The Challenges to Diffusion of Educational Computer Games

Transcription

1 The Challenges to Diffusion of Educational Computer Games Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen IT-University of Copenhagen, Denmark Abstract: This paper explores evidence from prior research already conducted in the field of game-based learning supplemented by experiences from developers. The aim is to address why educational computer games are not yet more integrated in formal education. The analysis is structured by drawing on the well-established model by Rogers called Diffusion of Innovations. Based on the theory three examples of game-based learning products are presented to examine how game-based learning products fit the diffusion of innovation theory. The games analyzed are: Dimension M, Global Conflicts and Making History, which are all award-winning titles that have been in the market place for several years. The conclusion is that many game titles ignore the basics behind the theory diffusion of innovation, and that research provides amble evidence for the challenges gamebased learning faces. The lacking of game-based learning makes it hard to make real headway towards general acceptance and everyday use in the educational system. Not because game-based learning doesn t work, but rather because it is perceived, designed and positioned in a way that hinder broad adaption. Keywords: business, diffusion, innovation, industry, educational, computer games 1. Introduction The idea of using game-based learning is hardly new. Throughout the last at least 40 years we can track a constant interest in the area, although with varying strength (Abt, 1970; Loftus & Loftus, 1983; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007). Looking over the landscape today things look promising with many active research project, conferences, initiatives and media coverage. However, one thing still cries to the sky the lack of game-based learning as an integrated part of the formal education. Game-based learning continues to be an exotic spice for many teachers, which is apparent from studies from FutureLab and European Network of Schools that are mentioned later. It would hardly be the first time that technologies have failed to deliver on its promises, and has turned out to nothing more than a fad (Cuban, 2001). However, the continuous interest in game-based learning (Ito, 2008; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007) and mounting evidence for its efficiency suggest that there is a real potential. Many research overviews within the broad area of learning from video games have appeared within the past 20 years (i.e. Cavallari et al., 1992; Dempsey et al., 1996; McGrenere, 1996). These serve as a viable starting point in combination with overviews that are more recent, inclusive, and thorough (i.e. de Freitas, 2007; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004; Squire, 2002). In addition to the literature on learning from video games, there are a number of useful overviews of learning from simulations. These have quite a different scope, with a focus more on simulations than on video games (Bredemeier & Greenblat, 1981; Clegg, 1991; Dorn, 1989; Leemkuil et al., 2000; Randel et al., 1992; Van Sickle, 1986; Wentworth & Lewis, 1973). Most of the studies points at the weakness in the conducted studies, but are also overall positive towards gamebased learning if games are used in the right way. From a more practical view there is also support for the area. Indeed, more than 50% of European teachers responded, "I am interested in games in schools" in a study by European School Network from 2009 (Wastiau, Kearney & Van den Berghe, 2009). A result that is confirmed by a FutureLab survey (2009), which finds that 60% of all UK teachers would consider using computer games in the future. So the question begs what are we doing wrong? 2. Aim Through Diffusion of Innovation, a theory formulated by Everett M. Rogers (2003), this paper tries to explain the lack of adaptation. Not by looking at the objective advantages of game-based learning, but rather the traditional attributes that impend innovations. In many ways game-based learning is often at the forefront of educational thinking trying to push the educational system into new praxis 1. However, this is not in any way a guarantee for short-term success. Rather it is the opposite, as things that are too new in the wrong way will have a hard time being adapted (Rogers, 2003). The adaptation of game-based learning is becoming easier every year due to objective improvement in 1 For example demonstrated by the Quest to Learn school in New York ( 63

2 schools like hardware and it-skills, but there are still a lot of things that can be done to better address the nature of how innovations are adapted. This paper aims to explore the existing evidence from research already conducted supplemented by experiences from developers to address why game-based learning is not yet adapted more in formal education. 3. Method The paper structures the current research knowledge through the theory Diffusion of Innovations to increase chances of adoption throughout the formal educational system. Although existing research will be the foundation this will be guided and validated by industry leaders that has developed numerous products over the years. Therefore, five managers working at key educational developers were approached in All of the developers were at that time among the most active in the game-based learning space and continue to be so. The companies were located in Denmark, United Kingdoms and United States. They were interviewed for around 1 hour about the current state of the industry, barriers to adaption and the prospects for game-based learning in general. 