You are on page 1of 12

Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2013) 22(4):647656

DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0070-4

REGULAR ARTICLE

A Student-Centered Method of Incorporating Computer Games


into School: A Study in Singapore
Pei-Wen Tzuo Der-Thanq Chen Vivian Hsueh-Hua Chen

Published online: 5 March 2013


 De La Salle University 2013

Abstract The paper intends to develop a student-centered


and school-based method to incorporate computer game
play (GP) and game design (GD) activities into school by
discovering students views about why and how to incorporate. The paper first critiques the current GP and GD
activities, which are designer-centric on a touch-and-go
basis, falling short of making student-centered pedagogy a
long-term version of usage. Activity theory is adopted as a
framework to formulate and conceptualize our research
questions, specifically, what are students perceived significance and projected ways of integrating GPGD
activity into school? The report here discloses the qualitative data of four focused groups with 20 students,
extracted from a larger 3-year project. Students are exposed
to either the GP or GD activity, are interviewed about their
perceived outcomes, and project the purposes of their next
participation if they are given free choices. The findings
identify that the significances are complementary but the
purposes are in synergy with teachers didactical approaches. On the basis of the findings, the future pedagogical

P.-W. Tzuo (&)


National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore
e-mail: peiwen.tzuo@nie.edu.sg
D.-T. Chen
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University Singapore, 1 Nanyang Walk,
Singapore 637616, Singapore
e-mail: victor.chen@nie.edu.sg
V. H.-H. Chen
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication & Information,
Nanyang Technological University Singapore, 31 Nanyang Link,
Singapore 637718, Singapore
e-mail: chenhh@ntu.edu.sg

implications of incorporating GP and GD activities into


school contexts similar to the Singaporean context are
suggested.
Keywords Computer game  Learning  Activity theory 
Sociocultural theory  Singapore

The development of computer game-supported learning


activities to assist students in attaining the various goals of
learning has bloomed in the past decade. Two types of
game-supported learning activities can be recognized:
game play (GP) and game design (GD). In GP, students are
given the opportunity to experience life-related simulated
scenarios and tasks to enhance student motivation for
learning (De Freitas and Oliver 2006; Hsu et al. 2012).
Various researchers have elaborated that GP can achieve a
wide array of objectives in learning such as problem
solving (ONeil et al. 2005), collaborative learning (Gros
2007), critical thinking (Akkerman et al. 2009), and identity transformation (Chee 2007; Sharritt 2008). However,
these objectives are designer-centric. Students objectives
are far less explored.
The other type of game-supported learning activity is
GD. In GD, students have to develop a game scenario
comprising the elements of life-related context, knowledge-oriented content, and task-embedded structure with a
given concept or object (Kafai 2006; Wilensky 1991). For
example, youth designers elaborate a concept such as
fractions in Kafais (2006) project. Students first brainstormed the possible life-related scenario, identified the
tasks, explored the various modes of representation, and
then found the related knowledge to support the design.
Various researchers, for example, Druin (1999), Kafai
(2006), and Scaife and Rogers (1998), have remarked on

123

648

the merits of GD and stated that students can have more


learning autonomy in GD. This remark is based on the view
that with GD, as compared to GP, students are active
designers and knowledge constructors rather than passive
consumers. However, we argue that GD is usually a
researcher-driven, studio-based, and hit-and-go approach.
Students views about the reasons and purposes of using
have to be further studied to make a student-centered
school-based incorporation of such activity.
Hence we observe that there are two existing gaps in the
current development of GP and GD to be incorporated into
school. First, even though GP activity has been addressed
to achieve the various objectives of learning, ways of
incorporating them into the school curriculum are designercentric, not student centric. Second, even though GD
activity has intended to be student centric, it is a
researcher-driven hit-and-go approach only. To make a
student-centered school-based method of incorporation,
students objectives have to be discovered and then mapped accordingly onto the school curriculum.
This paper aims to discover students purposes and
objectives of incorporating GP and GD into school curriculum activities through qualitative data from 20 Singaporean students. This study first exposed students to the
GPGD approach for learning of the concept weather in
a geography course in secondary school in Singapore. We
then solicited students reflections on the experiences,
evaluations of the outcomes of activities, and projections of
the future goals of incorporating GPGD activity into their
school learning. On the basis of the findings, a studentcentered school-based approach toward integrating GP and
GD into learning is forged and discussed.
Conceptual Framework and Research Questions
To make a student-centered method of incorporating GP
and GD into school curriculum activities, the rationale of
the paper is first to investigate students objectives in utilizing GPGD for school learning and, in turn, to suggest
ways to map onto school curricula.
Engestroms (1987) activity theory is drawn on as a
framework to conceptualize our research interest and formulate the research questions. In doing so, GP and GD
compose an activity system with which to partake in the
wider school context of learning. Derived from Vygotskys
(1978) socioconstructivist view, activity theory perceives
an activity as a phenomenon by which individuals participate in a sociocultural event that is purposefully planned,
with the object of participation and resources provided by
the designers (Mwanza and Engestrom 2003). In a school
environment, a variety of activity systems are planned and
arranged by the schoolteachers, students, researchers, or

