Videogames in the classroom: teachers’ perspectives

Author(s):

Jeroen BourgonjonRonald Soetaert Martin Valcke Tammy Schellens

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

16. ICT in Education and Training

Format:

Paper

Session Information

16 SES 09 A, Video Games and Digital Art

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-30

10:30-12:00

Room:

NIG, HS 2i

Chair:

Ed Smeets

Contribution

Historically, games have received a lot of attention for their educational potential (Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978). In the last decennia, there is a renewed interest in the subject, as video games have become one of the most important entertainment media for youngsters. Research shows that video games can serve as teaching tools, as they enclose the best of different learning theories in their practice: they are intrinsically motivating, situate learning in a meaningful context, empower students to self-regulate their learning, confront learners with ill-structured problems, integrate multiple topics, promote inquiry-based and discovery learning… (Malone, 1980; Papert, 1980; Rieber, 1996; Gee, 2003, Watson, 2007). Recent research suggests that in a school context, video games can lead to learning effects (Din & Caleo, 2000; Rosas et al., 2003), deep level thinking (Squire, 2004) and a more positive attitude towards learning (Durking & Barber, 2002). Despite these promising results, not much is known about the actual use of videogames in the classroom. In this article, we focus on the perspective of the teacher: how do teachers perceive videogames? (RQ1), do their beliefs, knowledge and skills support the use of videogames? (RQ2), and are teachers (intending to) use videogames? (RQ3). This is important, since the adoption (Din & Caleo, 2000) and effectiveness (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007) of videogames largely depends on the acceptance by the teacher. This paper presents the first phase of an ongoing study that explores this subject and proposes a model for predicting and understanding teacher acceptance of videogames, based on the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). TAM was chosen as a guiding framework because it is one of the best suited models to study the voluntarily acceptance of innovative technologies (Agarwal & Prasad, 1999; Dishaw & Strong, 1999; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), suitable for Western (European) contexts (Straub, Keil & Brenner, 1997). This is in line with our research questions, as the use of videogames is still a voluntary and innovative decision by the teacher. However, there are some constraints on this model, as TAM only emphasizes the technology-related factors and neglects the educational context (Kiraz & Ozdemir, 2006). Therefore, based on the literature, we extended the model with components from the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1988) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). These include teacher- (educational beliefs, teacher self-efficacy, computer self-efficacy, innovativeness and experience with games) and school-related factors (school policy, resources and subjective norm).

Method

First, a questionnaire was designed, mainly based on existing and widely accepted scales. As a pilot, teachers of 64 secondary schools received an online or a paper version of the survey. T-tests were used to control for potential psychometric bias due to the different versions of the questionnaire, confirmatory factor analysis to test the construct validity and internal consistency reliability for scale items. The fit between the data and our proposed research model was analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (RQ2). Based on these findings, the research model and questionnaire are further optimized. The refined survey is then offered to a representative sample of Flemish secondary schools (March). All of the statistical procedures are repeated and extended with exploratory data analysis (RQ1 &RQ3). In June, both teachers with a high and low behavioral intention to use videogames are invited to discuss their opinions in a focus group.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary results show that the assessment of the psychometric differences between the online and paper survey administration reveals only minor biasing effects. With regard to the psychometric qualities of the test, the different subscales demonstrated good distinguishability of the factor structure and most scales showed adequate reliability. Evidence for validity of the scales was obtained, but additional work is necessary to further optimize the questionnaire. Based on our preliminary results, we further expect this study to identify the relationships (correlation) between different key factors that influence the acceptance of videogames by teachers.

References

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391. Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational Application of Social Cognitive Theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275-302. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Din, F.S., & Caleo, J. (2000). Playing computer games versus better learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Clearwater. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/16/a7.pdf Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9-21. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon (2007). Beyond Edutainment: The Educational Potential of Computer Games. Continuum Press. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kiraz, E. & Ozdemir, D. (2006). The Relationship between Educational Ideologies and Technology Acceptance in Pre-service Teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (2), 152-165. Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. In Proceedings of: 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on small systems, 162–169. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Rieber, L.P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58. Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., et al. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40(1), 71-94. Squire, K. D. (2004). Replaying History: Learning World History through playing Civilization III (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana, 2004). Retrieved from http://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/dissertation.html Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information & Management, 33(1), 1-11. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. Vygotksy, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Watson, W. (2007). Formative research on an instructional design theory for educational video games. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2007).

Author Information

Jeroen Bourgonjon

Ghent University

Educational Studies

Ghent

Ronald Soetaert

Ghent University, Belgium

Martin Valcke

Ghent University, Belgium

Tammy Schellens

Ghent University, Belgium

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Update Modus of this Database

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for