funded by the GE Foundation) focused on
urban K–12 school districts, A System of Solutions
820–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
(Malcom, Abdallah, et al. 2005), the other (resulting from
an NSF project) on Preparing Women and Minorities for
the IT Workforce (Malcom, Teich, et al. 2005). Each was
distinguished by its data and policy advice. Both remain
relevant today as the issues they explore—transforming
K–12 systems and the adequacy of the domestic IT
workforce—remain unresolved. And to punctuate the pol-
icy dimensions of education, since 2006 Chubin and Malcom
have annually coauthored the budget chapter in the AAAS
“budget book,” the latest Research and Development
FY2011 (Johnson, Chubin, and Malcom 2010) devoted to
interpreting the president’s proposed priorities across agen-
cies to strengthen education and human resources.
Ongoing Projects
Still another category of AAAS activities consists of proj-
ects and programs with long lives that serve population
subsets of the science community. They are specialized
and, in some ways, a lifeline for those who might other-
wise be left behind.
Technology creates possibilities—new ways of reaching
audiences. We all know that “one size does not fit all.”
Therefore, experiments are in order. An appreciation for
what makes a population “different” is required. AAAS
programs and projects can thus be seen as experiments that
create, review, validate, and disseminate materials for use
by many in an array of locations and situations. These
resources must be intelligible, advisory, and eminently
usable with students of all ages in various educational and
home settings.
A known, but largely unseen, underrepresented group in
science is persons with disabilities. This results from a
large population with nonapparent disabilities who choose
not to disclose them. For every person who is visually
impaired or hearing impaired, or a wheelchair rider, there
is at least one with a learning disability, Asperger’s, or
some other condition. Able-bodiedness is not a prerequi-
site for doing science. Indeed, assistive technology has
provided a range of tools that allow those with impair-
ments to work creatively and productively—if accommo-
dations are made. Under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, employers are directed to make accommoda-
tions. But this is typically done in response to the needs of
an employee rather than as an anticipated need that
expands recruitment to all. For these reasons, it is esti-
mated that one in five members of the U.S. workforce has
a disability. Yet in science, such persons represent a far
smaller fraction of workers.
This is a profound waste of talent. In 1996, AAAS devel-
oped the ENTRY POINT! and undertook management of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
internship programs, called Achieving Competence in
Computing, Engineering, and Space Science (ACCESS), to
provide opportunities for undergraduate and graduate stu-
dents with disabilities to gain workplace experience and to
showcase their talents to prospective employers as they
pursued STEM degrees. Today, the AAAS Project on
Science, Technology, and Disability stands as the leading
force for participation of persons with disabilities in science
and engineering. Its chief corporate partners, IBM, Lockheed
Martin, and Merck, along with its main federal sponsor,
NASA, have made tremendous inroads in the lives of many
students. Through internships and other support, hundreds
have made the transition from college or graduate school
into the science and engineering workforce. Nevertheless,
the number of participating colleges and universities is min-
iscule relative to those who could be served. Indeed, in
2009, AAAS convened a conference, “The Problem Solvers:
Education and Career Paths of Engineers with Disabilities,”
for engineers with disabilities to discuss their approaches to
overcoming physical, sensory, communication, and attitudi-
nal barriers in education and careers.
Filling the “learning spaces with quality products”
refers to the work of EHR in developing materials and
resources and in identifying, reviewing, and referring qual-
ity materials produced by others. Science Books & Films
(SB&F), the oldest such resource, has undergone the most
recent makeover. In the post-Sputnik years, NSF supported
AAAS to configure and ship “traveling trunks” of quality
science books across the country as part of the national
effort to inspire students to science and engineering. When
the funding of the initiative was discontinued, the associa-
tion developed the science book list in 1960 and, in 1964,
started the journal Science Books and Films to provide
critical reviews and referrals on quality materials. Now
available as an online source, the journal has been aug-
mented by other related products: podcasts of Book Talks,
conversations with authors, an editor’s blog, ideas for sci-
ence book clubs and, with support from Subaru, an awards
program to recognize the best books each year in a number
of categories.
Besides offering an invaluable resource for cash-
strapped libraries that cannot afford to make purchasing
mistakes and for teachers seeking resources to augment
texts or substitute for them, SB&F also gives the AAAS a
“review infrastructure” for educational materials. This
review structure is used by other components of EHR,
including in the production of “clear science/plain lan-
guage” books as well as in the review of web resources so
critical to another AAAS project, Science NetLinks.
A relatively new science delivery mechanism is the
Science Inside, AAAS’s premiere education tool to improve
public understanding of science. The award-winning series
develops and broadly shares plain language electronic and
print materials focusing on scientific concepts that are impor-
tant to the general public. Its goal is to give people a science-
based understanding of critical developmental and health
issues, so they can make better-informed, and healthier
choices, about how they live and work. Topics have included
alcohol, skin, having healthy babies, diabetes, human immu-
nodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome (AIDS), and learning.

AAAS Value-Added
The nonprofit organization (or nongovernmental organiza-
tion [NGO]) is all of the following: a bridge builder, change
agent, convener, disseminator, fundraiser, honest broker,
mediator, mobilizer, partner, performer, political stalwart,
and purveyor of the public good. AAAS has refined the art
of rising above the fray to be a trusted voice of reason.
Consider the role more generally of professional societies
in the ecology of social institutions that impinge on citizens,
providing them support (e.g., through federal research and
education grants) in exchange for accurate and timely knowl-
edge that informs their decision making and uplifts their
lives. More narrowly, professional societies play a unique
role that brightens the lives of scientists and engineers. As
NGOs, “scientific societies” augment, mediate, enhance, and
reward behavior that flows from collegial relations and vali-
dates professional contributions and status. Such validation
extends beyond what employing institutions can offer.
Scientists, after all, work in communities that extend far
beyond the boundaries of their campuses, research facilities,
labs, or businesses. Those communities tend to focus on
separate aspects of the academic life: research, teaching, and
service. Professional societies promote all three. They value
the feedback from various quarters of the community—be it
from sponsors, journals, collaborators, or competitors—and
remind their members that a world beyond one’s employing
institution seeks to consume the knowledge, skills, advice,
and just plain presence of “citizen-scientists.” These con-
sumers include local schools, community organizations,
companies, and government agencies concerned about the
next generation of skilled workers educated and trained in
science and engineering (Chubin 2008).
Scientific societies can be advocates and watchdogs,
too. Note the power of the policy statements issued by
their boards of directors (typically sage scientists and engi-
neers recruited from the membership ranks). A statement
issued in 1974 by the AAAS Board on “Equal Opportunity
in the Sciences and Engineering” recognized “that com-
plex social, economic, and political forces have combined
in the past to discourage women . . . from entering the
sciences and engineering, and to deny those who do enter
equal access to positions of respect and authority.” In
response, AAAS transformed its own governance to
achieve greater diversity among officers, board, and senior
staff and sought to raise awareness of these issues at the
highest policy levels. Twenty years later, AAAS issued a
“Statement on Discrimination in the Workplace” and, in
the wake of Larry Summers’ uninformed remarks at Harvard
about women’s “intrinsic aptitude” for science, reaffirmed
(in 2005) its policies to promote the participation of
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities, observ-
ing that academe lags behind industry and government in
achieving a diverse workforce.