123

P.-W. Tzuo et al.

any collaborative relationships among the three. For


example, GPGD is an activity system designed by
designers and adopted by schoolteachers provided with the
learning resources of life-related stories and visual-audio
illustrations to promote students learning.
In addition to tools (resources) and objects (objective),
Engestrom (1987) indicates that three additional components shape the phenomenon of an activity, including
rules, community, and division of labor. Rules refer to
any explicit or implicit rules and norms embedded in the
context in which the activity performed; community refers
to the group to which a subject belongs; and division of
labor refers to the responsibilities and roles a subject is
expected to play to take up an activity. In short, six
components constitute an activity, including subject,
object, tools, rules, community, and division of labor.
Engestrom emphasized that each component is also in a
mediating dynamic with another as a result of the consequences and outcomes of an activity. For example, the
rules, community, or division of labor also mediate the
object of an activity. To sum up, the phenomenon of an
activity is constituted by the six elements, and each
interacts dietetically to bring about the results, consequence, and outcome of an activity, Engestrom used a
triangle to visually present his theory and illustrate how
the mediating interaction takes place for the outcome of
an activity (see Fig. 1).
There are two ways to utilize activity theory to analyze
an activity: one is from the designers views, and the other
is from the subjects (students) view. We compare the two
different views in Table 1. As stated earlier, the studies
about GP and GD have been elaborated more from the
designers than the students view. This paper aims to
conceptualize GPGD from the students view.
As Table 1 indicates, there are two types of outcomes:
designers evaluated outcomes and students perceived
outcomes. Designers evaluate outcomes to better design the
activity for the next time, whereas students evaluate outcomes to project the purposes of their next participation.
As we have addressed before, the current GP and GD
research is more designer-centric because the outcomes are
evaluated by the designers for the sake of building a more
efficient gaming environment. However, such studies fall
short of understanding that a subjects perceptions of GP
GD may be different. To make a student-centered activity,
understanding students perceptions of the significance of
the activity to their learning and their projections of the
purposes of next participation will lay the first foundation.
The specific research questions to support our study are
as follows:
1.

How do students perceive the significance of GD to


their learning?

Student-Centered Method of Incorporating Games

649

Fig. 1 Activity theory

Table 1 Comparing between designers and students views of GPGD


Designers views

Students views

Activity

How to design GPGD activities to effect learning?

Why and how should I use GPGD in a school context to effect learning
when there are various other activities?

Subject

Student subjects are interested in participating


because of the well-designed GPGD

Students subjects are interested in participating because of the specialty of


GPGD compared to other activities

Tools

What tools should be provided in GPGD either to


complement or to assist school learning?

Why and how should I use the tools provided in GPGD, compared to other
activities, in light of school learning?

Rules

How can the rules of GPGD be designed to effect


learning?

Why and how should I involve GPGD when there are various school rules
(such as assessments and exams) I have to follow?

Community How can GPGD be designed to effect better


interactions among the community members?

Why and how should I involve GPGD, compared to other activities, to


have better interactions with other members in the community?

Division of How can the division of labor be designed in GPGD How much should I involve GPGD to attend to the various demands in
labor
to optimize a subjects effective learning?
school?
Objectives

How can the objectives be set in GPGD to cater to What are the specific purposes (reasons) for involving GPGD compared to
students learning needs?
other school activities?

Outcomes

What are the impacts of GPGD on students


What is the significance of GPGD to my school learning? What are
learning? How can it be better designed next time? desirable ways of using it next time?

