<%BANNER%>

Identifying the Barriers to Using Games and Simulations in Education

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044901/00001

Material Information

Title: Identifying the Barriers to Using Games and Simulations in Education Creating a Valid and Reliable Survey Instrument
Physical Description: 1 online resource (162 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Justice, Lenora Jean
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adoption -- barriers -- education -- games -- simulations -- teachers
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (CCD) thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to create a valid and reliable instrument to measure teacher perceived barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in instruction.  Previous research, interviews with educators, a focus group, an expert review, and a think aloud protocol were used to design a survey instrument.  After finalization, the survey was made available to a group of educators for trial on the Internet.  The data from the trial survey was then analyzed. A portion of the survey required respondents to rate to what degree 32 potential barriers were perceived as an impediment to the adoption of games and simulations into their curriculum.  The highest rated barriers included: cost of equipment, lack of time to plan and implement, inability to try before purchase, lack of balance between entertainment and education, lack of available lesson plans/examples, lack of alignment to state standards/standardized testing, inability to customize a game/simulation, and inability to track student progress within the game/simulation.  An exploratory factor analysis identified seven factors that accounted for 67% of the variability in the respondents’ rankings.  These seven factors were: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes, Technology Issues, Issues Specific to Games and Simulations, Teacher Issues, Issues with Games and Simulations in Education, Incorporation Difficulties, and Student Ability.  Interestingly, by using a MANOVA and follow-up ANOVA, several factors were found to have significant interactions with other questions on the survey.  For instance, male educators ranked items in the Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes category as more of a barrier than female educators.  Another gender difference was the ranking of items in the Technology Issues and the Teacher Issues categories; female educators ranked these items as more of a barrier than their male counterparts.  Another significant interaction occurred between the Technology Issues category and Respondent Game Play Frequency.  Those respondents that did not play games very frequently ranked individual technology barriers higher than those respondents who were more experienced with game playing.  Implications of these, and other results, as well as recommendations for further research and for game and simulation implementation for educators and administrators are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lenora Jean Justice.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Ritzhaupt, Albert Dieter.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044901:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044901/00001

Material Information

Title: Identifying the Barriers to Using Games and Simulations in Education Creating a Valid and Reliable Survey Instrument
Physical Description: 1 online resource (162 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Justice, Lenora Jean
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adoption -- barriers -- education -- games -- simulations -- teachers
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (CCD) thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to create a valid and reliable instrument to measure teacher perceived barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in instruction.  Previous research, interviews with educators, a focus group, an expert review, and a think aloud protocol were used to design a survey instrument.  After finalization, the survey was made available to a group of educators for trial on the Internet.  The data from the trial survey was then analyzed. A portion of the survey required respondents to rate to what degree 32 potential barriers were perceived as an impediment to the adoption of games and simulations into their curriculum.  The highest rated barriers included: cost of equipment, lack of time to plan and implement, inability to try before purchase, lack of balance between entertainment and education, lack of available lesson plans/examples, lack of alignment to state standards/standardized testing, inability to customize a game/simulation, and inability to track student progress within the game/simulation.  An exploratory factor analysis identified seven factors that accounted for 67% of the variability in the respondents’ rankings.  These seven factors were: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes, Technology Issues, Issues Specific to Games and Simulations, Teacher Issues, Issues with Games and Simulations in Education, Incorporation Difficulties, and Student Ability.  Interestingly, by using a MANOVA and follow-up ANOVA, several factors were found to have significant interactions with other questions on the survey.  For instance, male educators ranked items in the Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes category as more of a barrier than female educators.  Another gender difference was the ranking of items in the Technology Issues and the Teacher Issues categories; female educators ranked these items as more of a barrier than their male counterparts.  Another significant interaction occurred between the Technology Issues category and Respondent Game Play Frequency.  Those respondents that did not play games very frequently ranked individual technology barriers higher than those respondents who were more experienced with game playing.  Implications of these, and other results, as well as recommendations for further research and for game and simulation implementation for educators and administrators are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lenora Jean Justice.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Ritzhaupt, Albert Dieter.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044901:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IDENTIFYING THE BARRIERS TO USING GAMES AND SIMULATIONS IN EDUCATION : CREATING A VALID AND RELIABLE SURVEY INSTRUMENT By LENORA JEAN JUSTICE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTI AL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Lenora Jean Justice