Some scientific societies serve a scholarly function as
well by sponsoring symposia and publishing as a way of
keeping, for example, gender equity in the forefront of their
93.   AAAS Education Programs–•–821
members’ consciousness. The landmark Double Bind report
on the combined effects of gender, race, and ethnicity on
career development showed that what awaits minority
women who pursue a pathway in science is not pretty
(Malcom, Hall, and Brown 1976). As a reflection on the
science community, it was an indictment of how ascribed
characteristics (color, gender) seemed to subvert opportu-
nity and achievement for those who had earned credentials,
but (in the prefatory words of then-AAAS Executive Officer
William D. Carey) “are excluded from the mainstream.”
Fast-forward 35 years: the prospects are brighter but the
picture remains one of incremental changes in women’s
status relative to men in the hierarchy of scientific organi-
zations, be they universities, medical schools, or Fortune
500 companies. What should not be overlooked is that
professional societies are at the forefront of efforts to
probe for and warm up “chilly climates” and to inspire
scholars to explain why gender inequities persist (Davis
et al. 1996; National Academy of Sciences 2006), espe-
cially as they intersect with race, ethnicity, and class
(Leggon 2006). Professional societies issue rallying cries
for their members, and suggest pressure points for others to
exploit. They help shape “normative behavior” and change
the culture of the enterprise.
Centers and “Managed” Programs
Centers carry an intriguing organizational meaning:
they connote something institutionalized, and therefore
enduring, more than a partnership, collaboration, or alli-
ance that tend to be more transient or focused on a single
project. Centers specialize in multiples, in parallel process-
ing, and in “connecting the dots.”
In the wake of the Supreme Court rulings of June 2003
in the Michigan admissions cases, AAAS recognized a
need in the STEM community for university-focused tech-
nical assistance on accelerating human resources develop-
ment. The AAAS Center for Advancing Science and
Engineering Capacity was launched in August 2004, with
a three-year grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,
and transitioned to self-sufficiency exactly three years
later. The center’s mission is to examine programs intended
to foster institutional capacity to recruit, enroll, and sup-
port STEM students; diversify the faculty; and change
programs, structures, attitudes, and climate.
Through the capacity center, AAAS gained experience
with the constraints and opportunities that individual cam-
puses face, and helped them to craft strategies to defend
what was working and to revise what was not. At any one
time, the center is engaged in four to six projects, typically
of a year’s duration or less. The center sponsors and clients
include several programs of the NSF, Hewlett-Packard, the
Women in Engineering Programs Proactive Network
(WEPAN), and universities such as Harvard and Louisiana
State. The center’s national, research-calibrated perspec-
tive adds a fee-for-service asset to the compendium of
AAAS resources and expertise.
822–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
As explained on the website of the AAAS Center for
Careers in Science and Technology, “Shaping a career in
science has never been a solitary experience. Extending
one’s hand to help others experience the thrill of discovery
and to forge a successful scientific career is one way AAAS
advances science and serves society. AAAS career develop-
ment initiatives provide information, training, and opportu-
nities for collaboration among educators, scientists, policy
makers, professional organizations, non-profits, govern-
ment, and industries regardless of geographic origin”
(http://php.aaas.org/programs/centers/careers/index.php).
The Center for Careers is a collaboration of AAAS
departments and its affiliated organizations, offering a wide
range of programs and services for AAAS members and the
larger science community. It is intended as a “one-stop
shop” for resources that inform one about careers in science
and engineering—all settings and all stages of career devel-
opment. Featured programs include the Science and Human
Rights Coalition and MySciNet: An Inclusive Community.
As a trusted organization, AAAS also has a history of
managing programs, some operated under its own impri-
matur, others funded by public and private philanthropic
organizations that carry the sponsor’s name. This role is
not one of mere administration, but an application of qual-
ity control and the integration of what is known about
community-building—how students and faculty learn
from one another—to create a richer, more enduring expe-
rience for program participants. This function sets AAAS
apart from other research-based NGOs, not only advising,
but acting on the advice it solicits and generates.
AAAS initiated a postdoc network under the banner of
its programs for young scientists, Science’s Next Wave, now
ScienceCareers. Eventually, with support from the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation, the community of postdoctoral scientists
sought to establish a separate organization that could advo-
cate for its members on campuses around the country as
well as in the policy arena. AAAS served as the recipient of
the grant as the “incubator” for the National Postdoctoral
Association (NPA) until it gained its own tax-exempt status
in 2009. NPA, now independent, retains its home with
AAAS and maintains close programmatic ties.
AAAS manages an array of education programs of
its own creation, such as the Mass Media Science and
References and Further Readings
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
1959. AAAS Resolution: AAAS Annual Meetings and
Freedom from Racial Segregation (http://archives.aaas.org/
docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=249).
———. 1989. Science for All Americans. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
———. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington,
DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Engineering Fellows, as well as programs supported by
others. A category of managed programs is that overseen
by AAAS with support from the Directorate for Education
and Human Resources of the National Science Foundation.
These include Graduate STEM Fellows in K–12 Education
(GK–12), for which AAAS manages the program web site
as well as organizes and hosts its annual conference and
special-focus meetings; Alliances for Graduate Education
and the Professoriate (AGEP), where AAAS serves a
research and technical assistance function; Historically
Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program
(HBCU-UP), for which AAAS organizes and hosts the
HBCU-UP annual conference; and BioSci Education
Network (BEN) Collaborative, for which AAAS is the
secretariat for a large number of biological sciences asso-
ciations and organizations committed to providing quality
resources in support of educators. The management of
these programs shares a core conviction that building com-
munity, in these cases composed of projects funded by an
NSF program, provides a forum for learning through shar-
ing and builds capacity back home to adapt, monitor, scale,
and recognize successful interventions.
Finally, AAAS’s notable private relationships to man-
age programs include the David and Lucille Packard
HBCU Graduate Scholars, the Canon National Parks
Science Scholars, and the L’Oreal USA Fellowships for
Women in Science. Each targets a population that is under-
served, providing opportunities for professional growth
from graduate study into the workforce.
Conclusion
AAAS belongs to a storied cluster of nonprofit organi-
zations, but it also—in its longevity, its history, and its
leadership—stands alone. EHR has been a partner and a
resource, both to other AAAS units and to the panoply of
organizations that support the science community in all its
diversity of goals and practitioners. Just as science is about
the future, so too is it about the past. To help educate and
enrich this community, as this chapter has tried to display,
AAAS will continue to render service to the nation and
the world.
———. 2005. AAAS Board Statement on Women in Science and
Engineering (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/
0208board.shtml).
Burgoyne, Robert, Theodore M. Shaw, Ralph C. Dawson,
Rena Scheinkman, Arthur L. Coleman, Steven Y.
Winnick, Jennifer Rippner, Scott R. Palmer, and Jamie
Lewis Keith. 2010. Handbook on Diversity and the Law:
Navigating the Complex Landscape to Foster Greater
Faculty and Student Diversity in Higher Education.
Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Chubin, Daryl E. 2008. “Professional Societies.” Pp. 263–72 in
Women, Science, and Myth: Gender Beliefs from Antiquity
to the Present, edited by S. Rosser. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO.
Cole, Michael and Peg Griffin, 1987. Contextual Factors in
Education: Improving Science and Mathematics Education
for Minorities and Women. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Center for Education Research.
Davis, Cinda-Sue, Angela B. Ginorio, Carol S. Hollenshead,
Barbara B. Lazarus, and Paula M. Rayman, eds. 1996. The
Equity Equation: Fostering the Advancement of Women in
the Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
George, Yolanda S., David S. Neale, Virginia Van Horne, and
Shirley M. Malcom, 2001. In Pursuit of a Diverse Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce:
Recommended Research Priorities to Enhance
Participation by Underrepresented Minorities. Washington,
DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
George, Yolanda S. and Virginia V. Van Horne, eds. 1998.
