Dr. Pauline Rooney
1





Some background: digital natives & serious
games
Research overview & methodology
Findings
Conclusions
Questions
2
“Digital natives”
“Net generation”
Immersed in digital
technologies/social
networking

Claims that they have different learning
styles/skills/habits:
◦ Expect participatory, sensory-rich environments (Oblinger
2008)
◦ Oriented to visual media
◦ Prefer learning-by-doing (Bennett et al. 2008)
◦ Prefer bite-size, chunked information (Conole 2010)
◦ Effective multi-taskers (Prensky 2001)
◦ Function best when networked
◦ Adept at social networking via multiple modes (Oblinger &
Oblinger 2005)
3


Claims that students no longer respond to
traditional instruction (Prensky 2001)
Serious games viewed as mechanism for engaging
students, meeting their needs and expectations.
But is this the case?
4

Most focuses on school children: reveals
mixed picture:
◦ Not all are technologically literate / game players
(Bourgonjon et al. 2010, Bekebrede et al. 2011)
◦ Preference for games as leisure pursuit (Sandford et
al. 2006)
◦ Perceived as inappropriate for HE (Graham 2007).

Most lit on HE demonstrates assumption that
students will embrace serious games.
5


Investigated students’ attitudes as part of larger case
study which explored implications of in-house
approach to design/ development/ implementation of
serious games in HE.
Led to development of “Serious Gordon”
6


Serious Gordon piloted with 37 undergraduates.
Data sources:
◦ Field observation during pilot (myself and colleague)
◦ Online survey (post game-play)
◦ Semi-structured focus group interviews


Cross-tabulations conducted across survey and
qualitative data to identify significant trends.
Qualitative data analysis techniques:
◦ Categorical aggregation
◦ Direction interpretation (Stake 1995)
◦ Constant comparison method (Glaser and Strauss 1967)
7
73% - first years
27% - fourth years
8
Majority aged
18-22 yrs
Familiarity with PCs/gaming:
•
Over 75% familiar/very familiar with computers
•
Almost 84% had played video games previously
•
Most were not “gamers” (73%): i.e. they did not play
computer/video games at least “a few times per week”
•
All gamers were male
9
“Playing computer/video games is a waste of time”
 YES: 19%
All female
 NO: 81%
*Overwhelmingly positive attitude towards game
play*
10
“I think that learning food safety through
playing computer/video games is a good
idea”


YES: 83.7%
NO: 16.3%
• Majority non-gamers (so
negative impact of lack of prior
gaming experience)
• No gender link (contradicting
previous research) BUT......
11

Consensus that it would be easier to learn via
games:
“you can do stuff
◦
◦
◦
◦
more engaging/interactive/motivating
more visual
appealing alternative to lectures
fun
“You start off and you want to get
to the next level..... you want to
get to the end of it and see the
final outcome.
yourself instead
of sitting there
listening”
“If you can visualise
what you’re learning
it’s a lot easier.
“keeps you entertained
for a while”
“good for a bit of relief”
12

Three key findings:
(1) Link between gender & reasons underlying
students’ antipathy towards serious games
(2) Conflicting perceptions of play and educational
processes
(3) Difficulties reconciling notions of interactive
game play with traditional pedagogical
expectations
13
For those against serious games:
 Males: tended to regard games as leisure activities
only (& majority were non-gamers)
 Females: lack of gaming experience led to fears of
disadvantage
Reinforces Bourgonjon (2010) who linked gaming experience
with positive attitudes towards serious gaming (mediated by
gender).
But also shows that one does not need to be a gamer to hold
view that gaming is inappropriate for learning purposes.
14



Some females, although disinterested in leisure
gaming, embraced it when it had an educational
purpose.
Shows gender differences in perspectives on the
purposes of gaming (unmediated by gaming
experience).
Perhaps unsurprising when we consider previous
studies on gender-based perceptions of ICTs
(Colley 2003)
◦ Males: playful, exploratory approach to ICTs.
◦ Females: utilitarian approach, use tools to assist
with particular tasks.
15

Games and education as dichotomous pair
Education =
SERIOUS

Games =
FUN
Games undermine seriousness of content.
Inappropriate for HE.
“...a classroom environment should probably be a classroom
environment and taken seriously because it is serious issues that are
being dealt with ...”

Terminology: Difficulties reconciling the
term “game” with serious purposes.
I: “Would you like the idea of using computer games to learn.. if they
were designed specifically for your course? []”
S: “Not so much games, computer programs.”
16


Difficulties reconciling notions of interactive
game play with traditional conceptualisations
of formal education.
Belief that traditional, didactic model of
education is most effective way to learn at
third level.
“You couldn’t really learn a whole syllabus on just a
game. You’d have to have a list or whatever at the
end... like a list of questions or a bit of information, or
a handout.”
17


Majority show positive attitude towards serious
games.
However today’s students are not a homogenous
group.
◦ For minority, conflicting perceptions of game play and
educational processes – often mediated by gender
and/or prior gaming and educational experience – may
constitute a barrier.


Challenges tacit assumptions that today’s HE
students will embrace serious games.
Highlights needs and perceptions that should be
addressed when introducing serious games to
the HE classroom.
18
Dr. Pauline Rooney
[email protected]
@paulinecieo
http://www.linkedin.com/in/prooney
19










Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L. (2008) The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the
evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5) 775-786.
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., Schellens, T. (2010) Students' perceptions about the
use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54 (4) 1145-1156.
Bekebrede, G., Warmelink, H.J.G., Mayer, I.S. (2011). Reviewing the need for gaming in
education to accommodate the net generation. Computers & Education, doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.010.
Colley, A. (2003) Gender differences in adolescents' perceptions of the best and worst aspects
of computing at school. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19 (6) 673-682.
Conole, G. (2010) Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education.
In: M. J. W. Lee and C. McLoughlin (eds) Web 2.0-based Elearning: Applying Social Informatics
for Tertiary Teaching. Hershey: IGI Global
Graham, S. (2007) Re-playing history: The Year of the Four Emperors and Civilization IV. The
Higher Education Academy. Available from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/hca/resources/detail/re_playing_history [Accessed 5 November
2008].
Oblinger, D. (2008) Growing up with Google: what it means to education. Emerging
Technologies for Learning Volume 3. Coventry: BECTA. Available from:
http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&rid=13768 [Accessed 11 September
2008].
Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005) Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net
Generation. In: D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (eds) Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE.
Available from: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen [Accessed 25 June 2008].
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M., Facer, K., Rudd, T. (2006) Teaching with games: Using commercial
off-the-shelf computer games in formal education. Bristol: Futurelab. Available from:
www.futurelab.org.uk/download/pdfs/research/TWG_report.pdf [Accessed 12 November
2008].
20