PAGE 3

3 To the women in my life who taught me strength and endurance, but who, most importantly taught me to enj oy li fe

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I could not have accomplished this goal alone. My family, friends, and co workers have cheered me on, encouraged me, and sometimes even pushed me to continue on this path. I greatly appreciate their unwavering support. Als o, I acknowledge all those times everyone looked interested while I was explaining the complexity of my research, even though he or she had no idea what I was saying. That kindness was duly noted and very valued. Additionally, I thank my cohort. Their s upport made this process possible. Some of them have forged the way ahead, giving us rich examples of how to do thing s while others, alongside me, offer insight and encouragement. Altogether they are an amazing group with which I hope to remain friends as well as colleagues. Also, I thank Cathy Cavanaugh, who really listened and offered some excellent advice when it was sorely needed. I thank my committee members, Drs. Kara Dawson, Swapna Kumar, and Jeanne Repetto, for their guidance, expertise, and ded ication. I especially thank Dr. Albert Ritzhaupt, chair of my committee, for his leadership and expertise through the most critical part of my journey in this program, the dissertation process. His patience, encouragement, and enthusiasm in responding to my numerous questions make him an inspiration and role model. Lastly, I thank all of those educators who responded to my survey, contributed to the focus group, consented to be interviewed, and/or participated in the think aloud protocol. Your time and e ffort made this project possible.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14 Context of the Problem ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 My Professional Background ................................ ................................ ............ 16 My Current Problem ................................ ................................ ......................... 18 My Future Problem ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 Purpose Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 Significance of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 22 Organization of Study ................................ ................................ ............................. 23 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 Terminology ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 24 Diffusion of Innovations ................................ ................................ .................... 25 Demographic Barriers ................................ ................................ ...................... 30 Terminology: ................................ ................................ .............................. 30 Demographic barriers ................................ ................................ ................ 31 Inexperience with Games and Simulations Barriers ................................ ......... 35 Terminology: ................................ ................................ .............................. 35 Inexperience with games and simulations barriers ................................ .... 36 Grade Category Barriers ................................ ................................ .................. 37 Terminology: ................................ ................................ .............................. 37 Grade category barriers ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Student Learner level Barriers ................................ ................................ .......... 39 Terminology: ................................ ................................ .............................. 39 Student learner level barriers ................................ ................................ ..... 39 School based Barriers ................................ ................................ ...................... 40

PAGE 6

6 Terminology: ................................ ................................ .............................. 40 School based barriers ................................ ................................ ................ 40 Technology based Barriers ................................ ................................ .............. 44 Terminology: ................................ ................................ .............................. 44 Technology based barriers ................................ ................................ ........ 44 Game specific Barriers ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 Terminology: ................................ ................................ .............................. 47 Game specific barriers ................................ ................................ ............... 47 Synopsis of Reviewed Literature ................................ ................................ ............ 51 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............................... 53 Conception of the Instrument ................................ ................................ .................. 53 Participants of the Inter view ................................ ................................ ............. 54 Materials and Methods of the Interviews ................................ .......................... 54 Results of the Interviews ................................ ................................ .................. 55 Design and Implementation of the Survey Instrument ................................ ............ 58 Ver ifying the Accuracy of the Survey Draft ................................ ....................... 58 Focus group ................................ ................................ ............................... 58 Expert review ................................ ................................ ............................. 60 Think aloud protocol ................................ ................................ ................... 61 Participants of the Survey Instru ment Trial ................................ ....................... 62 About the Survey ................................ ................................ .............................. 62 Procedures for Survey Data Collection ................................ ............................ 63 Data Analysis of the Survey Instrument ................................ ........................... 64 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 67 Answering my Research Question ................................ ................................ .......... 67 Demographic Results ................................ ................................ ....................... 68 Demographic Results about Education and Teaching ................................ ...... 68 Results about Games and Simulations ................................ ............................ 69 Results about the Potential Barriers ................................ ................................ 70 Defining the Seven Factors ................................ ................................ .............. 72 Issues with negative potential student outcomes ................................ ....... 73 Technology issues ................................ ................................ ..................... 74 Issues specific to games and simula tions ................................ .................. 74 Teacher issues ................................ ................................ ........................... 75 Issues with games and simulations in education ................................ ....... 76 Student issues ................................ ................................ ........................... 76 Incorporation issues ................................ ................................ ................... 77 MANOV A Results ................................ ................................ ............................. 78 Gender results ................................ ................................ ........................... 79 Age results ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 Ethnicity results ................................ ................................ .......................... 79 Highest degree earned by the respon dent ................................ ................. 80 Grade category taught by the respondent ................................ .................. 80