Science Education Reform for All (SERA): Sustaining the
Science, Mathematics and Technology Reform.
Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Jackson, Shirley Ann, 2004. “The Perfect Storm: A Weather
Forecast,” Presidential Address to the American
Association to the Advancement of Science. February 14,
Seattle, WA (http://www.rpi.edu/president/speeches/
ps021404-perfectstorm.html).
Johnson, Roosevelt Y., Daryl E. Chubin, and Shirley M.
Malcom. 2010. “Education and Human Resources in the
FY2011 Budget: A Higher Profile for STEM?” Pp. 33–40
in Research & Development FY2011 (AAAS Report
XXXV). Washington, DC: Intersociety Working Group.
Leggon, Cheryl. 2006. “Women in Science: Racial and Ethnic
Differences and the Differences They Make.” Journal of
Technology Transfer 31:325–33.
Malcom, Shirley M. 1984. Equity and Excellence: Compatible
Goals. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Malcom, Shirley M., Joan Abdallah, Daryl E. Chubin, and
Kathryn Grogan. 2005. A System of Solutions: Every
93.   AAAS Education Programs–•–823
School, Every Student. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Malcom, Shirley M., Daryl E. Chubin, and Jolene K. Jesse.
2004. Standing Our Ground: A Guidebook for STEM
Educators in the Post-Michigan Era. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science and
the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering.
Malcom, Shirley Mahaley, John Cownie, and Janet Welsh
Brown. 1976. Programs in Science for Minority Students,
1960–1975. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Malcom, Shirley M., Yolanda S. George, and Virginia V. Van
Horne. 1996. The Effect of the Changing Policy Climate on
Science, Mathematics and Engineering Diversity.
Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Malcom, Shirley Mahaley, Paula Quick Hall, and Janet Welsh
Brown. 1976. The Double Bind: The Price of Being a
Minority Woman in Science. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Malcom, Shirley M., Albert H. Teich, Jolene K. Jesse,
L. A. Campbell, Eleanor L. Babco, and Nathan E. Bell.
2005. Preparing Women and Minorities for the IT
Workforce: The Role of Nontraditional Educational
Pathways Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Malcom, Shirley M., Virginia V. Van Horne, Catherine D.
Gaddy, and Yolanda S. George. 1998. Losing Ground:
Science and Engineering Graduate Education of Black and
Hispanic Americans. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Matyas, Marsha Lakes and Shirley M. Malcom, ed. 1991.
Investing in Human Potential: Science and Engineering at
the Crossroads. Washington, DC: American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Beyond Bias and
Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic
Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1988.
Educating Scientists and Engineers—Grade School to
Grad School. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
94
Educational Games and
Virtual Reality
Arlene de Strulle and Joseph Psotka
M
any computer visionaries have foretold the
coming transformation of education by comput-
ing (e.g., Seidel and Rubin 1977; Papert 1980),
yet in retrospect, these prognostications sound alarmingly
redundant year after year. It is unclear, however, whether
there is negligible, slow, or incremental change, or the
building of a potentially massive disruptive revolution in
school-based education? An early, respected pioneer,
Seymour Papert, whose Massachusetts Institute of Tech­
nology (MIT) Logo lab spawned many innovations, was
known to believe that computer technology would not
have much of an impact until education changed funda-
mentally. What we are witnessing, however, is not that
education is looking to change, but, conversely, that tech-
nology is pushing fundamental change in education, and
education, writ large, is not totally embracing and adopting
it. How education leadership and emerging education poli-
cies address this significant and emerging reorganization
of where, when, and how children can now learn through
technology will determine the extent to which education
will experience a fundamental transformation.
Historical and Conceptual Background
When mainframe computer manufacturers ignored the
encroachment of personal computers, these manufactur-
ers held back the development and innovation surround-
ing PC use, and by doing so, the mainframe manufacturers
ensured their own demise. Instead of seeing the enor-
mous popular advances that PCs held, mainframe manu-
facturers adamantly refused to use their skill and expertise
to promote and accelerate this marvelous new technology
824
development—this cost them their preeminence. Similar
strategies may be delaying adoption of technology in
education.
Around 1980, it was both easy to incorporate computers
in education and easy to ignore the technology. Today’s
touch-sensitive, easy-to-use, direct manipulation interfaces
on cell phones, with voice commands for many common
tasks, were unthinkable for those early machines. With 64K
(not megabytes, not gigabytes, just kilobytes) of memory,
the early computers did little more than turn pages of text,
provide simple drill and practice mathematical problems, or
provide text-based quizzes. At the time, these affordances fit
well with teachers’ competences and were relatively easy to
integrate into classroom activities and remediation. These
simple educational activities were not sufficiently important
then to justify the purchase of expensive machines, so often,
one or two machines sat frequently unused in the corner of
classrooms or in special computer rooms with locked access.
Yet, commercial applications such as word processing and
spreadsheets forced schools to recognize them. New pro-
cesses demanded new workforce skills; therefore, a market
developed around teaching these targeted skills, but educa-
tors safely ignored the main issues by relegating computers
to teaching tasks such as keyboarding.
In 1978, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
Department of Education (DoED) funded a groundbreaking
effort to build computer technology for education. Out of
this enterprise came some very successful research and
development, including the highly successful and domi-
nant games Rocky’s Boots, Carmen Sandiego, and Oregon
Trail. The use of these games became popular in mathemat-
ics, English, and history classes, and their use was under-
girded, theoretically and practically, by new insights into

motivation and emotion in learning. It was obvious that
computer games were serious fun and subsequently
launched a new media industry and culture.
From these early efforts, theoretical frameworks emerged
that focused on learning with levels of challenge, or social
interaction, or intrinsic motivation (Malone 1981b), and
toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction
(Malone 1981a). Early games of the 1940s were based on
missile defense systems and then adapted in the 1950s into
low-level games. During the 1950s and 1960s, mainframe
computers were used to increase the complexity of games
and gaming platforms. The first viable commercial game,
sold in coin-operated settings that laid the foundation for
the entertainment industry, was the 1971 game Computer
Space. The gaming industry experienced commercial ups
and downs until ultimately console gaming crashed in 1977.
Rising again in the 1980s with low publishing costs, game
development expanded with different genres, such as adven-
ture, beat ’em up, fighting, and interactive movie games;
maze, platform, platform-adventure, racing, and role-
playing games; rhythm, scrolling, stealth, survival, and hor-
ror games; and vehicle simulations. Video games became
widespread and deeply established in the 1990s when they
became mainstream entertainment and consolidated with
publishers. Increasing computer power and lower costs
afforded the integrated use of three-dimensional (3-D)
graphics, multimedia capabilities, and the production of
newer genres, such as multi-user dungeons (MUDs); multi-
player, real-time virtual worlds; first-person shooter games;
and the massively multiplayer online role-playing games
(MMORPGs) or persistent worlds (PWs).
Although the gaming industry spawned dozens of multi-
billion-dollar companies, most current commercial games
and their predecessors have had little explicit education con-
tent, such as chemistry, mathematics, or physics, nor have
they been designed with embedded pedagogical strategies
that would make them appealing to teachers or parents
(Kafai, Peppler, and Chiu 2007). Commercial games, how-
ever, have been shown to develop physical and cognitive
skills in learners (Lee et al. 2010). Many teachers and admin-
istrators waited for definitive proof that games and virtual
reality (VR) environments are more effective than traditional
text-based ways of instruction, although we already know
from innumerable studies that students are not learning well
using traditional and text-based instructional methods.
