Video games in the classroom:

1
Video games in the classroom

• Teachers perceptions

2
Introduction
3
(Video) games and education

• Rieber (1996)
• Gee (2003)
• Bogost (2007)

Intoduction
4
Video games in education

• Games gt Constructivist learning(Singleton,
  2009 Shaffer, 2009)
• Students gt Digital natives (Prensky, 2001
  Oblinger Oblinger, 2005 Beck Wade, 2004)
• Games gt Motivational(Malone, 1980 Lepper
  Malone, 1987 McFarlane et al., 2002)

Intoduction
5
Research contests assumptions 1 2

• Digital natives
• (Bennett, Maton Kervin, 2007 Schulmeister,
  2008)
• Students acceptance
• (Squire, 2004 Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007
  Whitton, 2007 Bourgonjon et al., unpublished)

Intoduction
6
Research contests assumptions 1 2

• Digital natives (Bennett, Maton Kervin, 2007
  Schulmeister, 2008)
• Students acceptance(Squire, 2004
  Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005 Whitton, 2007
  Bourgonjon et al., unpublished)
• Teachers acceptance(Verheul van Dijck, 2009
  Can Cagiltay, 2006 Sandford et al., 2006)

Intoduction
7
Research questions
8
Research questions

• RQ1 How do teachers perceive the use of video
  games in the classroom?
• RQ2 Do teachers (intend to) use video games in
  the classroom?
• RQ3 What factors influence teachers intentions
  to use video games?

Intoduction
9
RQ1 Teachers perceptionsRQ2 Teachers
intentions
10
Descriptive statistics

• N 505 secondary school teachers
• 33 online, 66 paper (33 games first)
• 57 female, 43 male
• Mean teacher experience 15.5 years

RQ1 and 2
11
Descriptive statistics

• Only 3.2 had experimented with games
• ? 27 in Sandford et al. (2006)
• Only 2.8 uses games

RQ1 and 2
12
RQ1 and 2
13
RQ1 and 2
14
RQ1 and 2
15
RQ1 and 2
16
RQ3 Explaining Teachers Intentions
17
Technology Acceptance Model
Ease of use (EOU)
Behavioral Intention (BI)
Actual Use
Usefulness (U)
Explaining teachers intentions
18
Criticism on TAM

• Information Systems research
• Educational research
• Game research

Explaining teachers intentions
19
Criticism on TAM

• inconsistent findings (Legris et al., 2003 van
  Braak Goeman, 2001 Wolski Jackson, 1999
  Yuen Ma, 2008 Hsu Lu, 2004)
• not accounting for a factors(Mathieson, 1991
  McFarland Hamilton, 2006 Kiraz Ozdemir,
  2006)
• focus too strong on technology(Hermans et al.,
  2008)
• hedonic systems(van der Heijden, 2004)

Explaining teachers intentions
20
Beyond TAM

• Accounting for
• Purpose (education)
• Type of technology (games)
• Target users (teachers)
• Context (social influences, school)

Explaining teachers intentions
21
1. Purpose Type of technology

• Games education
• Learning opportunities (LO)
• Problems (PROB)
• Games aggression
• Violent effects (VIOL)

Explaining teachers intentions
22
2. Target users

• Teachers beliefs
• General educational beliefs (EBt, EBl)
• Teachers skills
• Personal innovativeness (PIIT)
• Computer Self-Efficacy (CSE)
• Teachers experience
• Experience with games (XPe)
• Interest in games for educational use (INT)

Explaining teachers intentions
23
3. Context

• Social influences
• Critical mass (CRIT)
• Social Norm (SN)
• School context
• ICT policy (ICTpol)
• Facilities (FAC)

Explaining teachers intentions
24
Sequential regression analysis

• Variables that needs to be controlled for
• TAM variables
• Purpose Type of technology variables
• Target users variables
• Context variables

SRA
25
Sequential regression analysis

• Variables that needs to be controlled for
• TAM variables
• Purpose Type of technology variables
• Target users variables
• Context variables

SRA
26
Sequential regression analysis

• Variables that needs to be controlled for
• TAM variables
• Purpose Type of technology variables
• Target users variables
• Context variables

SRA
27
Sequential regression analysis

• Variables that needs to be controlled for
• TAM variables
• Purpose Type of technology variables
• Target users variables
• Context variables

SRA
28
Extended (TAM) model

• Experience in education
• Usefulness
• Interest in games for education
• Critical mass
• Social norm
• ICT policy

SRA
29
Usefulness
Learning opportunities
Usefulness
Problems
Usefulness (U)
Increased productivity
?
SRA
30
New model

• Experience in education (years) (-.105)
• Learning opportunities
• Problems
• Interest in games for education
• Critical mass
• Social Norm
• ICT policy

SRA
31
New model

• Experience in education (years)
• Learning opportunities (.272)
• Problems (-.114)
• Interest in games for education
• Critical mass
• Social Norm
• ICT policy

U ?
SRA
32
New model

• Experience in education (years)
• Learning opportunities
• Problems
• Interest in games for education (.246)
• Critical mass
• Social Norm
• ICT policy

SRA
33
New model

• Experience in education (years)
• Learning opportunities
• Problems
• Interest in games for education
• Critical mass (.223)
• Social Norm (.179)
• ICT policy