PAGE 7

7 ................................ ........................... 81 ANOVA Results ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 Gender and i ssues with negative potenti al student outcomes ................... 81 Gender and technology issues ................................ ................................ ... 82 Gender and teacher issues ................................ ................................ ........ 82 Game play frequency and technology issues ................................ ............. 82 Summary of Statistical Analyses ................................ ................................ ............. 83 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ 102 Summary of the Study ................................ ................................ .......................... 102 Summary of the Findings ................................ ................................ ...................... 104 Perceived Barriers to the Adoption of Games and Simulations in Education 104 Issues with negative potential student outcomes ................................ ..... 105 Technology issues ................................ ................................ ................... 107 Teacher issues ................................ ................................ ......................... 109 Issues specific to games and simulations ................................ ................ 111 Issues with g ames and simulations in education ................................ ..... 112 Student issues ................................ ................................ ......................... 114 Incorporation issues ................................ ................................ ................. 115 Grade Category ................................ ................................ .............................. 116 Learner Level ................................ ................................ ................................ 117 Diffusion o f Innovations ................................ ................................ .................. 118 Teacher Inexperience with Games and Simulations ................................ ...... 118 Limitations and Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................ 119 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ 12 1 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ......................... 122 Recommendations for Educators ................................ ................................ ... 126 Recommendations for School Administrators ................................ ................. 129 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 130 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................ ................................ ............... 133 B SAMPLE INTERVIEW ................................ ................................ ...................... 137 C I NTERVIEW DATA ................................ ................................ ........................... 142 D SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ .................. 145 E PATTERN MATRIX ................................ ................................ .......................... 152 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 153 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 162

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Demographic information of interviewees ................................ ........................... 65 3 2 most to the addition of games and simulations to their curricu .................. 65 3 3 .................. 66 4 1 Age of the survey respondents ................................ ................................ ........... 86 4 2 Ethnicity of the survey respondents ................................ ................................ .... 86 4 3 Highest degree ea rned by survey respondents ................................ .................. 87 4 4 Grade category survey respondents teach ................................ ......................... 87 4 5 How survey respondents use technology in their cu rriculum .............................. 88 4 6 How often do survey respondents play games (board, card, Internet, software, gaming platform, mobile application, etc.) ................................ ........... 89 4 7 How survey respondents thought games or simulations could be useful for educational purposes. ................................ ................................ ........................ 89 4 8 Grade category(s) survey respondents thought would benefit from the addition of educational games and simulations. ................................ ................. 92 4 9 Learner level(s) survey respondents thought would benefit from the addition of educational games and simulations. ................................ ............................... 92 4 10 Survey respondents rank how much each of these potential barriers prevent them from using games and simulations ................................ ............................ 93 4 11 The seven identified factors from the model ................................ ....................... 96 4 12 Eigenvalues and cumulative variance explained by the model ........................... 97 4 13 Correlation matrix for the model ................................ ................................ ......... 97 4 14 MANOVA results for the demographic and game frequency survey questions .. 98 4 15 Follow up ANOVA results on significant (at the .05 level) M ............. 101 4 16 ................................ ... 101

PAGE 9

9 4 17 Descriptive statistics for the ANOVA for game pl ay frequency ......................... 101

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 How survey respondents use technology in their curriculum .............................. 88 4 2 How survey respondents thought games or simulations could be useful for educational purposes ................................ ................................ ......................... 90 4 3 Survey respondents who thought games and simulations are compati ble with their own teaching practices. ................................ ................................ .............. 90 4 4 Survey respondents who thought games or simulations were too complex for their students to learn the intended lesson ................................ ......................... 91 4 5 Survey respondents who thought that it would be easy to experiment with an educational game or simulation for one of their lessons ................................ ..... 91 4 6 Survey responde nts who have seen co workers using games or simulations in their classroom, teaching practices, curriculum, or lesson plans .................... 92 4 7 Survey respondents rank (0= no barrier to 4= definite barrier) how much each of these potential barriers prevent them from using games and simulations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 96 4 8 Scree plot for 32 item instrument. ................................ ................................ ....... 97

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S A BE Adult Basic Education AHS Adult High School A NOVA Analysis of Variance ESL English as a Second Language FLDOE Florida Department of Education GED General Education Diploma ISTE International Society for Technology in Education MANOVA Multivariate Analy sis of Variance NCPN National Career Pathways Network RCCPN Research Coast Career Pathways Network