Virtual Reality Environments,
Games, and Learning
Most games and VR environments emphasize intrinsic
motivation strategies, focusing on participants’ internal
motivation to perform a task, which is derived from the
participation itself (Malone 1981a; Malone and Lepper
1987). Research on intrinsic motivation has found greater
94.   Educational Games and Virtual Reality–•–825
success when students engage in creative or complex tasks
(Utman 1997); however, this is not to state that extrinsic
motivation has no role in effective game design—intrinsic
and extrinsic objectives are often entwined. Immersive
experiences in a VR environment can be pleasurable as well
as disturbing or frightening so acute is the experience (de
Strulle 2009). Immersion, or presence, is a state of con-
sciousness where awareness of one’s physical self and sur-
roundings is diminished or nonexistent, and one’s experience
in the virtual world becomes acutely heightened and seem-
ingly physiologically embodied (Psotka 1996). Being
immersed in a virtual environment provides a very specific
set of affordances both internal and external to the environ-
ment itself. In “Why Virtual Worlds Can Matter,” Douglas
Thomas and John Seely Brown (2009:38) argue that some
of the things that occur in and around virtual worlds “may
in fact point us in the direction of new forms of knowing and
acting in virtual spaces and give us insight into what new,
technologically mediated worlds may look like in the com-
ing decades.” This chapter is devoted to this future world, to
the evolving interplay of humans and machines, and the
emergent learning processes found in subtle and self-evident
corners of invented realities and environments.
Can Education Cope With
the New Technologies?
The slow adoption in education of games and VR envi-
ronments for learning may remain as is for reasons that
have little to do with their effectiveness (Meltzoff et al.
2009). The problem at the core is that technology cannot
be effective until the curriculum is fundamentally changed
to allow specific technologies to be integrated in meaning-
ful ways. If, however, the curriculum will not be changed
until each technology is proven effective, this is a standoff
and counterproductive to progress.
Scaffolding is a widely used educational practice in
which directed instruction gradually decreases as a stu-
dent’s competence increases, and this graduated weaning
from assistance results in increased independence in the
learning process. Through merging real and virtual objects,
John Quarles and colleagues (2009) address the issue of
the augmented emergence of abstract from concrete
knowledge. Results of their study with a large sample of
students suggest that the merging of real and virtual spaces
can offer “a unique level of educational scaffolding,” as
well as “an improved learning-transfer from abstract to
concrete domains” (Quarles et al. 2009:34). Embedded, or
augmented, reality may not be just effective; it may place
a new premium on informal learning outside of school.
This may do to the education environment what the Internet
has done to bricks and mortar stores.
Distinguishing the good from the bad has not been
easy, especially when past evaluation studies have gener-
ally found mixed effectiveness results. Although it is more
826–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
difficult to demonstrate learning gains from higher-level
tasks than from tutorials that focus on drill and practice,
the benefits to be derived from real-world tasks that
require the student to explore, analyze, interpret, solve,
and communicate are acknowledged widely (Kearsley
and Schneiderman 1998; Bangert-Drowns and Pyke 2001;
Kozma 2003; Yang 2003). Although technology can be
made subservient to traditional teaching practices of drill
and practice and page turning, and numbingly passive
delivery of knowledge, this robs the student and the effec-
tiveness of the technology. VR simulations and games
bring motivation and challenge back to students with a
powerful force. Research summarized in Taking Science
to School (National Research Council 2007) reveals that
children entering kindergarten have surprisingly sophisti-
cated ways of thinking about the natural world based on
direct experiences with the physical environment, such as
watching objects fall or collide and observing animals and
plants. Many of these early experiences can be simulated
in VR environments.
Bringing Motivation and Challenge to Learning
The most long-standing and direct benefit of VR and
games for education has been their power to motivate
learning. At first, it was thought to be a novelty effect, but
it has sustained its power over the years (O’Neil, Wainess,
and Baker 2005). VR and games continue to expand and
transform themselves to also provide continuing novelty
effects, but this is now clearly subsidiary to the main
effects of challenge, social interaction, peer feedback, and
the instantiation of local goals that are intrinsically moti-
vating. In part, the motivational effects transpire from the
power of immersion and the feeling of presence in creative
and dramatic environments. This aspect of VR and educa-
tional games is the easiest to adapt to current pedagogical
goals and environments because motivation is an essential
part of pedagogy under any system of instruction.
Virtual reality and games have the potential of embody-
ing abstract concepts in concrete experiences. Perpetual
motion machines can be built to demonstrate the force of
gravity without the drag of air or any other friction.
Complex interacting systems can be seen from the sim-
plest perspective, and complex abstractions, such as the
meaning of words and the links between concepts, shown
tangibly in a complex three-dimensional space. Imagine a
star field of related concepts that can be explored by walk-
ing among the concepts, touching the invisible links that
connect them, experiencing the distance among them,
vibrating one to discover all the others that resonate to
similar meanings, activating the concept to see it in movies
and textual explanations: all this is possible to create con-
crete meaning out of ambiguous abstractions. For teachers,
however, this is a monumental challenge. How to use the
obvious insights in the real world and the semantic world
of mental life remains unexplored to modern pedagogy,
and the insights are as new and strange to teachers as they
are to their students. Examples of success include River
City, an NSF-funded virtual world for middle school sci-
ence classrooms containing content developed from
national education technology standards. The River City
world allows students to conduct scientific investigations
around an illness spreading through a virtual city and
based on realistic historical, sociological, and geographical
conditions. The authenticity of the world allows learners to
engage in scientific practices, such as forming hypotheses,
running controlled experiments, and interpreting data to
inform courses of action.
The most popular social networks, such as Facebook,
the virtual world Second Life, and massively multiplayer
online games, such as World of Warcraft, have inspired the
public’s imagination and users’ motivation to learn. World
of Warcraft and Second Life have reported participation of
8.5 and 6.5 million users, respectively (Squire and
Steinkuehler 2006; Bainbridge 2007). With such expan-
sive participation in social media, informal learning has
been “virtually” transformed by these emergent settings.
The public’s enthusiastic adoption of new technologies
has evolved a resounding need for informal education insti-
tutions to design increasingly sophisticated exhibits that
incorporate immersive VR, augmented reality, game-based
technologies, visualizations, and other emerging media.
Advances in simulations for training pilots and astronauts;
ubiquitous robots and nanotechnology; satellite imagery;
and emerging, sophisticated visualized data have provided
new opportunities for engaging the public in modern sci-
ence. Findings from a study of a VR science exhibit
revealed that some learners were frightened by specific
types of nonrealistic virtual environments and positively
affected by realistic images (de Strulle 2009). Nonrealistic
images decreased feelings of immersion, and some visual
images moved or changed too frequently to produce any
sense of immersion. Avatars were intended to personalize
the VR experience; however, data reveal that avatars did
not personalize the experience. Conversely, avatars were
found to detract from learning. Options for interaction were
confusing within the virtual environments, leading to cog-
nitive load issues and frustration in participants, and the
mix of audio, text, colors, movement, and navigation tools
were together found to distract from learning.