2.
3.
4.

How do students project ways of incorporating GD


into school?
How do students perceive the significance of GP to
their learning?
How do students project ways of incorporating GP into
school?

Methods
Background
The study reported here was extracted from a large-scale
project conducted over 10 months during the years
20082009 as part of a 3-year project. The 3-year project
was a cross-disciplinary collaboration between educational

and game-programming teams. Input from the educational


team explored the schools perceptions of and need for
using games for learning to inform the game-programming
team. The game-programming team intended to better
develop games by catering to students and teachers perceptions and needs. Therefore, in the beginning, both teams
worked together to design and deliver GD and GP activities in a school context. In addition, the relationships
between the researchers and teachers were collaborative.
Prior to the activity, the researchers explicated the plans of
the activity; sought advice from schoolteachers; and
revised the plans if necessary, and then obtained consent.
For the delivery of the activity, the two research teams
were both involved in the whole process. Teachers were
collaborators and provided assistance to individual students
during the GD and GP activities such as by clarifying
issues or steps.

123

650

Context of the Study


This study was situated in a geography class in a secondary
school to support students learning of the topic weather.
Geography is a compulsory subject at the lower secondary
level (secondary 1 and 2) and becomes an elective
humanities subject at secondary 3 and 4. Geography is also
an elective exam subject on the SingaporeCambridge
GCE O-Level exam, which is a major national exam given
after secondary 4. Before the project was conducted, other
educational or edutainment games were available to students via the schools e-learning portal, allowing access to
subject knowledge through various GP. Teachers could
also use these games to assist in instruction on an occasional basis. For example, the game Ecocity was used for
students to build a sound city where people are healthy and
wealthy by considering the geographical and economic
conditions of the region.

P.-W. Tzuo et al.

four neighborhood secondary schools in the East and North


zones of Singapore. The family socioeconomic statuses of
the participants attending the schools varied from low
income to middle class. Seventy-six percent of the students
were of Chinese descent, with the remainder being of
Malay and Indian descent. This is close to the racial distribution in Singapore.
The 20 participants were aged 12- to 13-year old and are
of mixed ability, with averagemoderate to low performance in their academic study. The 20 participants in the
four groups were focused on because (1) they were
homogenous and were thought representative of the
neighborhood schools in Singapore, (2) they were interested in continual usage of GD or GP to support their
school learning if they were given free choice, (3) they
volunteered to participate in the interview, (4) they balanced the participants from each school, and (5) they were
balanced between both genders. The 20 participants
information is summarized in Table 2a, b.

Process
During the 10-month study, we delivered GD and GP
activities and explored students reflections on incorporating them into school curriculum if they can have free
choices. For GD, two 3-h workshops were conducted
separately in two schools. The workshops began with a
briefing of the purposes of GD activity and explanations of
the tasks. The tasks were to apply weather-related knowledge by referring to school textbooks or other information
students knew or searched for on the Internet to design
game narratives. Each student designed his or her game
narrative using PowerPoint. We did not use a particular GD
program as our goal was to promote a sustainable approach
using commonly accessible computer programs such as
PowerPoint. For GP, the 30-min briefing was conducted
first and covered how to play the game; this was followed
by 1-h school free play. The game we used in this study
was Weathering, which was designed by the game-programming team. It is an online card game catering to
middle school-aged students learning about weather and
climate. Next, we collected data regarding students perceptions of and reflections on the GD and GP and analyzed
them (these data are the focus of this study and are reported
in subsequent sections).
Participants from the Four Schools
This report is based on the study of 20 pupils from four
focus groups in four schools (namely, Schools A, B, C, and
D; see Table 2a, b) who participated in GDGP activities
and uncovers consensuses and general agreement among
them. The four schools where the study was conducted are

123

Data Collection: Personal Reflections and Focus Group


Interviews
The data include the 20 students postactivity personal
reflections (both GD and GP), and postactivity focus group
interviews (both GD and GP). At the end of GD and GP
activities, each participant was asked to write about
200500 words to reflect on his or her participation. The
questions to guide the reflections included the following:
(a) Do you enjoy the activity? Why and how? (b) Do you
think you learn from the activity? Why and how? Next,
focus groups were conducted 23 weeks after participation
in the GDGP activity based on students convenience. The
focus group interview method was adopted for the following two reasons:
(1)

(2)

Evaluation of an activity. According to Race et al.