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for t he Degree of Doctor of Education IDENTIFYING THE BARRIERS TO USING GAMES AND SIMULATIONS IN EDUCATION: CREATING A VALID AND RELIABLE SURVEY INSTRUMENT By Lenora Jean Justice December 2012 Chair: Alber t Ritzhaupt Major: Curriculum and Instruction The pu rpose of this study wa s to create a valid and reliable instrument to meas ure teacher perceived barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in instruction. Previous r esearch, interviews with educators a focus group, an expert review, and a think alo ud protocol were used to design a survey instrument After finalization, the survey was made available to a group of educators for trial on the Internet The data from the trial survey was then analyzed. A portion of the survey required respondents to ra te to what degree 32 potential barriers were perceived as an impediment to the adoption of games and simulations into their curriculum. T he highest rated barriers included: cost of equipment, lack of time to plan and implement, inability to try before pur chas e lack of balance between entertainment and education, lack of available lesson plans/examples, lack of alignment to state standards/standardized testing, inability to customize a game/ simulation, and inability to track student progress within the gam e/simulation. A n exploratory factor analysis identified seven factors that accounted for 6 7 % of the variability in the factors were: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes, Technology Issues, Issues Specific to Games and Simulations,

PAGE 13

13 Teacher Issues, Issues with Games and Simulations in Education, Incorporation Difficulties, and Student Ability. Interestingly, by using a MANOVA and follow up ANOVA, several factors were found to have significant interactions with other questions on the survey. For instance, male educators ranked items in the Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes category as more of a barrier than female educators. Another gender difference was the ranking of items in the Technology Iss ues and the Teacher Issues categories ; female educators ranked these items as more of a barrier than their male counterparts. Another significant interaction occurred between the Technology Issues category and Respondent Game Play Frequency. T hose respon dents that did not play games very frequently ranked individual technology barriers higher than those respondents who were more experienced with game playing Implications of these and other results as well as recommendations for further research and fo r game and simulation implementation for educators and administrators are discussed.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Presently, electronic games and simulations have been identified as a potential learning tool (Aldrich, 2005; Annetta, Mangrum, Holmes Collazo, & Meng Tzu, 2009; Gee, 2003; Halverson, 2005 ; Hamlen, 2010 ; Prensky, 2001; Shaffer, 2006; Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005; Squire, 2006). Rieber (1996) points out that play and imitation are natural learning strategies, therefore stude nts of all ages can play games to accommodate and assimilate extensive critical thinking and problem solving skills. Coller and Scott (2009) suggest that a major difference between a game and other common forms of educational media is the degree of intera ctivity since a game requires the student to respond to the events occurring within the game. This interactivity can cause intense engagement which has been widely accepted as causing deep, meaningful learning experiences (Aldrich, 2005 ; Annetta, 2008 ; Ca meron & Dwyer, 2005 ; Coller & Scott, 2009 ; Gee, 2003; Prensky, 2001; Rieber, 1996 ; Shaffer, 2006 ). Additionally, electronic games, in particular, have become integral parts of our social and cultural environment (Oblinger, 2004). For all of these reasons, educators have been looking for electronic games and simulations to facilitate the learning experience by creating a new learning culture that better corresponds with the habits and interests of students today (Kiili, 2005; Prensky, 2001; Sanford et al., 2006 ). For example, computer games have been used as powerful mathematical learning tools to support learning of basic arithmetic and problem solving (Ke & Grabowski, 2007). Additionally, Yip and Kwan (2006) found that students preferred vocabulary less ons supplemented with digital games to the conventional activity based lessons, which they

PAGE 15

15 found boring and tedious. Furthermore, Papastergiou (2009) concluded that a gaming approach to computer science lessons was more effective in improving kn owledge of the subject and level of motivation than a non gaming approach to the same lessons. Moreover, given the ubiquitous nature of gaming, it is understandable that educators would want to use this potential teaching tool to reach all ages, ethnicit ies, genders, and learning levels. Research has suggested that games and simulations serve groups (i.e. genders, low socio economic, behavioral problems) that are typically under served or left behind in learning (Angelone 2010; Chen, Lien, Annetta, & Lu 2010; Hamlen, 2010; Robertson, 2012). Consequently, researchers have focused on understanding the pedagogical foundations and limitations of using games and simulations, implementing instructional models to use games and simulations, and trying to ident ify specific games and simulations to use with particular subjects (Coller & Scott, 2009 ; Ke & Grabowski, 2007 ; Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008 ; Lim, Nonis, & Hedberg 2006; Shaffer, 2005 ). Additionally, a large portion of research has focused on identifying th e benefits of using games and simulations in education ( Ke, 2008; Koh, Kin, Wadhwa, & Lim, 2011; Reese, 2007; Ritzhaupt, Gunter, & Jones 2010; Sanford, Ulicsak, Facer, & Rudd, 2006; Shaffer et al., 2005; Sliney, 2009 ; Squire, 2005 ). Some of the identified benefits include: increasing student motivation and engagement, enhancing problem solving skills, peer learning and collaboration; facilitating language acquisition, stimulating information assimilation and retention; improving the i ntegration of concepts and thinking cross functionally; and, learning in a failsafe environment ( Ferdig & Boyer,