As far back as 1996, Courtney Cazden argued that it was
critical for exhibits to model effective learning strategies
based upon research on learning and be assessed for their
pedagogical value (Cazden and Beck 2003). This remains
true. Synchronizing exhibits to the learning strengths
of multiage students can provide unique options for self-
directed learning. Differences emerged in understanding of
exhibit content learning styles of multicultural audiences:
differences in gender-based learning, consideration of
age differences among learners, and a new way of under-
standing how people learn within immersive environments
(de Strulle 2009).

WolfQuest is a highly successful NSF-funded science
game, downloadable from www.wolfquest.org free of
charge. Developed by the Minnesota Zoo and Educational
Web Adventures, the game is coordinated with a national
network of informal science education institutions, wolf
researchers, and conservation organizations. WolfQuest’s
virtual environment is scientifically accurate, developed
under the supervision of wolf conservation scientists and
wolf habitat ecologists, and as a science game, WolfQuest
has brought the same compelling, game-playing quality of
commercial video games to online informal science learn-
ing. In a summative analysis of the game by the Institute for
Learning Innovation, several issues were identified as being
notable: about 4,000 users downloaded the game in the first
few hours after launch and more than 350,000 people have
downloaded the game in the 21 months post launch. On
average, players have engaged in more than 100,000 multi-
player game sessions per month. The game’s online com-
munity forum has more than 80,000 registered members
who have made more than 850,000 posts to the forum, with
a current average of 1,400 posts daily. The game also suc-
cessfully reached its target audience of 9- to 15-year-olds
with nearly 70 percent of players in that age range.
Findings from a web survey, in-depth phone interviews
of learners, and content analysis of the conversation
forums reveal that interest in, connection to, and knowl-
edge of wolves, wolf behaviors, and wolf habitats increased
significantly. This is significant because the game’s sci-
ence content was woven throughout the game and rarely
made explicit. In self-reported knowledge, a definite cog-
nitive gain is found with respondents naming either gen-
eral or specific facts related to habitats, hunting behaviors,
territories and threats to wolf survival, social behaviors,
and other facts related to the anatomy and species of
wolves. More than three quarters of the survey participants
either have, or intended to expand their interest in further-
ing their learning about wolves. More than half of the
individuals correlate playing WolfQuest with their desire to
visit zoos, nature centers, and state parks and to participate
in outdoor activities. This demonstrates that science-rich
games can be a significant factor in encouraging interest in
grade-appropriate subject matter and advance visits to
zoos and wildlife centers and as form of enhancement to
traditional subject matter instruction.
Hakan Tüzün et al. (2009) studied the effects of com-
puter games on primary school students’ achievement and
motivation in geography learning. Researchers designed
and developed a three-dimensional educational computer
game for 24 fourth- and fifth-grade students in a private
school in Ankara, Turkey, to learn about world continents
and countries for three weeks. The effects of the game
environment on students’ achievement and motivation and
related implementation issues were examined through
quantitative and qualitative methods. An analysis of pre- and
post-achievement tests showed that students made signifi-
cant learning gains. In comparing student motivations
94.   Educational Games and Virtual Reality–•–827
while learning in the game-based environment and in the
traditional school environment, it was found that students
demonstrated statistically significant higher intrinsic moti-
vations and statistically significant lower extrinsic motiva-
tions from learning in the game-based environment. In
addition, students had decreased their focus on getting
grades and were more independent while participating in
the game-based activities. These positive effects on learn-
ing and motivation, and the positive attitudes of students
and teachers suggest that computer games can be used as a
tool in formal learning environments to support effective
geography learning.
The Military’s Leadership
in Game-Based Learning
In the U.S. military, there has been little opposition to
innovation in education and training. None surpasses the
military’s leadership in education and technology; there-
fore, it is imperative that we understand the difference
between the military’s approach to leadership in education
and training, and the U.S. school system’s rather lethargic
approach to modernization. Why is one massive enterprise
nimble enough to react to the changing dynamics of
national interest, and one system entrenched in antiquated
ideas, outdated textbooks, poor teacher preparation, and a
serious lack of attention to the rise of technology?
Military officers often have an engineering background.
Computers and technology are not unfamiliar, but this is not
the basis of the military’s success. The military is driven
by pragmatic urgency to improve its odds against very
clever foes in high-stakes environments. As a result, com-
puter games and simulations were explored thoroughly at
the beginning of the digital revolution and found to merit
vast investment in research and development because these
environments provided a unique learning edge. The military
already used simulations of simultaneous linear equations to
model weapons effects, called constructive simul­ations, and
so there was an incremental change to qualitative digital
simulations. Initially, the machinery of war, tanks, planes,
and ships were simulated with mockups, and then embedded
in computers to create virtual environments where soldiers
could learn their profession as realistically as possible. The
army created a vast desert stronghold to verify the success
of these simulators in live training that is unparalleled in the
world. These large-scale experiments confirmed the success
of simulators and games, which was attested to by com-
manders in actual combat in Desert Storm and Operation
Freedom, and they created an extensive modeling and simu-
lation bureaucracy to guide the research and development of
more formidable systems.
The U.S. Army has successfully emphasized “training
as you fight” to instill the best possible fighting effective-
ness in its soldiers. During the last two decades, this phi-
losophy has heavily emphasized simulators and simulations
828–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
that range from virtual environments of networked armor
simulators with veridical motion and scenery to live train-
ing ranges with laser detectors pioneered at the National
Training Center. In 2002, the U.S. Army created America’s
Army, a game to provide entertainment while creating
implicit skills and tacit knowledge about the variety of
occupations in the military. The game was based on a com-
mercially successful gaming platform and engine and was
a huge success with millions of downloads and online
players. Its effectiveness at creating army skills and an
improved understanding of the army environment had
been widely acknowledged as self-evident. America’s
Army has been going strong for more than eight years with
millions of downloads and players throughout the world.
The success of this training has propelled the widespread
development of less detailed simulators, such as DARWARS
Ambush! (Foltz et al. 2008) for training convoy skills;
videos in communities of practice (COPs) environments
(Cianciolo et al. 2007); and even professional discussion in
text-based environments (Dixon et al. 2005). The range of
training domains has been fairly broad, including interper-
sonal interactions (Barba et al. 2006; Hill et al. 2006),
convoy operations (Roberts, Diller, and Schmitt 2006),
squad/platoon leadership (Beal 2005), tactical operations
(Beal 2005), and language and culture (Johnson and Beal
2005), among others.
To avoid the high monetary costs and time require-
ments for developing scenarios in these high-fidelity
environments, assessment of individuals was conducted in
a low-fidelity environment. The use of a low-fidelity envi­
ronment also provides a near-transfer demonstration of
the skills and abilities developed through training with
high-fidelity environments. With a low-fidelity environ-
ment, the training domain knowledge and decisions can
be parsed from the skill in using the training tool, so the
assessment can target the intended cognitive components
of the training material.
ELECT BiLAT is a prototype game-based simulation for
soldiers to practice conducting bilateral engagements in a
notional Operation Iraqi Freedom environment (Hill et al.
2006). The prototype provides students with the experi-
ence of preparing for a meeting, including familiarization
with the cultural context, gathering intelligence, conduct-
ing a meeting, negotiating a successful resolution, and
following up the meeting agreements, as appropriate. The
ELECT BiLAT architecture is based on a commercial game
engine that is integrated with research technologies to
enable the use of virtual human characters, scenario cus-
tomization, as well as coaching, feedback, and tutoring.
Military’s Assessment Methods
To assess the effectiveness of military games for learn-
ing, simple facts are not enough. Improved decision making
based on experience is the goal, so multiple-choice tests and
even essays are not appropriate. Although essay answers
may bring out the desired skills, they are too time-intensive
for everyday group use, so a new technology for testing has
been developed: situation judgment tests (SJT).