4. Defining the educational games area One of the major challenges facing researchers talking about use and development of education and games is the fuzziness of the area. In this paper the focus is on the use of computer games in formal K12 educational system with three different kinds of use (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2009): 1. Learning through Games: Use computer games to teach a specific curriculum. These games are typically developed specifically for educational purposes, although in rare instances games for entertainment can be adapted (for example social studies in Global Conflicts-series, algebra in BrainAge-series or World War 2 history in the Making History-series). 2. Learning with Games: Use computer games as an example to teach existing relevant terms, concepts and methods. These games are usually not developed for educational purposes but adapted by teachers (for example genre analysis by looking at the adventure game Myst, source criticism in history by examining the history of computer games or writing a essay based on playing Counter Strike). 3. Learning by making Games: Develop games and in that way learn about the contents your game is about. These are typically authoring tools that may be more or less focused on developing games. They do not need to be developed for educational use but most in K12 are (for example make a game about Vikings in MissionMaker or a simple 2D game in GameMaker). The above can both be games specifically developed for education or games developed for entertainment, but fitted to the educational purpose. This distinction has crucial implications for the adaption. The two last categories tend to be more driven by teacher adaption but also require more of an effort from future teachers that want to adapt it. This makes it difficult for game-based learning in category 2 and 3 to go beyond what Rogers (2003) define as innovators (2,5%) and early adaptors (13,5%) that in total make up around 16% of the population. Clearly there are many change agents and ambitious teachers trying out game-based learning in different forms. However, in this paper I will focus on the first category Learning through Games. 5. Diffusion of innovations The theory behind diffusion of innovation is complex, and its full force goes beyond the scope of the current paper, so the focus will be on the five important attributes outlined below. It is suggested that 49-87% of the adaption of an innovation can be explained by how much an innovation fits with the below five attributes (Rogers, 2003): Relative advantage: How much is the innovation perceived as being better than what already exists. Compatibility: How well does the innovation match existing norms, values, needs, expectations and previous experiences? Complexity: How easy is the innovation to use and understand for users? 64

3 Trialability: How easy is the innovation to try out and experiments with without going all in? Observability: How easy is it to observe the advantages achieved from adapting the innovation? Overall the decision to adapt an innovation is a cost-benefit analysis, where you usually struggle with the uncertainty related to anything new. If people find that the innovation outweighs the disadvantages and uncertainty is outweighed by the advantages you go for it. Of course these attributes are not enough to explain whether an innovation is adapted but it has been found that they are usually strong predictors of successful adaption. One of the challenges when looking at game-based learning is the status of IT in the educational system. We still find that the infrastructure is severely lacking in many countries (European Commission, 2006). A well-working IT infrastructure and IT competences are a prerequisite for gamebased learning to overcome a lot of banal barriers (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004). However, this paper will not focus on these as they are shared with other online resources in general. 5.1 Relative advantage The first important attribute of an innovation is the perceived relative advantage of the innovation. This is probably the single most important of the five attributes according the Rogers (2003). Over the years especially FutureLab in UK have tried to pinpoint what teacher see as the advantages related to game-based learning. But, also the Games-in-Schools project has addressed the area and other studies (i.e. Becker & Jacobsen, 2005). When we look over the landscape there is one easily identified common advantage that is perceived by many teachers namely that games are more motivating and engaging. In the studies by FutureLab (Williamson, 2009) and European School Network teachers (Wastiau, Kearney, & Van den Berghe, 2009) motivation comes in as the high-scorer. They both arrive at around 25% of all teachers recognizing the motivational strength of games. As concluded by European School Network (2009: 75): The central argument is to use games as a way to attract pupils attention for particular subjects and motivate them to learn. The strength of the European School Network study is that the findings are based on open-ended questions, whereas FutureLab starts off from fixed categories. This gives the findings from European School Network study a more bottom-up result. It is worth noting that while motivation is the high-scorer there are a lot of other factors mentioned by minorities of teachers. Game-based learning have been out there for more than 30 years, and that only 25% of all teachers have a shared understanding of relative advantage is a challenge. Even if upwards of 60% of teacher in the two studies want to use games there is large variations in the perceived advantage. This makes it difficult for innovations to spread as the communication becomes muddy. It is noteworthy that there is actually not a big consensus on what the perceived advantage of game-based learning is, which is probably related to the broad-reaching scope of game-based leaning laid out earlier in this paper. Future studies should be more precise in their approach to what type of game-based learning they are examining, so the relative advantage from different types of game-based learning becomes more precise than increased motivation. 