Abstract
Based on the assumption that technology can positively impact our society and help address larger societal problems, and given the fact that technology is a central component of children’s growth, the current study places its research focus on technology-enhanced social change in K-12 education. The study summarizes literature that has been published within the past decade (2006–2017) which has employed technology as a tool for achieving social change via working with K-12 school students. Despite the limited number of manuscripts that emerged to meet these criteria, the reviewed studies revealed evidence suggesting that the intentional use of technology within school contexts can become a means for fostering social change by achieving student behavioral and/or attitudinal shifts. The summary of research calls for more work towards specific directions: targeting school-aged students, designing interventions grounded in theoretical and design foundations, documenting the long-lasting impact of results, addressing technology mediated perspective-taking and addressing how technology-mediation functions.

Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Boler, M. (2004). Teaching for hope: The ethics of shattering world views. In D. Liston & J. Garrison (Eds.), Teaching, learning and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (pp. 117–131). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Brynen, R., & Milante, G. (2013). Peacebuilding with games and simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 44(1), 27–35.
Buchanan, J., Wilson, S. T., & Gopal, N. (2008). A cross cultural virtual learning environment for students to explore the issue of racism: A case study involving the UK, USA and SA. Social Work Education, 27(6), 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470802201804.
Buckner, E., & Kim, P. (2012). Storytelling among Israeli and Palestinian children in the era of mobile innovation. In Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 7–22). Springer New York.
Buisine, S., Besacier, G., Aoussat, A., & Vernier, F. (2012). How do interactive tabletop systems influence collaboration? Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.010.
Burdick, J., & Sandlin, J. (2013). Learning, becoming, and the unknowable: Conceptualizations, mechanism, and process in public pedagogy literature. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 142–177.
Carano, K. T., & Berson, M. J. (2007). Breaking stereotypes: Constructing geographic literacy and cultural awareness through technology. The Social Studies, 98(2), 65–70.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.
Correia, A. (2008). Team conflict in ICT-rich environments: Roles of technologies in conflict management. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 18–35.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2181040
Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514.
Ferdig, R. E., Coutts, J., DiPietro, J., Lok, B., & Davis, N. (2007). Innovative technologies for multicultural education needs. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 1(1), 47–63.
Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., Maneggia, D., & Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 894–914.
Goldsworthy, R., Schwartz, N., Barab, S., & Landa, A. (2007). Evaluation of a collaborative multimedia conflict resolution curriculum. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(6), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9006-5.
Harding, T. B., & Whitlock, M. A. (2013). Leveraging web-based environments for mass atrocity prevention. Simulation & Gaming, 44(1), 94–117.
Ioannou A., & Antoniou C. (2016). Tabletops for Peace: Technology Enhanced Peacemaking in School Contexts. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 164–176.
Ioannou A., & Antoniou C. (2017). Peacemaking Affordances of Shareable Interfaces: A Provocative Essay on Using Technology for Social Change. Proceedings of HCII 2017 (pp. 12–21).
Ioannou, A. & Constantinou, V. (2018). Embracing collaboration and social perspective taking using interactive tabletops. Techtrends (Springer): https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0271-z.
Ioannou, A., Zaphiris, P., Loizides, F., & Vasiliou, C. (2013). Let’s talk about Technology for Peace: A systematic assessment of problem-based group collaboration around an interactive tabletop. Interacting with Computers.https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwt061.
Ioannou, A., Zeniou, M., & Stylianou-Georgiou, A. (2014). Dialogue, Knowledge Work and Tabletops:Lessons from Preservice Teacher Education. Proceedings of HCII 2014 (pp. 410–418).
Ingram, G. P., Hondrou, C., Vasalou, A., Joinson, A., Campos, J., & Martinho, C. (2012). Applying evolutionary psychology to a serious game about children's interpersonal conflict. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(5), doi: 147470491201000510.
Jabali, E. H. (2015). The effects of perspective-taking on perceptual learning. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS), 7, 123–132.
Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics. The Information Society, 16(3), 217–232.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
Larson, D. A. (2006). Technology mediated dispute resolution (TMDR): A new paradigm for ADR. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21(3), 629–686.
Lee, J. J. (2013). Game mechanics to promote new understandings of identity and ethnic minority stereotypes. Digital Culture & Education, 5.
Lee, J. J., & Hoadley, C. M. (2006). Ugly in a world where you can choose to be beautiful: Teaching and learning about diversity via virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 383–389).
Lee, J. J., & Hoadley, C. M. (2007). Leveraging identity to make learning fun: Possible selves and experiential learning in massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs). Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(6), 5.
Marshall, P., Hornecker, E., Morris, R., Dalton, N. S., & Rogers, Y. (2008). When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, 2008. TABLETOP 2008. 3rd IEEE International Workshop on, 33–40.
Memarzia, M., & Star, K. (2011). Choices and Voices–A serious game for preventing violent extremism. Intelligence management (pp. 133–142) Springer.
Morris, M. R., Huang, A., Paepcke, A., & Winograd, T. (2006). Cooperative gestures: Multi-user gestural interactions for co-located groupware. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1201–1210.
Mutekwe, E. (2012). The impact of technology on social change: A sociological perspective. Journal of Research in Peace, Gender. Development, 2(11), 226–238.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
Rector-Aranda, A., & Raider-Roth, M. (2015). "I finally felt like I had power": Student agency and voice in an online and classroom-based role-play simulation. Research in Learning Technology, 23.
Rick, J., Marshall, P., & Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 109–117).
Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which way is best? Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1133–1152.
Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., Bhavnani, S., & Nail-Chiwetalu, B. (2006). Use of information-seeking strategies for developing systematic reviews and engaging in evidence-based practice: The application of traditional and comprehensive pearl growing. A review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 41(5), 567–582.
Singh, A., & Majumdar, S. (2015). Technology and innovation for creating social change: Concepts and theories. In Technology and Innovation for Social Change (pp. 109–123). Springer, New Delhi. Stock, O., Zancanaro, M., Rocchi, C., Tomasini, D., Koren, C., Eisikovits, Z., … Weiss, P. (2009). The design of a collaborative interface for narration to support reconciliation in a conflict. AI & Society, 24(1), 51–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0197-2.
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(03), 495–511.
Veletsianos, G., & Eliadou, A. (2009). Conceptualizing the use of technology to foster peace via adventure learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.003.
Yablon, Y. B. (2007). Feeling close from a distance: Peace encounters via internet technology. New Directions for Youth Development, 2007(116), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.237.
Zancanaro, M., Stock, O., Eisikovits, Z., Koren, C., & Weiss, P. L. (2012). Co-narrating a conflict: An interactive tabletop to facilitate attitudinal shifts. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2362364.2362372.
Funding
This study was not funded by any grant. None of the authors has received funding from any research grants for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Antoniou, C.G., Ioannou, A. Technology for Social Change in school contexts: A new landscape for K-12 educational technology research. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2363–2378 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9721-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9721-7