The gamers are a unique group of students who feel that their uniqueness comes from their self-identification with the phenomenon that represents them—i. e. digital games—and who prioritise digital game-based learning (DGBL) strategies. Research has shown the educational value of digital games as a motivational and learning aid and has revealed their significance in learning both general skills and various school subjects such as Physics, Biology, Mathematics, etc. (Tobias, Fletcher, Dai, Wind, 2011; Van Eck, 2006, 2015). DGBL has some features that are beneficial for teaching and learning: learning within a context relevant to the student (Van Eck, 2006), immersion in the activity (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Meyer, Sørensen, 2011), immediate feedback (Van Eck, 2006; Adams, 2009), enjoyment and motivation (Plass, Homer, Kinzer, 2015), personalisation (Kickmeier-Rust et al., 2011), and learning from each other (Egenfeldt‑Nielsen, Meyer, Sørensen, 2011). However, according to researchers, some parents and teachers still doubt the positive impact of DGBL and are questioning whether it is useful to students and whether it does not distract them from serious learning (Kirstavridou, Kousaris, Zafeiriou, Tzafilkou, 2020).  In school, there is a clear dissonance between the learning approaches and methods desired by the students of the upcoming generation and the approaches and methods they are offered (Paul, Hansen, Taylor, 2005). A failure to satisfy the needs of students creates preconditions for the exclusion of certain student subgroups (e. g. the gamers) by not embracing and not applying learning methods that are acceptable to them. Studies show contrast between the growing number of students who play digital games and declining enthusiasm and motivation for school (Turkay, Hoffman, Kinzer, Chantes, Vicari, 2014). It could be assumed that the gamers represent the group of unmotivated students who spend more time playing digital games than formally studying in school. It is important to analyse what are the reasons that reduce the motivation of the gamer group to study in the formal education process, which of their learning needs are not being met and what kind of learning process would be acceptable to them.

Our study based on the classical Grounded Theory unexpectedly revealed certain processes that create preconditions for the exclusion of the gamers as a subgroup of students in school. The following processes emerged: Stereotyping of digital games and gamers, Power Without Authority, Domination, Hyper-Intellectualisation, Standardisation and Hyper-Care. These processes reveal how the exclusion of the gamers is cultivated in school. They demonstrate the learning needs of a specific group of students, their expectations for school and the mismatch between the said expectations and the characteristics of formal education.The study data also shows that these processes are related to the transfer of behaviours which are characteristic of the gamers (and considered undesirable in school) to digital games. The gamers use digital games to experiment with things that are taboos in school: they choose games with aggressive content (because it is frowned upon by teachers) and explore the consequences of more aggressive solutions and hostile actions (provoke conflicts, allow themselves to act aggressively, explore limit states, conduct social experiments, etc.) For them, it is a counterbalance to the processes cultivated in school such as Hyper-Care, over-emphasising of intellectual activities, or sterile educational content (not containing certain controversial topics).

The study was based on the classical Glaser`s version of the Grounded Theory. The basis of the classical GT version is the emergence of theory from the data. It is an inductive reasoning method that creates a theory through the systematic collection, synthesis, analysis and conceptualisation of data. The researchers move in their study field without a predefined study problem; the study problem and its resolutions emerge from research data (Glaser, 2018, Glaser, Holton, 2004). The following data were used: 21 interviews with gamers; 1 interview with an art critic and expert teacher; 1 focus group with 8th grade students of gymnasium (all of them have played or play digital games); observations at video game culture exhibition GameOn in 2015 and 2019; observations at Animation and Games Festival BLON in 2019; informal observations at Tallinn University during the Course on the Creation of Serious [digital] Games; informal conversations with the developers, players and researchers of digital games from November 2017 to January 2018 during the author`s internship at the Digital Games Research Group of the IT University of Copenhagen; written interviews with 8 art teachers and 3 art teachers-to-be; comments on Facebook; informal correspondence with interview participants. The data of this study were analysed in the following stages: substantive coding that includes open coding and selective coding, and theoretical coding. Data analysis stages were accompanied by continuous memoing. All steps, i.e. data collection, open coding, theoretical sampling, memoing, conceptualisation, etc. were carried out simultaneously in a cyclic manner, with the author repeatedly returning to the first steps. The stages were repeated until data categories were saturated. The literature review had not been performed until processes that create preconditions for the exclusion of gamers in school emerged and were conceptualised; only then literature was used as one of data sources (Glaser, 1998). Research ethics was followed: all participants were informed about the purpose for which their data were collected and their right to withdraw from the study at any stage. The parents of minors were informed in writing about the study purpose and their written consents allowing their children to participate were obtained. All identifying personal information of participants was changed. All participants took part voluntarily and gave their consents. The study complied with the Regulation on the Assessment of Conformity of Scientific Research to the Main Principles of Professional Research and Ethics approved by Vytautas Magnus University Senate (MTAPTPEPVN, 2021).