5.2 Compatibility Indeed schools don t have the best image for adapting change. This is also clearly shown in the interviews conducted with developers. Teachers are labeled as lacking the necessary skills to use games, but also the ability to differentiate good from bad game-based learning. This is obviously a huge problem, because like any area there will be good and bad products. If teachers are not aware of the difference they may conclude from a less optimal learning experience that game-based learning in general is not working (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004; Becker & Jacobson, 2005; Becker, 2008). The perceived compatibility of innovations relate to three subareas that are all a challenge when considering game-based learning in educational system. Rogers (2003) find that compatibility is usually a smaller predictor than the perceived relative advantage. However, this may be different in the educational system, which is an organization that usually changes quite slow and is not perceived as very flexible. Hence, compatibility may be very important to consider. The three overall areas related to compatibility are discussed below. 65

4 5.2.1 Values and beliefs Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen Throughout the years there have been much discussion of computer games with negative conations that have undoubtedly influenced teachers values and beliefs about computer games in general, and the studies cited earlier in this paper by FutureLab and European School Network also have reminiscences of this. In reviews from the beginning of the century the issue of violence of games is usually tackled, but the last years it seems to be becoming less of an issue. In general games have become more socially acceptable, which have also impacted teachers values and perception that are becoming less of a barrier for game-based learning in education. Teacher increasingly value computer games as relevant tool for education. Nevertheless, it seems that there may still be a difference in how you frame game-based learning an interactive tool, a simulation or game seem to influence teacher and student perceptions (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007). However, another widespread fear that has also crept into the use of game-based learning, is the transformation of the teacher s role which is challenged when using computer games. Teachers perceive that they may need to change their praxis from classroom teaching into for example a more student-centered learning form. Some teacher believes this may not be the best way for them to continue. In relation to computer games this is aggravated by many teachers perceiving themselves as lacking in knowledge of computer games. So, even if teachers are increasingly accepting computer games as valuable for education it may often not match their own beliefs and values in relation to teaching. Furthermore, they may not feel competent in taking it on. Indeed, there are still teachers that outright reject them (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007; Hanghøj & Magnussen, in press; Williamson, 2009; Colby & Colby, 2008; Whelchel, 2007) Previous ideas Often compatibility is also related to what have come before the new innovation, and how well it fits with these. Here the different types of game-based learning make a difference. Some forms of gamebased learning are aligned with well-known learning theories, educational praxis and didactics, whereas other are more experiential. It has been pointed out that games fall in very different categories (Mcfarlane & Kirrimuir, 2002; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007), and that they have the potential to transform the school from the inside (Gee, 2003). Game-based learning will probably benefit from not trying to take on too many new ideas that are incompatible with previous ideas that are well established in the educational system. This may partly explain why we still see that the more successful game-based learning titles are in many ways quite simple (often referred to as edutainment) Actual needs For many developers of game-based learning the focus is on providing a revolutionary new learning experience that makes learning much more efficient. However, it is often a big question to what extent game-based learning is really solving the top-priority problems in the educational system. For example schools are increasingly struggling to cope with the increasing demand for teaching students with special needs and finding time in a busy schedule to actually teach. Today, most gamebased learning put new demands on teachers time rather than addressing that challenge. Ignoring the lack of time makes game-based learning incompatible with the realities in the educational system. 5.3 Complexity This is how complex a given innovation is to harness the potential from. The complexity is not as important as the relative advantage or the compatibility, but can still be important in some areas according to Rogers (2003). It is highly likely that complexity is also an important element in the educational system, because there is a constant time pressure and anything you do have to work at 9.00 o clock with 28 students. Therefore, any complexity will be a turnoff. Even if we don t consider the challenges around installation, setting up and using IT in general game-based learning are seen as complex by teachers. Even though many game-based learning titles try to avoid being complex they never seem to really come close to the simplicity involved in opening a textbook. In the studies by FutureLab and European School Network licensing issues, lack of IT-support, and problems accessing equipment 66