PAGE 16

16 2007; Gee, 2003; Koh et al 2011; Reese, 2007; Rosas, Nussbaum, Cumsille, Marianov, Correa, Flores, Grau, Lagos, Lopez, Lopez, Rodriguez, & Sal inas, 2003; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Torrente, Del Blanco, Marchiori, Moreno Ger, & Fernandez Manjon, 2010; Vos & Brennan, 2010). Context of the Problem After hearing about the use of game s and simulation s in curriculum at an educational conference, I became interested in introducing this form of educational technology at my own school Unfortunately, it was not an easy process. My Professional Background Currently I work in an adult education program, located on a college campus in Florida, developing scien ce curriculum and teaching science for the Adult High School (AHS) and ABE (Adult Basic Education)/GED (General Education Diploma) classes. We have three programs, the ABE/GED program, the ESL (English as a Second Language) program, and the Adult High Sch ool program. Recently, I wanted to introduce games and simulations into the curriculum of each of these programs. The FLDOE (Florida Department of Education) offers geographical grants, which are state funded grants designed to increase the number of stu dents in Adult Education programs and, once enrolled, help these students transition into postsecondary educational programs for the career in which they are interested. By working with several co workers on these geographical grants, I was able to purcha se two Xbox and two Wii gaming systems, with specifically chosen games, for our three programs. For example, I purchased (Wii ) and My Word Coach (Wii ) for our ESL and ABE/GED programs to help practice vocabulary words. For AHS cla sses and GED classes, we have found that games like Beowulf (Xbox ) and Rise of the Argonauts

PAGE 17

17 (Xbox ) help students to visualize and relate to stories from other time periods, which can be particularly difficult for these types of students. For my own cla sses, I use d games like Science Papa (Wii ) in my science classes to reinforce the scientific method. Also, with the lack of a proper scientific lab in our school, the simulated chemical labs exposed my students to equipment and procedures ( e.g. electroly sis) that they would not have been able to see otherwise. The Wii game, Gravity is also great for teaching and demonstrating some principles in Physics as well as teaching problem solving skills. Additionally, in my Health Science Academy, a course des igned for students who wish to pursue a healthcare career, I was able to expose the students to simulated emergency rooms ( i.e. Trauma Center (Wii ), Trauma Team (Wii )) with these gaming systems. We successfully use computer games and internet games as well as these (http://www.driveredtogo.com/game_drivered.aspx) to help students practice English in s The teachers of the ABE/GED prog ram like the Lum osity webpage (http://www.lumosity.com) for helping students practice basic math skills like times tables, fractions, addition, subtraction, and division through simple games In the AHS program, we use web based simulations like iCivi cs ( http://www.icivics.org/ ) to help demonstrate courtroom procedures, or the Energyville game to demonstrate the consequences of over using nonrenewable resources. For my classes, on the Nobel Prize web site, I like to use their blood typing, nervous syst em, and interactive parts of the cell games. Additionally, Science Discovery has some great

PAGE 18

18 Internet demonstrates the principles of natural selection. My Current Problem The current difficulty I face in using games and simulations in Adult Education at my school is that, although several teachers support the use of games and simulations, many more do not C onsequently games and simulations are not being fully adopted in our adult edu cation program The teachers cite several reasons why they have failed to integrate these instructional tools. Some claim there is no proof that this is a legitimate teaching method. Many also say that adults do not play games; therefore adult students would not learn anything from using games and simulations. Other s cite issues like cost and time constraints lack of access to equipment or software lack of experience and / or comfort with games, and so on Without a sufficient understanding as to the barriers of using games and simulations in our classrooms, I cannot approach our administration to ask for help and so the incorporation of this teaching tool likely will lag Additionally, I have been asked to speak at professional conferences and worksh ops about my experience using games and simulations in our adult education program. At every presentation, I have met educators with questions about how to successfully introduce the use of games and simulations in their own educational programs. Questio n s often include: getting administrators (or peers) on board; finding any usable lesson plans; recommendations for good games or simulations; balancing time (or cost) to use games and simulations; and, a variety of student issues incorporating technology o r gaming skills, variation in learning levels, and program ( i.e.