For ELECT BiLAT, an SJT was developed and used to
assess how well learners made appropriate decisions. The
SJT included nine scenario descriptions with multiple
alternative actions presented as possible answers for each
scenario. The learners rated each possible action (a total of
31 actions per scenario) on a Likert scale (0 = very poor
and 10 = very good). The learner responses were standard-
ized (i.e., a Z-score based on their own mean rating and the
standard deviation of their own ratings). Learners’ stan-
dardized ratings were then compared with those of a sub-
ject matter expert (SME) based rating key, using a
correlation. The higher the correlation between the learner
and the SME ratings, the better the agreement on the rela-
tive goodness or badness of various actions in the highly
complex situation of bilateral negotiations.
One of the benefits of using the SJT to evaluate prog-
ress was that there were no clear right or wrong answers
for the ratings, and the scoring was based on a correlation
to SME ratings. By taking the SJT without any feedback,
a learner would not be able to improvise a personal scoring
key leading to improve scores based solely on repeatedly
taking the test. Therefore, a pretraining assessment could
be given before the training session, followed by the train-
ing, and then the post-training assessment could be con-
ducted. Then by comparing the pre- and post-training
correlation scores, it was possible to see how much a per-
son learned from the training. Apparently, no one at any
level of the civilian education system has yet adopted this
new SJT technology, just as there is little use of educa-
tional games across the education enterprise.
Not all military training via games and game technol-
ogy is combat-oriented. When deployed outside the United
States, for example, soldiers often are in different cultures
and unable to speak the language. Various companies and
university research programs are working to solve these
problems. In 2004, researchers at the Information Sciences
Institute at the University of Southern California were
working on Tactical Iraqi, a game-based effort to teach
Arabic to U.S. soldiers. These types of games involve
work with speech recognition technology because speak-
ing a language is vitally important to learning it. A human
facilitator monitors and corrects trainees because the tech-
nology is still relatively new.
Most military personnel are not involved in frontline
combat. The actual warfighters are supported by a host of
analysts, drivers, cooks, and so on who are doing tradi-
tional jobs under extremely adverse conditions. Military
leaders are aware that they need training for noncombat
personnel. During the fighting in Iraq, noncombat troops
suffered more casualties than combat troops did. Games
have been used to train these personnel as well.
In 1999, the U.S. Army in conjunction with the University
of Southern California created the Institute for Creative
Technologies (ICT), bringing together educators, video
game developers, and other entertainment companies to

create the next generation of military training tools and
simulations. The army’s Joint Fires and Effects Trainer
System, or JFETS, is one of the projects to come out of the
ICT. In JFETS, the location of the mission, with simulated
personnel and defenses, is presented to the player-trainee.
Most missions are team missions, so the training becomes a
multiplayer game experience. Superiors can monitor the
performance of individuals, as well as the entire team, and
can provide feedback, both positive and negative, in debrief-
ings after the mission is completed. If the design of the simu-
lation is engaging enough, it’s not impossible to assume that
soldiers would be willing to play the games in their off hours,
combining unsupervised entertainment with training.
Live training operations, deploying hundreds or even
thousands of military personnel into the field, have been a
staple of military training for centuries. The cost of such
operations, in both people and equipment, makes them less
than ideal. With massively multiplayer online games tech-
nology, bringing together troops from around the world,
operations can be done less expensively and with much
more secrecy. In addition, the military is contemplating
VR trainers.
Training for the military has advanced significantly in
the past decades, and games for training have played a
large part. Though many in command and training posi-
tions still distrust games as teaching tools, there is evi-
dence of its success and the use of games will become even
more important in the years to come. For the military’s
games, after-action review (AAR) is particularly impor-
tant. The process reviews what was supposed to happen,
establishes what actually happened, and then determines
what went right—essential to assessing both the game and
a soldier’s performance. Past studies always have mixed
effectiveness results.
Challenges and Opportunities
Outside classrooms, students and adults are highly engaged
in using a range of complex technologies and have gener-
ally surpassed the expertise of their teachers. Technologies
of many kinds, from online universities to interactive
learning environments and distance education are nibbling
at the edge of school systems (Collins and Halverson
2009). The failure to recognize technology and its affor-
dances for improving teaching and learning is thwarting
our ability to develop a technologically skilled workforce
and thereby inhibiting our ability to compete in the global
marketplace. Students in less affluent public schools are
unable to obtain a modern and competitive education, and
our system of education is not consonant with the goals of
other high-performing Western countries.
Technological innovation is creating rampant discord in
well-established industries that have been entrenched at all
levels of the education enterprise. Textbook, magazine,
and newspaper publishers are in a quandary about how to
deal with current digitization of information and massive
94.   Educational Games and Virtual Reality–•–829
amounts of data and the vast global networks now used for
global information and communications. To what extent,
we ask, do the industries tethered to the education system,
such as textbook and publishing companies, student exam
preparation companies, college boards, and an array of
resource providers with contracts to schools constrain the
use of technologies and software applications because
their businesses are not yet technology-based? Although
few groups adopt the Luddite strategy of destroying tech-
nological innovation, other strategies may be equally
destructive, preventing the level of creativity, innovation,
and progress our civilization needs. Change demands radi-
cal new skills and practices.
Future Learning Progressions
The inferential processes of children in their genetic
epistemology of knowledge remain largely a mystery to our
understanding, although some generalizations about the
progression from sensory experience to concrete manipula-
tion and formal knowledge (Piaget 1926) are superficially
understood. It is clear that the implicit creation of concepts
and knowledge structures is most significant during the first
few years of life when every new experience seems to add
measurably to a child’s progress. The meanings of words
grow in parallel with each other incrementally so that
within five years (1,825 days) more than 5,000 unique con-
ceptual meanings are learned while only one or two new
words are encountered each day (Landauer and Dumais
1997). With the exception of some parental assistance, no
teacher was involved in these learning achievements.
Exposing children at early ages and grade levels to com-
plex ideas could turn around children’s natural learning
progressions. For example, a game has the potential to pro-
vide young children with experiences that convey the
impact of human behavior on an ecosystem, giving them
immediate insight into the concept traditionally taught in
high school. Although we do not know how the mind can
extrapolate from VR experiences at such early ages, we do
know that simulated environments, as previously men-
tioned, can create immersive states of consciousness that are
“as if’ the student is there. In addition to basic gains, VR
could be tested as an intervention. As an example, exposure
to novel learning experiences outside of school has been
linked to higher academic performance in elementary
school. Affluent children typically spend summers hours
traveling or in learning activities compared with economi-
cally challenged children who have little enrichment outside
of school. Academic gains made by affluent students during
the summer are compounded yearly resulting in a perpetu-
ally widening academic gap between affluent and economi-
cally challenged students during the formative school years.
Because VR and games can provide simulations with
experiences of real environments, including augmented
reality, these environments can expose students to “realis-
tic” and “authentic” enrichment activities potentially clos-
ing the learning gap in the early years. Our minds are
830–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
attuned to implicit inferential learning from experiences
provided by our perceptual systems; yet, education largely
fails to stimulate and leverage these powerful learning
systems. Imagine allowing children to experience and
explore the conceptual universe of atomic and chemical
structures, an unspoiled ecosystem, historical reenact-
ments, and the plays of Shakespeare, just as concretely as
they now explore their playrooms and backyards. Imagine
not just two-dimensional graphs of forces and relations, as
in SimCalc (Kaput, Hegedus, and Lesh 2007), but embod-
ied forces moving and changing dynamically in complex
relationships that students can be engaged with using all
their perceptual and intellectual systems. Games, VR, and
other emerging technologies are strategies for learning that
embrace complexity and rely upon the amazing capabili-
ties of the neural networks of the brain to create organized
knowledge and understanding. The formation and ingrained
acceptance of many misconceptions is prevalent in K–12.