5 are all seen as barriers by more than 50% of teachers. These are largely related to IT issues, but the more game specific barriers Teachers lack of knowledge about the game is seen as a barrier by 56% of teachers. So teachers are definitely not viewing game-based learning as an easy thing. 5.4 Trialability Rogers (2003) in his theory points out that this is positively related to the adaptation of an innovation. It is important that the teachers and the educational system broadly speaking think of game-based learning as easy to try out. Historically it has been difficult to try out game-based learning with CD- Roms. However, this is changing with online games services, which work as subscription services where it s easy to give full temporary access for a limited time. Unfortunately, educational system has not been very used to the subscription approach, which there is anecdotal evidence against as a model schools particular like. However, nevertheless the trying out game-based learning is getting easier, and developments are going towards making it easier. However, even if developers make it easier for teachers there is a constant time pressure in the educational system, which makes many schools reluctant to try out new things and adapt things that are not tried and tested thoroughly. So, if a trial fails you are wasting the time of 28 students for several hours in a tight syllabus. This is also the case for many other new innovations in the educational system, but as game-based learning is potentially more disruptive in relation to teaching praxis. The trialability becomes more demanding than for example a new textbook, using an online resource or including a new link collection. Here the format is very well known, and you are more trying out the contents that the actual format. 5.5 Observability The Diffusion of Innovation theory points out that it is important that other people can see and observe the use and benefits other people are having. The obvious example is the adaption of mobile phones, where it is really easy to see and observe how it makes a difference as people walk around with them and you are able to get a hold of them, while they are on the road. In relation to game-based learning you are faced with a number of challenges that you inherit from the way the educational system is constructed. Basically, many teachers work in a vacuum, where other teachers don t see what they do. In previous innovation studies (Rogers, 2003) it has been found that, where the beneficial consequences are further away adaptation suffers. In this regard the educational system face a challenge, as the consequences of choosing a better or worse educational strategy on an overall level tend to drown in the educational system. The consequences doesn t really become clear before 15 years later when students are all the way through the system, and so many intervening variables can occur along the road. This is probably the reason for the general perception of the educational system as a slow adaptor of necessary change and innovations. So, a focus on game-based learning as having the advantage of improving learning is potentially a very long-term project that is also quite difficult to observe. Game-based learning could adapt an approach where you focus on games solving more short-terms problems for example motivating challenged students or catering for children with special needs. This is a place where you can apply games and see a more direct advantage. You could also argue that showing an increase in spelling or math would be an easier sell as you can more quickly assess and show the beneficial consequences. 6. Case study of struggling game-based learning In the following I discuss the attributes of diffusion of innovation as related to three partly successful game-based learning titles: Global Conflicts-series, Making History-series and Dimension M. There are a number of common denominators for these. They have all received several prestigious awards, been on the market for several years, have good trials for teachers, and a decent level of graphics 2. Although, Global Conflicts-series doesn t feature multiplayer this doesn t seem to be a deciding factor. These similarities make it possible to assume that these are decent products that have been recognized by the market, and that teachers can try out. So we can assume that other factors than 2 This information is available from the product s respective web-sites. 67

6 whether it s a working game are at play in regard to being adapted or not. Of course marketing and price point can also influence. However, the Diffusion of Innovation argue (Rogers, 2003) that while channels and price can influence the adaptation speed it doesn t change the underlying attributes that are crucial for whether an innovation will finally be adapted or not. Indeed, the diffusion of innovation doesn t really care whether it s a good product whatever that might be. Based on interviews and research on each company it is clear that all companies are still struggling to find a working approach for delivering game-based learning to schools. They have all received positive feedback but currently it seems that Making History is being reshaped away from schools in favor of a private market focus. Global Conflicts-series have been released online, and have trials account but with a limited conversion yet online 3. It seems that currently Dimension X is the one moving fastest with several schools piloting the game, although the conversion rate is currently not available. They currently boast more than 1 mio. games played by students, which may of course not be the best indicators if the game sessions are a few minutes each. Although it may be premature to make a final verdict it seems that Dimension M is doing a lot of things right. Dimension M is characterized by offering a much broader focus on a core curriculum that is tightly aligned with state standards. Another, crucial difference is that the Global Conflicts falls within the role-playing genre and Making History within the strategy-genre, which are both increasingly niche genres in the commercial entertainment games space (ESA, 2004). In contrast Dimension M relates more closely to the action genre that is one of the best selling genres currently. Finally, Dimension M targets topics that are unchanged over time, and benefit from repetition and training (math and