PAGE 19

19 Adult High School vs. GED vs. ABE) or grade category ( i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary adult education ). My Future Problem In my future endeavors, I hope to migrate out of Adult Education and into the college education progr am on campus. In particular, I woul d like to teach educational technology to future teachers. Since my college began offering four year degrees, those programs offering education degrees have be come the most popular on campus. I want to teach these students new technology tools, like games and simulations, which they can use in their own classrooms. To teach these concepts properly, I need to prepare the students for any resistance that they ma y face in the use of games and simulations in their classrooms. To be able to do that, I need to know what those barriers are so that I can address each one and offer potential solutions. I consider this a priority since many researchers promote the use of games and simulations in classrooms and yet games and simulations in education are often still considered a novelty. How can I teach future teachers to use this technology knowing that when they begin their teaching careers they will probably be told t hat this form of educational technology is unavailable for use? Problem Statement Despite the popularity of the concept of incorporating games and simulations in education, as well as the potential benefits, some researchers have found that game and simula tion adoption into education has been comparatively slow ( Gee 2003; Gee & Levine, 2008; Kenny & Gunter, 2011 ; Koh et al., 2011 ; Prensky, 2001). For this reason, several researchers have tried to identify the barriers to the adoption of games and simulati ons in education ( Baek, 2008; Becker & Jacobsen, 2005 ; Boyle, Connolly,

PAGE 20

20 Hainey, & Boyle, 2012 ; Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; KeBritchi, 2010; Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Rice, 2007; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008). However, at present, it has bee n suggested that researchers are not taking a broad enough approach to identifying the barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in formal education (Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, De Weaver, & Schellens, 2011). After extensive research, I failed to find a comprehensive study in the differences of game and simulation adoption across grade categories ( i.e elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary adult education ) teacher demographics ( i.e gender age ethnicity, highest degree earned ) or level of teacher experience with games and simulations Additionally, the se barriers may be similar to the adoption of any new technology or the barriers may be specific to the adoption of games and simulations. Furthermore, there is no widely acc epted valid and reliable instrument to measure the barriers that educators identify in the use of games and simulations in their classrooms. A comprehensive survey that distinguishes if barriers vary at different grade categories teacher demographics, a nd teacher game and simulation in experience and if the identified barriers are general to the adoption of any new technology or are specific to games and simulations may be more likely to become a widely accepted instrument that may discern the actual barr iers to the adoption of games and simulations in education This study is designed to provide this type of comprehensive instrument. Purpose Statement Because of the lack of a valid and reliable instrument to measure the barriers of the use of games and s imulations in the classroom, and the lack of a cohesive study

PAGE 21

21 across grade categories teacher demographic information, and teacher inexperience with games and simulations the purpose of this study i s to create a reliable comprehensive instrument to disco ver the barriers identified by educators in the use of games and simulations in their classrooms. More specifically, this survey i s comprehensive in that the grade categories ( i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary, adult educat ion), te acher demographic information ( i.e. gender age ethnicity, highest degree earned ) and teacher unfamiliarity with games and simulations are taken into consideration when identifying the perceived barriers of adoption of games and simulation in formal educ ation. Research Question RQ1. What are the barriers to adopting games and simulations in education? RQ1a. gender, age, ethnicity, highest degree earned) characteristics or the instruct RQ1b. Is there a variation in the barriers between grade categories (i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary, adult education)? Significance of Study Even after almost a decade of study to identify the barriers of game and simulation adoption in education, there is no widely accepted valid and reliable instrument to identify and measure the barriers to using games and simulations in formal education. Additionally, little research has bee n done to comprehensively identify b arriers across grade categories, teacher demographics, and teacher inexperience with games and simulations Nor has there been research to identify if the barriers are similar to the adoption of any new technology or ar e specific to games and