Ideas such as the geocentric solar system, medieval theo-
ries of circular motion, or overly simplistic views of preda-
tor and prey relations can easily be eliminated through VR
and games in early elementary school, allowing for com-
plex and accurate conceptions of the world to form at early
ages and freeing up valuable academic time for more
meaningful and detailed exploration. At this point of
unprecedented opportunity for learning, we should be
exploring a plethora of possibilities.
Scientific Misconceptions
Misconceptions about the world abound in students—
from the obvious flat Earth and geocentric solar system to
the much less obvious impetus theories of motion for
objects swung in circles and let go, or objects dropped
from moving vehicles (Minstrell 1982; Hamza and
Wickman 2008). Misconceptions in science and mathe-
matics have an important role in creating graduated and
more complex understanding of the world. For example,
the Bohr atom is a crude approximation of more detailed
atomic structure. However, some misconceptions are the
direct by-product of our perceptual system. Even after
seeing the Earth rise from the moon’s surface, it is still
difficult to conceive perceptually that the sun is not orbit-
ing the Earth in the sky. Despite this perceptual conflict,
VR can provide the direct experience to understand more
directly and convincingly that a heliocentric view of the
solar system is a more scientifically congruent concep-
tion. Similarly, it can provide a point of view of objects
being dropped from moving vehicles that takes either the
perspective of the moving vehicle or the stationary
ground, and the accurate flight of objects can be made
clearly visible. In this way, VR provides pedagogic
agency of novel and unrivaled power. To use this power,
teachers must understand these misconceptions, must
understand the role of misconceptions in the cognitive
growth of their students, and must be able to integrate
these things into their curriculum and nothing seems as
imaginative and compelling as seeing and doing through
immersive technologies.
Exploiting the Power of Disruptive Technology
Reviewing these strengths of VR and educational
games, the pattern of their disruptive powers becomes obvi-
ous. Instead of providing facts and abstractions, VR and
educational games offer an embodiment of selected, refined
experiences distilled from real life. An example of leading-
edge work with experiential simulation is ScienceSpace, an
evolving suite of virtual worlds designed to aid students in
mastering difficult science concepts (Salzman, Dede, and
Loftin 1995). Whether to counter misconceptions, provide
access to normally unperceivable phenomena of Earth’s
systems and processes and inaccessible environments, or
immerse students in exciting, motivating adventures with
incidental but important meaning, games and VR technolo-
gies offer unprecedented educational opportunities. These
opportunities may never fit into the existing framework of
education unless current approaches to the use of educa-
tional technologies change. VR and games can stretch and
shape students’ minds in ways that have not yet been
explored by educators in large-scale implementations. This
is disruptive technology at its core.
Students live in this world of immediate sharing, with
cell phones, instant messages, online social networking
sites, and games, in a continuing evolution of technology
that dominates their lives. The education system used to be
the access point for new information and knowledge, now
the Internet and social networking technologies offer
resources of unparalleled magnitude making information
and knowledge gained in classrooms appear outdated.
New technologies offer fresh and highly effective new
approaches to creativity in the context of education, such
as ways to adjust pedagogical structures in favor of a more
individual approach to learning that creates opportunities
for teachers to engage students individually and provide
feedback. Technology provides opportunities for individu-
alized, automatic feedback, and promotes collaboration
and peer interaction in new powerful ways. Online games
in particular demand teamwork and sharing expertise.
Humans are endowed with magnificent sensory systems
to investigate and explore the world. Children use these
systems to make powerful, far-reaching generalizations
about complex everyday events and structures that are so
amazingly accurate that they survive to reach school age and
beyond. It does not take much imagination to see that the
structures and function of the brain are intimately in har-
mony with these perceptual systems. Yet once in school,
these powerful systems and exploratory urges are harnessed,
reined in, and often constrained only to focus narrowly on
text-based learning and images in books. The advanced new
technologies of VR and games make these persistent restric-
tions unnecessary, but the education system must be radi-
cally changed to position itself to take advantage of these
new teaching and learning opportunities.

The Future Workforce
Workplace employment demands increasingly more
knowledge adeptness with online interaction and collabo-
ration essential to job functions. Education has moved
much too slowly in taking an active lead in promoting
these skills and focusing on higher order thinking skills
that leverage these technological breakthroughs. Many
technologies are inherently educational in ways that could
easily be exploited by schools; yet, it appears that the
zeitgeist is predominantly one of shutting these technolo-
gies out of school-based learning, preventing cell phone
use in classes because of their potential disruption of
teachers’ lectures and control. The true disruption, how-
ever, is not inside classrooms, it’s outside the classroom,
in out-of-school learning where information and commu-
nications technologies, games, and virtual worlds are
dominating the attention of youth and perpetuating and
evolving with such sophistication that it will ultimately
cause the educational system to change, but when, and at
what cost to our nation’s leadership?
It is up to leaders, principals, administrators, school
boards, and local officials to begin to design the necessary
educational technology framework for how schools might
undergo a transformation and oversee it through to a suc-
cessful end. A demand for new curricula with a culture of
embracing technologies for learning must evolve. Schools
of education must teach preservice teachers how to teach
and collaborate through technology, foster student research
using technology, and engage students in the use of current
technologies so they gain necessary competitive expertise
in using technology for a range of interdisciplinary career
opportunities, evolve essential abilities to solve problems
References and Further Readings
Bainbridge, William Sims. 2007. “The Scientific Research
Potential of Virtual Worlds.” Science 317:472–76.
Bangert-Drowns, Robert L. and Curtis Pyke. 2001. “Student
Engagement with Educational Software: An Exploration of
Literate Thinking with Electronic Literature.” Journal of
Educational Computing Research 24(3):213–34.
Barba, Charles, John E. Deaton, Tom Santarelli, Bruce Knerr,
Michael Singer, and Jim Belanich. 2006. “Virtual
Environment Composable Training for Operational
Readiness (VECTOR).” Proceedings of the 25th Army
Science Conference. Arlington, VA: Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.
Beal, Scott A. 2005. “Using Games for Training Dismounted
Light Infantry Leaders: Emergent Questions and Lessons
Learned.” Research Report 1841. Arlington, VA: U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Cazden, Courtney B. and Sarah W. Beck. 2003. “Classroom
Discourse.” Pp. 165–97 in Handbook of Discourse
Processes, edited by A. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher, and
S. Goldman. New York: Routledge.
94.   Educational Games and Virtual Reality–•–831
through analysis of emerging data, and design new forms
of innovation for a technological world.
VR can present science content through sophisticated
simulations allowing users to interactively experiment, col-
lect, and interpret data, pose questions, explore new hypoth-
eses, and analyze results of their own virtual experiments.
Conducting scientific inquiry within a VR environment
allows learners to progress to more difficult and sophisti-
cated science investigation experiences at their own pace of
inquiry. Such experiences promote improvement in learners’
critical thinking and problem-solving skills through manipu-
lation of scientific data, data analysis, and speculation of
results. For teachers with students who have varied academic
backgrounds, propensities, and abilities, VR can integrate a
range of personalized strategies. Students who may have dif-
ficulty performing in class could potentially have time away
from teachers and peers to engage in virtual problem-solving
strategies synchronized to a learner’s individual pace.