literacy), which is very different didactically from social studies and history teaching that are addressed by the two other games. If we go through the above from the five variables it becomes obvious that Dimension M have made a number of choices that provides them with a lot of advantages. Relative Advantage: Although all three games have the basic attribute of using games that are motivational Dimension M is one step ahead. Teacher perceive Dimension M as an action games that is closer related to the students everyday life, which teachers sees as the main motivational force of computer games according to both studies by FutureLab and Games-in-Schools mentioned earlier. Overall, the three games may have a relative advantage as more motivational compared to other teaching but Dimension M is more convincing as it plays to the most well-known video game formats. Compatibility: The three games share the same challenges related to values and belief, but Dimension M clearly puts more weight on several things that make it more compatible than the other two. The alignment with state standards is very strict and constantly communicated. Furthermore, Dimension M is closer to the classic textbook that offers to cover the breadth of the curriculum rather than Global Conflicts and Making History that focus on a narrow thematic part of the curriculum. Although, a narrower focus is not unheard of it is less a part of everyday praxis in the educational system, and especially the way you prioritize and buy educational resources. So, Dimension M falls more squarely into what teachers know and understand, namely the textbook format, where you cover major parts of curriculum by progressing through the application. In contrast the two other games are much more open, experimental in their didactic approach. Finally, it seems that Dimension M may be addressing a real concern in most modern people working life including teachers. The lack of time. Teachers are constantly fighting to find time to all the tasks they have. Dimension M is not only easier to approach it also delivers more for the initial investment as it promises to cover a much broader curriculum that the two other games, which gives the teacher a quicker return on their investment. Finally, Dimension M position itself as a continuous part of the educational praxis over a school year, which makes it easier to encompass for teachers. The two other games differ by being suitable as a one-time experience for a school class over a school year. Complexity: All of the three games are quite similar in complexity with the demands on the hardware that requires that the system administrator install the software. The games pretty much also have the same technical specifications. However, in contrast to the other two games Dimension M offers an experience that teachers can more easily overview. In the strategy game Making History you will have to play for hours to fully comprehend it, and in the role-playing game Global Conflicts you need to 3 In total the Global Conflicts-series have been sold to +300 schools including sales prior to going online. 68

7 complete the game to get the full picture. This makes it way more complex to get started with. Finally, the topics covered by Dimension M are also less complex than the topics tackled in the two other games. Trialability: The three games are all very focused on allowing the teachers to try out the games, and do not really seem to differ in this regard. They share the common problems with diffusion of innovation in schools, and especially with IT in schools. Observability: The final attribute of an innovation relates to how easy it is to observe that people are using a new innovation and gaining advantages from it. Again, Dimension M is ahead of the competition with a tournament feature that showcases what schools are using it. Furthermore, the topics chosen by Dimension M makes it easier to document change. Assessment of your ability in different areas of algebra are quite a different thing than for example measuring progress in ethical thinking related to conflicts. In this regard Making History is placed in the middle, as factual history is also pretty easy to measure. However, Making History is to a large extent not really focusing on history as facts, but rather learning students about the underlying historical dynamics. 7. Conclusion By applying Rogers Diffusion of Innovations model it becomes evident that game-based learning is potentially facing a lot of challenges. Almost all of the attributes for game-based learning are not aligned very well with the attributes characteristic for diffusion of innovations. Although, a number of the challenges are shared with any innovation trying to make it into schools that is not the entire truth. Game-based learning is in many ways currently a bad fit with the educational system from an adaptation point of view also more than many other potential innovations. The relative advantage from game-based learning referred to, as more motivating is somewhat diffuse. It is not very compatible with the existing teaching praxis and the physical make-up of the educational system. Game-based learning is also perceived as a complex thing to use. It is also difficult to observe the results. In regard to trialability the picture is muddier, but games-based learning is not off worse than other innovations in schools. It has become easier with online solutions, but it is still a costly and difficult investment for teachers. Overall, one may argue that game-based learning is in many ways ahead of it days. As the IT infrastructure becomes better some of the challenges will vaporize. We also see that a lot of the issues related to compatibility are being addressed as a general flaw in the educational system, and that the educational system needs to adopt new didactics. Time is slowly working for game-based learning but thinking more intelligently about how to position game-based learning in relation to Rogers work on innovation will probably speed up