PAGE 22

22 simulations. This study will contribute to the develop ment of a valid and reliable instrument of measurement as well as discover the reasons that games and simulations are not more widely used in classrooms, regardless of grade cat egory instructor demographics, and instructor unfamiliarity with games and simulations This study can be used to help current and future educators who wish to incorporate games and simulations to sidestep or overcome potential barriers to adoption. Als o, this study may help future researchers with the creation of a valid and reliable instrument to measure teacher perceptions of the barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education. Lastly, this study may potentially be useful to game des igners who wish to design games and simulations for educational purposes. Definition of Terms A DOPTION The decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action available (Rogers, 2003). B ARRIER Any issue and/or reason that prevents or limits the use of any technology in the classroom (Kotrlik & Redman, 2009). G AME Competitive interactions bound by rules to achieve specified goals that depend on skill and often involve chance and an imaginary setting (Came ron & Dwyer, 2005; Rande l, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill 1992). G AME AND S IMULATION U SE IN F ORMAL E DUCATION Any electronic game or simulation used to teach specific curriculum or as an example of existing relevant terms, concepts, and methods (Egenfledt Nielsen, 2010). Additi onally, this may include educators who have students create electronic games or simulations to demonstrate curricular knowledge. G RADE CATEGORIES The grouping of school grades into five main categories: elementary, pre secondary (i.e. middle school), secondary (i.e. high school), post secondary (i.e. college/technical school), and adult education (i.e. ABE/GED, AHS, ESL). L EARNER L EVELS The categorization of student learner levels into three main categories: low level learners, general learners, an d gifted learners

PAGE 23

23 S IMULATION An electronic model of a process or mechanism relating input changes to outcomes in a simplified reality that may not have a definite end point (Cameron & Dwyer, 2005; Randel et al., 1992). Organization of Study The rem ainder of the study is organized into four chapters and appendices including the survey and interviews used. Chapter 2 is the review of related literature regarding previously identified barriers of the adoption of games and simulations in education divid ed into relevant categories ( i.e. Diffusion of Innovation (Conceptual Framework), Demographic Barriers, Inexperience with Games and Simulations Barriers, Grade Category Barriers, Student Learner level Barriers, School based Barriers, Technology based Barri ers, Game specific Barriers). Chapter 3 includes the research design and methodology of the study. Chapter 4 introduces the results of the survey and data analysis and the findings based on this information. Chapter 5 contains the summary, discussions, and implications of the results, recommendations based on the results, and conclusions. Finally the study is concluded with a bibliography and appendices.

PAGE 24

2 4 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Although there are many cited reasons to adopt games and simulations in education, and though technology has become more wide spread and easier to access, currently game and simulation based learning does not seem widely adopted in formal education (Gee 2003; Gee & Levine, 2008 ; Kenn y & Gunter, 2011; Prensky, 2001 ) This study aims to create a valid and reliable instrument to measure the teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education. In order to do this, I incorporate d the results from interviews of educators with information from pu blished research to comprehensively identify the barriers to the incorporation of games and simulations in to curriculum. To organize the previous investigations, I divided the research into eight main components: Diffusion of Innovation (Conceptual Framew ork), Demographic Barriers, Inexperience with Games and Simulations Barriers, Grade Category Barriers, Student Learner level Barriers, School based Barriers, Technology based Barriers, and Game specific Barriers. Each category begins with a list of defini tions to help explain the category. Conceptual Framework Terminology D IFFUSION OF I NNOVATION A theory that attempts to explain how, why, and how quickly new ideas and technology (i.e. innovations) spread through a society (Rogers, 2003). R ELATIVE A DVAN TAGE Describes the improvement of the new technology over the old technology because the innovation must be of some value to the innovator (Rogers, 2003). C OMPATIBILITY The extent to which the new approach is similar to the traditional practices wit h the new approach is important to the adoption of the innovation. The more compatible an innovation is, the more likely it will be adopted (Rogers, 2003).

PAGE 25

25 C OMPLEXITY Refers to how difficult the game or simulation is to learn and use. If the innovati on is too complex or too difficult to use, then it is unlikely to be adopted (Rogers, 2003). T RIALABILITY Refers to the ease with which a potential adoptee can tryout and experiment with an innovation. If an innovation is difficult to test in action, then it is less likely to be adopted (Rogers, 2003). O BSERVABILITY Refers to the extent to which benefits of an innovation can be seen or observed by a potential user. When potential adoptees see the benefits that adopters have harnessed using the in novation, this encourages the potential adoptees to try the innovation as well. Therefore, sufficient observability is another characteristic in the potential diffusion of an innovation (Rogers, 2003) Diffusion of Innovations Electronic games and simul ations are a newer technology an innovation Unfortunately, education has been especially resistant to change and this has become more obvious in the adoption, or lack of adoption, of instructional technology (Germanne & Sasse, 1997). Innovation causes change; resistance to change is a natural reaction to the uncertainty that any transformation creates (Rogers, 2003). One of the best known and well respected attempts to describe the adoption of new ideas (or technology) through cultures is th e theory of Diffusion of Innovation put forth by Everett Rogers (Rogers, 2003). The theory is complex and its full spectrum is beyond the scope of this chapter, but a brief synopsis of each characteristic, using the barriers of game and simulation adoption as the in novation is included to address this model. Several researchers propose that adoption of a new technology is not a straightforward decision since adoptees go through se veral stages of internalization involving a complex process of emotional, cognitive, con textual, and social concerns before fully embracing any type of technology (Straub, 2009; Taylor, 2008). Rogers