Conclusion
Researchers have created innumerable prototypes and dis-
seminated them to educators, researchers, and schools only
to continue to flounder alone. Such a piecemeal research
agenda and implementation strategy will not effect any
change in education in radical ways. The education enter-
prise must systematically draw from the body of evidence
but also, and most importantly, from the real-world
exchange of ideas in the world marketplace to absorb
visionary new ideas and recommendations. Leadership is
needed in government and industry to forge a bold new
plan to let children learn.
Cianciolo, Anna T., Michael Prevou, Dominic Cianciolo, and
Rick Morris. 2007. “Using Digital Storytelling to
Stimulate Discussion in Army Professional Forums.”
In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training,
Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC).
Arlington, VA: National Training and Simulation
Association.
Collins, Allan and Richard Halverson. 2009. Rethinking
Education in the Age of Technology. New York: Teachers
College Press.
de Strulle, Arlene. 2009. “Effects of Virtual Reality on Learning
at a Science Exhibit.” Pp. 87–118 in Identity, Learning and
Support in Virtual Environments, edited by S. Tettegah and
C. Calongne. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Dixon, Nancy M., Nate Allen, Tony Burgess, Pete Kilner, and
Steve Schweitzer. 2005. “Company Command: Unleashing
the Power of the Army Profession.” West Point, NY:
Center for the Advancement of Leader Development and
Organizational Learning.
Foltz, Peter, Noelle LaVoie, Rob Oberbreckling, Ralph
Chatham, and Joseph Psotka. 2008. “DARCAAT: DARPA
Competence Assessment and Alarms for Teams.”
832–•–VIII.  EDUCATION
Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry, Simulation and
Education Conference (I/ITSEC). Arlington, VA: National
Training and Simulation Association.
Hamza, Karim M. and Per-Olof Wickman. 2008. “Describing
and Analyzing Learning in Action: An Empirical Study of
the Importance of Misconceptions in Learning Science.”
Science Education 92:141–64.
Hill, Randall W., James Belanich, H. Chad Lane, Mark Core,
Melissa Dixon, Eric Forbell, Julia Kim, and John Hart.
2006. “Pedagogically Structured Game-based Training:
Development of the ELECT BiLAT Simulation.” In
Proceedings of the 25th Army Science Conference.
Arlington, VA: Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.
Johnson, W. Lewis and Carole Beal. 2005. “Iterative Evaluation
of a Large-scale, Intelligent Game for Language Learning.”
Pp. 290–97 in Artificial Intelligence in Education:
Supporting Learning through Intelligent and Socially
Informed Technology, edited by C. K. Looi, G. McCalla,
B. Bredeweg, and J. Breuker. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
IOS Press.
Kafai, Yasmin B., Kylie A. Peppler, and Grace M. Chiu. G. 2007.
“High Tech Programmers in Low-Income Communities:
Creating a Computer Culture in a Community Technology
Center.” Pp. 545–62 in Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Communities and Technology,
edited by C. Steinfeld, B. Pentland, M. Ackermann, and
N. Contractor. New York: Springer.
Kaput, James J., Stephen Hegedus, Richard A. Lesh. 2007.
“Technology Becoming Infrastructural in Mathematics
Education.” Pp. 173–92 in Foundations for the Future in
Mathematics Education, edited by R. Lesh, E. Hamilton,
and J. Kaput. New York: Routledge.
Kearsley, Greg and Ben Schneiderman. 1998. “Engagement
Theory.” Educational Technology 38(5):20–23.
Kozma, Robert, ed. 2003. Technology, Innovation, and
Educational Change: A Global Perspective. Eugene, OR:
International Society for Technology in Education.
Landauer, Thomas K. and Susan T. Dumais. 1997. “A Solution
to Plato’s Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory
of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of
Knowledge.” Psychological Review 104:211–40.
Lee, Hee-Sun, Marcia C. Linn, Keisha Varma, and Ou Lydia
Liu. 2010. “How Do Technology-Enhanced Inquiry
Science Units Impact Classroom Learning?” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 47:71–90.
Malone, Thomas W. 1981a. “Toward a Theory of Intrinsically
Motivating Instruction.” Cognitive Science 4:333–69.
———. 1981b. “What Makes Computer Games Fun?” BYTE
6:258–77.
Malone, Thomas W. and Mark R. Lepper. 1987. “Making
Learning Fun: Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for
Learning. Pp. 223–53 in Aptitude, Learning and Instruction:
Vol. 3. Cognitive and Affective Process Analysis, edited by
R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meltzoff, Andrew, Patricia K. Kuhl, Javier Movellan, and
Terrence J. Sejnowski. 2009. “Foundations for a New
Science of Learning.” Science 325:284–88.
Minstrell, Jim. 1982. “Explaining the ‘at Rest’ Condition of an
Object.” The Physics Teacher 20:10–14.
National Research Council. 2007. Taking Science to School:
Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K–8.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
O’Neil, Harold F., Richard Wainess, and Eva L. Baker. 2005.
“Classification of Learning Outcomes: Evidence from the
Computer Games Literature.” The Curriculum Journal
16(4):455–74.
Papert, Seymour. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and
Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, Jean. 1926. The Language and Thought of the Child.
London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Psotka, Joseph. 1996. “Immersive Training Systems: Virtual
Reality and Education and Training.” Instructional Science
23(5–6):405–23.
Quarles, John, Samsun Lampotang, Ira Fischler, Paul Fishwick,
and Benjamin Lok. 2009. “Scaffolded Learning with
Mixed Reality.” Computers and Graphics 33:34–46.
Roberts, Bruce, David Diller, and David Schmitt. 2006.
“Factors Affecting the Adoption of a Training Game.” In
Proceedings of the 2006 Interservice/Industry Training,
Simulation and Education Conference. Arlington, VA:
National Training and Simulation Association.
Salzman, Marilyn C., Chris Dede, and R. Bowen Loftin. 1995.
“Learner-Centered Design of Sensorily Immersive
Microworlds Using a Virtual Reality Interface.” Pp. 554–64
in Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Education, edited by J. Greer.
Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computers in Education.
Seidel, Robert J. and Martin Rubin. 1977. Computers and
Communications: Implications for Education. New York:
Academic Press.
Shneiderman, Ben and Greg Kearsley. 1989. Hypertext
Hands-on! An Introduction to a New Way of Organizing
and Accessing Information. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Squire, Kurt D. and Constance A. Steinkuehler. 2006.
“Generating Cyberculture/s: The Case of Star Wars
Galaxies.” Pp. 177–98 in Cyberlines 2.0 Languages and
Cultures of the Internet, edited by D. Gibbs and
K-L. Krause. Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas
Publishers.
Thomas, Douglas and John Seely Brown. 2009. “Why Virtual
Worlds Can Matter.” International Journal of Media and
Learning 1(1):37–49.
Tüzün, Hakan, Meryem Yilmaz-Soylu, Türkan Karakuş, Yavuz
İnal, and Gonca Kızılkaya. 2009. “The Effects of
Computer Games on Primary School Students’
Achievement and Motivation in Geography Learning.”
Computers and Education 52:68–77.
Utman, Christopher H. 1997. “Performance Effects of
Motivational State: A Meta-Analysis.” Personality and
Social Psychology Review 1:170–82.
Yang, Rui. 2003. “Globalisation and Higher Education
Development: A Critical Analysis.” International Review of
Education 49(3–4):269–91.