Processes that cultivate the exclusion of gamers in school emerged during the study. The main one is the stereotyping of digital games which makes the gamers who identify themselves with games also feel stereotyped and stigmatised. The stereotypes (digital games are harmful, reduce the creativity of children or cause addiction) cause the rejection of digital games as unsuitable for education and the negative image of gamers at school: when playing, they do not think, they shoot in the game to shoot in reality, they are obese. This create preconditions for the gamers to feel rejected and misunderstood. According to them, Power Without Authority means that teachers have formal power but no authority (wise people do not work as teachers, teachers hate children, they think in old-fashioned ways). Therefore, gamers consider teachers incompetent, unable to meet their needs and unaware of innovations. During Hyper-Intellectualisation process, “intellectual” powers and subjects such as Mathematics or English are praised and emphasised, while other subjects such as Arts or Physical Education are undervalued. This process rejects innovative or non-standard phenomena including digital games as “non-intellectual”. Standardisation process maintains strict regulations, typical methods and assessment standards in school, eliminates possibility to be creative, rejects non-standard learning methods such as digital games and opposes to the individuality of students. Domination process emphasises the importance of teachers creating unequal relationship. The students are only allowed to be passive participants, which makes the gamers despise school and choose another space—digital games—where they can be active. Hyper-Care is an intense process of care, supervision and protection in school manifesting as the elimination of “threatening” stimuli, also eliminating certain modes of action: experimenting, acting without unknowing consequences, etc. This approach treats digital games as unsafe, unsuitable for learning and creates an environment without any competition, challenge or intrigue.

1.Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Meyer, B., ir Sørensen, B. H. (Red.). (2011). Serious games in education: A global perspective. Aarhus University Press. 2.Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion. Sociology Press. 3.Glaser, B. G. (2018). Getting started. Grounded Theory Review, 17(1), 3–6. Sociology Press. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2018/12/27/getting-started/ 4.Glaser, B. G., ir Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607 5.Kickmeier-Rust, M., Mattheiss, E., Steiner, C., ir Albert, D. (2011). A psycho-pedagogical framework for multi-adaptive educational games. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(1), 45–58. http://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011010104 6.Kirstavridou D., Kousaris K., Zafeiriou C., ir Tzafilkou K. (2020). Types of game-based learning in education: A brief state of the art and the implementation in Greece. The European Educational Researcher, 3(2), 87-100. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1265904.pdf 7.MTAPTPEPVN. (2021). Regulation on the Assessment of Conformity of Scientific Research to the Main Principles of Professional Research and Ethics. Resolution No. SEN-N-17 of 24 March 2021 by the Senate of Vytautas Magnus University. https://www.vdu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Moksliniutyrimu-atitikties-pagrindiniams-tyrimu-profesionalumo-ir-etikos-principams-vertinimonuostatos.pd 8.Paul, N., Hansen, K. A., ir Taylor, M. (2005). ‘Modding’ education: Engaging today’s learners. The International Digital Media and Arts Association Journal, 2, 69–74. 9.Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., ir Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of Game-Based Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50, 258–283. 10.Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., Dai, D. Y., ir Wind, A. P. (2011). Review of research on computer games. Iš S. Tobias ir J. D. Fletcher (Red.), Computer games and instruction (p. 127–221). IAP Information Age Publishing. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-11269-006 11.Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer, C. K., Chantes, P., ir Vicari, C. (2014). Toward understanding the potential of games for learning: Learning theory, game designcharacteristics, and situating video games in classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(1–2), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380 569.2014.890879 12.Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16–30. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/digital-gamebased-learning-its-not-just-the-digital-natives-who-are-restless 13.Van Eck, R. (2015). Digital game-based learning: Still restless after all these years. EDUCAUSE Review, 50(6), 13–28. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/10/digital-game-based-learning-still-restless-after-all-these-years