(1994), focus group interviews are particularly
suitable to evaluating a particular activity after
running it to understand its impact or to seek
suggestions for future designs. Hence the focus
group fits the objective of our study, which was to
develop a student-centered method to incorporate
GD and GP activities into the school curriculum by
delivering the workshop first and seeking feedback
from students.
Group-bounded setting. In addition, compared to the
individual interview, the primary purpose of the focus
group interview is to gain an understanding of the
attitudes and perceptions of each individual in a
group-bounded setting where the event has taken
place. Therefore the participants are more likely to
be revealed via the social gathering and the

Chinese
Chinese
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Chinese
Malay
Chinese
Chinese
Malay
Race

Frequency of educational
Once a week Once a week Three times a week Once a week Once a month Once a month Once a week Once a week Twice a week Once a week
games played on school learning portal

F
M
M
F
F
Gender

P20
P19
P18
P16

P17

651

P15
P11

P12

P13

P14

Group 4 (from School D)


Group 3 (from School C)
(b)

Chinese

Frequency of educational games Three times a week Once a week Once a month Twice a week Once a month Once a week Twice a week Twice a week Once a month Once a week
played on school learning
portal

Chinese

M
F

Malay
Indian
Chinese

M
F

Chinese
Malay
Chinese

Chinese
Race

F
F
Gender

Indian

P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1

Group 1 (from School A)


(a)

Table 2 Focused participants who favor to continue utilizing GD: (a) Groups 1 and 2, (b) Groups 3 and 4

Group 2 (from School B)

P8

P9

P10

Student-Centered Method of Incorporating Games

interaction which being in a focus group entails


(Gibbs 1997). Because our GD and GP activities were
taking place in a group-bounded school setting, focus
group interviews in a group-interactive format fit this
study.
For each focus group interview, five students from the
same GDGP activity met for the interview. The criteria of
selection are indicated in the Participants section. Focus
groups were conducted at the participants convenience, in
the school setting, after school in the absence of the teacher. The focus group interview was meant to gain students perspectives of the purposes and objectives of using
GD and GP to support school learning. The format of the
focus group interview was discursive to empower each
participant to give feedback and enable the discovery of the
meanings of the shared experiences in a socially coconstructive way (Massey 2011). The interviewer facilitated
the discussion and empathized with the interviewees.
Hence the relationship between interviewer and interviewees was collaborative, and power was shared. Such openended interviews optimize participants power to choose
any topic they are interested in sharing (Kvale and Brinkmann 2008).
Data Analysis
Data analysis for GD and GP activities was done in two major
stages: one before the focus group interview and the other
after the focus group interview. Two objectives were set for
the data analysis before the focus group interview. First,
researchers intended to purposefully select the participants to
involve in focus group interviews based on their postactivity
reflection, as outlined by the previously mentioned criteria of
selection. Second, researchers intended to generate some
leading discussion questions during focus group interviews to
obtain in-depth views of participants personal reflections.
Two researchers were involved in the data analysis to ensure
investigator triangulation (Mathison 1988).
The second stage of data analysis was completed after
the focus group interviews of GD and GP activities. The
interviews were transcribed for analysis. The purpose of
the data analysis for the focus group interviews was to
explore more insights into the participants coconstruction
(Wibek et al. 2007). Drawing on Masseys (2011) elaborations of data analysis for focus group interviews, articulated data analysis is adopted in this study because it is the
most trustworthy strategy (compared to the attributional
and emergent). This kind of analysis focuses on the participants language as related to the research questions. The
researchers then inductively and deductively searched for
and analyzed the recurring patterns and themes to identify
any consensus.

123

652

P.-W. Tzuo et al.

In addition, continual reference and comparison to other


related studies (as previously mentioned) also provided
extensive analytical insight to link analytic thoughts to
other studies to make the findings transferable to the general research field (Glaser and Strauss 1967). We also
asked for member checking by sharing drafts of data
analyses to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings
(Coffey and Atkinson 1996).