SRA
34
New model

• Experience in education (years)
• Learning opportunities
• Problems
• Interest in games for education
• Critical mass
• Social Norm
• ICT policy (-.088)

SRA
35
Non significant

• Experience with games as entertainment
• Ease of use
• Educational beliefs
• Violent effects
• Personal innovativeness
• Computer self-efficacy
• Facilities

SRA
36
Conclusions
37
Conclusions

• Teachers
• perceptions mixed
• experience almost inexistent
• Explaining teachers intentions
• TAM

38
Conclusions

• Explaining teachers intentions
• Focus on raising awareness
• Approach key figures in school communities

39
References
40

• Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual
  and operational definition of personal
  innovativeness in the domain of information
  technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2),
  204-215.
• Beck, J. C., Wade, M. (2004). Got Game. How the
  Gamer Generation Is Reshaping Business Forever.
  Boston (MA) Harvard Business School Press.
• 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., Schellens, T.,
  Soetaert, R. (2009). Students' acceptance of
  video games. Ghent University.
• Can, G., Cagiltay, K. (2006). Turkish
  prospective teachers' perceptions regarding the
  use of computer games with educational features.
  Educational Technology Society, 9(1), 308-321.
• Chau, P. T. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of
  a modified technology acceptance model. Journal
  of Management Information SystemsJournal of
  Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185-204.
• Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer
  Self-Efficacy Development of a measure and
  initial test. Mis Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
• Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., Warshaw, P. R.
  (1989). User acceptance of computer technology
  A comparison of 2 theoretical models. Management
  Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
• Denessen, E. (1999). Opvattingen over onderwijs.
  Leerstof- en leerlinggerichtheid in Nederland.
  Leuven-Apeldoorn Garant.
• Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Beyond Edutainment
  The Educational Potential of Computer Games
  Continuum Press.

41

• 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.
• Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J.,
  Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school
  teachers' educational beliefs on the classroom
  use of computers. Computers Education,
  1499-1509.
• Hsu, C. L., Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people
  play on-line games? An extended TAM with social
  influences and flow experience. Information
  Management, 41(7), 853-868.
• Kiraz, E., Ozdemir, D. (2006). The relationship
  between educational ideologies and technology
  acceptance in pre-service teachers. Educational
  Technology Society, 9(2), 152-165.
• Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P. (2003).
  Why do people use information technology? A
  critical review of the technology acceptance
  model. Information Management, 40(3), PII
  S0378-7206(0301)00143-00144.
• Lepper, M. R., Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic
  motivation and instructional effectiveness in
  computer-based education. . In R. E. Snow M. J.
  Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction
  (Vol. 3. Conative and affective process analyses
  pp. 255-286). Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to
  learn? Heuristics for designing instructional
  computer games. Paper presented at the 3rd ACM
  SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium
  on small systems.
• Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions
  comparing the technology acceptance model with
  the theory of planned. Information Systems
  Research, 2(3), 18.

42

• McFarland, D. J., Hamilton, D. (2006). Adding
  contextual specificity to the technology
  acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior,
  22(3), 427-447.
• McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., Heald, Y.
  (2002). Report on the educational use of games
  An exploration by TEEM of the contibution which
  games can make to the education process.
• Niederhauser, D. S., Stoddart, T. (2001).
  Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of
  educational software. Teaching and Teacher
  Education, 17(1), 15-31.
• Oblinger, D. G., Oblinger, J. L. (2005).
  Educating the Net Generation. Online e-book
  Educause.
• Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in
  childhood. New York Norton.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital
  immigrants, Part II Do they really think
  differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9.
• Price, C. B. (2008). Learning physics with the
  Unreal Tournament engine. Physics Education,
  291-296.
• 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.
• Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M., Facer, K., Rudd, T.
  (2006). Teaching with Games Using commercial
  off-the-shelf computer games in formal education
  FutureLab.
• Schulmeister, R. (2008). Is There a Net Gener in
  the House? Dispelling a Mystification. e-learning
  education.
• Squire, K. D. (2004). Replaying History Learning
  World History through playing Civilization III.
  Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana.

43

• Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J.,
  Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the
  classroom Challenging the potential of a school
  policy. Computers Education, 51(1), 212-223.
• Van Braak, J., Goeman, K. (2001). The usability
  of the Technology Acceptance Model in an attempt
  to predict teachers' computer use Paper presented
  at the ED-MEDIA - World Conference on Educational
  Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications,
  Tampere, Finland.
• van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of
  hedonic information systems. Mis Quarterly,
  28(4), 695-704.
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B.,
  Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
  information technology Toward a unified view.
  Mis Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
• Verheul, I., van Dijck, W. (2009).
  Effectiviteit van een COTS game in het MBO
  Oblivion. Eindrapportage. Utrecht CLU,
  Universiteit Utrecht.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge,
  MA MIT Press.
• Whitton, N. (2007). Motivation and computer game
  based learning. Paper presented at the Ascilite
  2007, Singapore.
• Wolski, S., Jackson, S. (1999). Technological
  diffusion within educational institutions
  Applying the technology acceptance model. Paper
  presented at the 10th conference of the Society
  for Information Technology Teacher Education,
  San Antonio, Texas.
• Yuen, A. H. K., Ma, W. W. K. (2008). Exploring
  teacher acceptance of e-learning technology.
  Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3),
  229-243.