things. In the analysis of three different game-based learning products it becomes obvious that Dimension M has a number of advantages that suggests it should be more easily adapted by the educational system. Of course only time will tell, but the arrow points in that direction. This is definitely not to say that Dimension M is a better educational experience (there are numerous problematic elements in the game), which I doubt is the case, and which is not really the point with this paper. The important point from the Diffusion of Innovation perspective is that the successful adaptation of game-based learning is more about perception than proof. The research community from that perspective have quite a different agenda that the developers in the field. Future studies of stakeholders in the educational system could focus on defining a survey scale that examines how the educational systems perceive key questions related to the different attributes associated with game-based learning. Such a scale could be quite generic, and in that way support future vendors in their development of game-based learning. Overall, such data can be used to steer future developments and investments in game-based learning, so it is more closely working together with the educational system rather than haphazardly. We need to remember that it is not so important what we are trying to sell games as, but what teachers more intuitively perceive as the advantages related to game-based learning. In my opinion we still don t really know this, and I believe many teacher (and developers and researchers) are still largely uneducated and guessing towards what games can really be used for. This means that we have to focus on identifying clear relative advantages, increase compatibility, reduce complexity, support trialability and showcase successful application of game-based learning. 69

8 References Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen Abt, C. (1970). Serious games. New York: Viking Press. Becker, K. & Jacobsen, M. (2005). Games for Learning: Are Schools Ready for What s To Come? Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views Worlds in Play. Becker, K. (2008). The Invention of Good Games: Understand Learning DEsign in Commercial Video Games. Thesis. Calgary, Alberta. Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games: A synthesis of findings. Simulation & Games, 12(3), Cavallari, J., Hedberg, J., & Harper, B. (1992). Adventure games in education: A review. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), Clegg, A. A. (1991). Games and simulations in social studies education. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Overused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. de Freitas, S. (2007) Learning in Immersive Worlds. Joint Information Systems Committee. Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996). The Instructional Gaming Literature: Implications and 99 Sources. University of South Alabama. Dorn, D. S. (1989). Simulation Games: One More Tool On the Pedagogical Shelf. Teaching Sociology, 17(1), Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2004). Practical barriers in using educational computer games. On the Horizon. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Digital Kompetanse 3, v1, Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). The Educational Potential of Computer Games. New York: Continuum Press. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007. Third Generation Educational Use of Computer Games. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. v16,3. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2009). Hvordan underviser man med computerspil? Designværkstedet. EMU. ESA, "Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry: 2004 Sales, Demographics, and Usage," vol. 2005: The Entertainment Software Association, 2004, latest data on Video game industry, Retrieved from: accessed: April European Commission (2006). Benchmarking Access and Use of ICT in European Schools Final Report from Head Teacher and Classroom Teacher Surveys in 27 European Countries. Bruxelles: European Commission. FutureLab (2009). NFER Teacher Voice Omnibus February 2009 Survey. Using computer games in the classroom. Bristol: Futurelab. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hanghøj, T: & Magnussen, R. (in press). The role of the teacher in facilitating educational games: Outlining a game pedagogy. Ito, M. (2008). Education vs. Entertainment: A Cultural History of Children s Software. In: Salen, K (2008). The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Leemkuil, H., Jong, T. d., & Ootes, S. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulations. Twente: University of Twente. Loftus, G R. & Loftus, E: Mind at Play, Basic Books: New York 1983 McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. Teachers Evaluating Educational Multimedia. Cambridge. McGrenere, J. L. (1996). Design of Educational Electronic Multi-player Games: A literature Review. Vancouver: Department of Computer Science. Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature. London: Ultralab: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), Rogers, E. M (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M. & Facer, K. and Rudd, T. Teaching with Games: Using commercial off-the-shelf computer games in formal education. Bristol: Futurelab. Squire, K. (2002). Cultural Framing of Computer/Video. Game studies, 1(1). Van Sickle, R. (1986). A Quantitative Review of Research on Instructional Simulation Gaming: A Twenty-Year Perspective. Theory Research in Social Education, 14(3), Wastiau, P., Kearney, C. & Van den Berghe, W. (2009). How are digital games used in schools? Final report. Bruxelles: European School Network. Wentworth, D. R., & Lewis, D. R. (1973). A review of research on instructional games and simulations in social studies education. Social Education, 37, Williamson, B. (2009). Computer games, schools, and young people. A report for educators on using games for learning. Bristol: Futurelab. 70