Findings
As previously mentioned, the focus of this paper is to
discover students perceived significance and projected
ways of integrating GD and GP into their school learning;
data were extracted from the 3-year project. Qualitative
data from 20 participants from four focused groups (as
indicated in Table 2a, b) were analyzed and interpreted.
The findings we report subsequently are the patterns we
identified and aggregated across participants and focused
groups.

The significance of GD to learning: an authentic, studentdriven learning


In addition, the recurring patterns of the responses among
our participants indicated that GD is the so-called learnercentered education, compared to jigsaw learning, which is
still designed by teachers only. Ten participants out of 10
shared a similar view that the development of narratives in
GD empowered them by driving their individual curiosity
and needs over the entire process from probing the questions to finding the information to solve the problem. It is
different from other teachers directed student-centered
activities because it gives chunks of information and
problems and requests that students apply and resolve these
only by following teachers prescriptive procedures. For
example, participant 8 remarked, I feel in developing
game narratives, I was in charge of the order between the
discipline knowledge, experiencing, and problem solving.
So its real learner-centered. As another example, participant 10 mentioned, I think we are compiling story line
and the curiosity keep rolling, and we set challenges and
question, and we desperate to finding resolution I feel I
can steer my own learning.

Students Perceptions of GD Activity


The significance of GD to learning: mixing knowledge
and character development in an ecological context
The recurring patterns among our data indicated that the
significance of designing game narratives is empowered
learning, through which they can apply knowledge to the
development of characters personalities, thinking, and
behavior. Therefore, GD was believed in the so-called
ecological learning by directing knowledge and human
development dialectically, as the participants showed. This
type of outcome is unique compared to other types of
school activities, as detailed in the following:
1.

2.

First, 9 out of 10 participants who participated in GD


mentioned that GD promotes their thinking by helping
them make the connection between knowledge and its
relation to interpreting human behaviors when developing a story line. For example, participant 3 mentioned
that cos people will want to know how the story turns
out after youve completed a stage or a level. So theyll
want to keep on playing and see what happens. It makes
us think extensively and ecologically.
Second, 8 out of 10 participants indicated that GD
enhances motivation for learning by integrating the
spirits of design and play. For example, participant 7
mentioned that with a story, we have spirit for
learning by developing and mixing play and knowledge in an ecological context.

123

The projected ways of integrating GD occur


during the middle of the lesson to sustain interest
in learning
Through the focus group interviews, 8 students out of 10
consented that GD is able to sustain their interest in learning and
is best arranged in the middle of the subject study. Therefore,
these participants suggested that teachers instruction (TI) can
first build some knowledge prior to the design of games. Later,
GD can come into sustain their learning interest in the middle of
subject learning. In short, the projected purposes of integrating
GD into school are to maintain interest and motivation in
learning and to assist TI. They suggested that integration occurs
first through TI in knowledge acquisition and then through GD
with advanced discovery by proposing and solving problems.
For example, participant 6 mentioned that
GD can come in the middle, because as a start, not
knowing anything, you cant design anything with
regard to that topic. So, in the middle, after theyve
some knowledge of it, then hopefully, through the
design, they can research or we can probe them.
Participant 9 agreed, saying,
Yes, during the design in the middle, that is somehow
they know the knowledge already, they can start off and
then they themselves, would be motivated hopefully, to
probe further and enhance their learning in that subject.

Student-Centered Method of Incorporating Games

Students Perceptions of GP Activity


Perceived significance to learning: Competing with self
with sense of achievement

653

individual level to move to more advanced levels. Therefore, as participant 19 suggested, Game as introduction,
teachers instruction comes in, and then games again.
Teachers instruction still excellent learning after GP

The 9 student participants out 10 who participated in GP


indicated that the difference between GO and other activities lies in with whom you compete and that there is no
winner and loser. They indicated that GP creates a different
context of competition than other school activities. Moreover, GP is more individually driven learning, competing
with the self to advance ones level any time and at any
place. In contrast, competition in other school activities is
more among classmates and peers, in particular, because of
the high-stakes exams in Singapore dominating the cultures
of learning. Therefore, as there are so many competitions in
schools in Singapore, GP provides leeway to allow individuals to choose a topic, the level, and the story line they
would like to compete with themselves along the levels,
not with others. For example, participant 15 mentioned that
whereas computer games have levels, and you can
achieve your scores and you get like high scores yeah
only compete to yourself thats why I play games when I
want to compete to myself.

The projected ways of integrating GP: GP as preactivity


before teachers instruction
The 10 student participants all reflected that GP especially
alleviates the levels of curiosity about a particular topic. It
is well placed as an introduction to a particular topic. For
example, participant 10 stated that our teacher may be
boring, so if we play games we will be interested. However, after GP, 8 out of 10 student participants would
expect teachers to impart real knowledge and help them
better understand the concept. For example, participant 19
mentioned that by games we get more interest in but to
get the more solutions, everything will go to the teacher
back.
To complement teachers instruction: GP promoting
advanced learning after teachers instruction
Furthermore, 7 out of 10 students expressed that GP can be
placed again after the teacher imparts knowledge to cater to
individual students needs. In turn, GP can be individually
paced and level driven to complement teachers instruction, which is usually big group oriented. In other words,
these participants shared a similar view that teachers
instruction secures the learning of knowledge, but it can be
boring using standardized ways of delivery for group
teaching. However, GP can advance learning at the

Though the previously mentioned 7 student participants


believed that GP can complement teachers instruction by
increasing curiosity and pitching to individuals learning
levels, all except one also emphasized that teachers
instruction still plays a fundamental role not only in
securing the fundamental acquisition of knowledge but also
in accelerating learning. During focus group interviews, 7
participants reflected that learning still has to rely heavily
on teachers not only to ensure that they are on the right
track but also to accelerate learning. An example follows:
Interviewer: Between computer games and teachers
instruction which one prepares you more?
Participant 12: Teachers instruction
Participant 14: Educational games you can learn IT
skills; teachers instruction you can learn more sophisticated knowledge excel learning
Interviewer: Between computer games and teachers
instruction which one makes you more creative?
Participant 11: Both. Playing computer games first and
teachers instruction has still to come after to comment
or give us new challenges.

Discussion and Implications


The objective of this study is to study students views on
incorporating various computer GP and GD activities into
the school curriculum. On the basis of the preceding findings,
the significance of GPGD to students learning and ways of
integration has been found from students views. When
mentioning the significance of GP, the student participants
emphasized that it provides a special function, which is
competing with the self in a way that is different from other
school activities, which are usually competitive among
peers. With respect to the significance of GD, the student
participants highlighted that it provides a special opportunity
to relate knowledge and character development in various
ways and enhance the ability to accommodate to changing
society compared to other school activities. Hence we infer
that the significance of GPGD to students learning is to
complement school instruction-based activities.
Furthermore, students suggested ways of integrating
GPGD into school learning by making connections with
teachers instruction-based activities to augment their
subject learning. They suggest that GP appear as a preactivity prior to teacher instruction or as an intermediate

123

654

P.-W. Tzuo et al.

Fig. 2 Students views on GP


and GD activities

activity in the middle of teacher instruction to pitch individual students levels of learning. They also propose that
GD take place in the middle of teacher instruction to sustain interest in learning. It is noteworthy mentioning that
regardless of GP or GD, students prefer teachers instruction as closure as they believe it still leads to excellent
learning of subject content knowledge.
In short, to have a student-centered method of integration, GP and GD have to map onto the curriculum to
integrate with teachers instruction along the process of
learning. We visualize the students views of the significance and purposes of integrating GPGD as integrating
with teachers instruction in Fig. 2.
Furthermore, based on the overarching relationships
among GD, GP, and teacher instruction activities, we
provide some suggestions for ways in which schools can
integrate student-centered game-support learning, as
described in the following:
1.

GP can be a preactivity to motivate and interest


students to learn.

123

2.

3.

4.

Teachers instruction comes into transit knowledge to


allows students to gain fundamental content
knowledge.
After teacher instruction, students can apply their
knowledge to GD activities by deploying the abilities
of critical thinking and problem solving in a real
ecological context.
After teacher instruction, teachers can also use GP with
tasks that can cater to students various levels of
knowledge absorption. The purpose of GP in this stage
is to support individuals different learning needs with
the various levels of challenges GP provides. However,
students still prefer teacher instruction to come in again
after GD and GP as they believe that a teachers guidance
can accelerate the learning of subject knowledge.

On the basis of these suggestions, Fig. 3 depicts the


incorporation of GP, GD, and teacher instruction activities
into school as networked relationships with teacher
instruction to progress student learning of subject
knowledge.

Student-Centered Method of Incorporating Games

655

Fig. 3 Networked GP, GD, and


TI activities to progress
students learning

Conclusions
GP and GD have been developed in the past by designercentric views on a touch-and-go basis. Our paper is meant
to discover and report student-centric views of GP and GD
at a more than touch-and-go basis by streamlining its
application with school curricula. We call it studentcentered game-supportive learning.
In this study, Engestroms (1987) activity theory is
adopted to distinguish student-centric views from designercentric views and to design our research questions. The
findings from our student participants suggest that GP fits
as a preinstructional activity to enhance students curiosity
and intermediate activity to cater to individual needs,
whereas GD is an activity best presented in the middle of
teacher instruction to sustain student interest.

Our findings have two significant contributions. First,


they provide Singaporean teachers insight into ways to
integrate GD and GP into curriculum activities through
comprehending the merits of each activity for students and
the ways in which to process each activity. The past studies
(i.e., Luan and Teo 2009; Teo and van Schaik 2009) have
found that such providence is crucial to ensure the usefulness and ease of use to teachers. Second, they suggest
methods by which to make student-centric pedagogy with
the integration of games by ensuring interactive relationships with other school instructional activities to interconnect and augment learning. The ultimate vision of the
study is not only to promote the integration of each activity
but also to discover ways to arrange and map onto curricula
to best fit students needs. In light of this study, we also
suggest that future studies can triangulate our findings by

123

656

gathering more students views. This can be accomplished


by developing questionnaires with reference to our findings. Moreover, we also recommend that future studies
explore teachers perceptions of ways to implement the
approaches put forth in this study and the kinds of support
they need. Ultimately, a feasible student-centered approach
can be well developed to incorporate games into school to
optimize students learning.
Acknowledgments The data of this paper are supported by the
National Research Foundation in Singapore (NRF 2008 IDM001MOE-016).

References
Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., & Huizenga, J. (2009). Storification in
History education: A mobile game in and about medieval
Amsterdam. Computers & Education, 52, 449459.
Chee, Y. S. (2007). Embodiment, embeddedness, and experience:
Game-based learning and the construction of identity. Research
and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 330.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data:
Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning
with games and simulations within the curriculum be most
effectively evaluated? Computers & Education, 46(3), 249264.
Druin, A. (1999). Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies
for children with children. http://hcil.cs.umd.edu/trs/99-14/99-14.
html.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical
approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Retrieved from http://www.soc.
surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of gamesbased learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 2338.
Hsu, C.-Y., Tsai, C. C., & Wang, H.-Y. (2012). Facilitating third
graders acquisition of scientific concepts through digital game-

123

P.-W. Tzuo et al.


based learning: The effects of self-explanation principles. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researchers, 21(1), 7182.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning:
Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies.
Games and Culture, 1(1), 3640.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of
qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Luan, W. S., & Teo, T. (2009). Investigating the technology
acceptance among student teachers in Malaysia: An application
of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher, 18(2), 261272.
Massey, O. T. (2011). A proposed model for the analysis and
interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 34, 2128.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2),
1317.
Mwanza, D., & Engestrom, Y. (2003, November 711). Pedagogical
adeptness in the design of elearning environments: Experiences
from Lab@Future project. Paper presented at the E-Learn 2003
International Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Phoenix, AR.
ONeil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of
learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455474.
Race, K., Hotch, D., & Parker, T. (1994). Rehabilitation program
evaluation: Use of focus groups to empower clients. Evaluation
Review, 18(6), 730740.
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1998). Kids as informants: Telling us what
we didnt know or confirming what we new already? In A. Druin
(Ed.), The design of childrens technology (pp. 5172). San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Sharritt, M. J. (2008). Forms of learning in collaborative video game
play. Enhanced Learn, 3(2), 97138.
Teo, T., & van Schaik, P. (2009). Understanding technology
acceptance among pre-service teachers: A structural-equation
modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
18(1), 4766.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wibek, V., Abrandt, M., & Gren, D. (2007). Learning in focus
groups: An analytical dimension for enhancing focus group
research. Qualitative Research, 7(2), 249267.
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and
concrete implications for mathematics education. In I. Harel &
S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 112). Norwood: Ablex.

Copyright of Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.) is
the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.) is
the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

You might also like