PAGE 26

26 (2003) suggests that individuals follow a five step process when deciding to adopt an innovation. The first step is knowledge or when the per son first learns about the innovation. The second step is persuasion or when the person forms a favorable (if adopting) attitude about the innovation. The third step is decision or when the person makes the choice to adopt the innovation. The fourth ste p is implementation or when the person actively begins using the innovation. And the last step is confirmation or when the person gains positive (if adopting) reinforcement from the adoption process. If using games and simulations in education as an exa mple, the first step (i.e. knowledge ) c ould be a teacher who learns about a game or simulation that is useful for a specific class from a colleague As that colleague demonstrates the game or simulation, the teacher begins to like the game or simulation ( i.e. persuasion ) seeing a potential lesson. The teacher then makes the choice (i.e. decision ) to use that game or simulation in his or her curriculum. The fourth step is when the teacher is planning and then using the game or simulation in class with hi s or her students (i.e. implementation ) And finally, when the students successfully learn the intended lesson while enjoying the teaching process, the teacher is rewarded for the addition of the game or simulation (i.e. confirmation ) Once an individual adopts the innovation, there is no guarantee that the adoption will spread to others, diffusing throughout the society. Rogers (2003) suggests that the diffusion of any new idea or technology throughout a culture is influence d by the innovation itself (i. e. the idea or the technology), communication channels (i.e. the process through which the innovation is communicated between individuals), time (i.e.

PAGE 27

27 the length of time for individuals to pass through the five step adoption process), and a social system ( i.e. a society with its own customs, beliefs, practices, and rules). If using games and simulations as an example of the innovation, many teachers do not have an opportunity to communicate to each other their own teaching practices since many planning pe riods are asynchronous; therefore, a lack of communication may slow the overall adoption process of games and simulations in formal education. Additionally, the lack of parent, administrator, or community support may cause societal pressures (i.e. social system ) which may also slow the diffusion of game and simulation use in formal education. Moreover within any society there are roles that individuals play in the adoption process (Rogers, 2003) For example, there are opinion leader s highly esteemed individuals who have the ability to influence individuals toward adoption or rejection. Also, there are change agents who recognize the viewpoints of opinion leaders and help to mediate between these viewpoints and the social system F inally, there are c hange aides who, although may have less credibility with in the society, have more contact with the society and consequently can further the message of the change agent When using games and simulations in education as an example, a principal who decides all the teachers of the school should incorporate a game or simulation into their curriculum could be considered an opinion leader Continuing this example, the instructional technologist who gives the trainings on the operation of the game or simulatio n could be considered a change agent Lastly the first few teachers who have successfully used the game or simulation could be change aides as they help non adopters learn to use the game or simulation.

PAGE 28

28 Continuing with the previous example, these first f ew teachers who successfully adopted the game or simulation could be thought of as either innovators or early adopters (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) classified all adopters into five categories based on how quickly an individual adopts an innovation. The se categories include : innovators (i.e. highly adventurous individuals that are the first to adopt (typically the first 5% of adopters) ), early adopters (i.e. the second group of adopters who are usually more respected by their peers (typically the next 10 % of adopters and usually contains the opinion leaders ) ) early majority (i.e. those individuals who interact with opinion leaders but taking longer to deliberate about the decision (typically the next 35% of adopters) ) late majority (i.e. those individua ls who are skeptical and cautious about new ideas (typically the next 35% of adopters) ) and the laggards (i.e. those individuals who are very traditional and set in their ways (typically the last 15% to adopt) ) Additionally, Rogers (2003) identified s eve ral characteristics about the innovation itself that influence s adoption and diffusion These intrinsic characteristics include relative advantage compatibility complexity trialability and observability (see glossary above). Rogers (2003) claims that the probability of adoption of an innovation is likely to increase if the innovation is perceived to be advantageous; is compatible with existing norms, beliefs, and past experiences; has a relatively low level of complexity ; can be experimented with or h as a high rate of trialability ; and use of the innovation has observable results, including being able to see others using the innovation. Relative advantage other words, the comparison o f the relative benefits of using the innovation to any costs associated with the innovation. As with the adoption of any innovative technology, the

PAGE 29

29 new technology must be of some value to the innovator. With the addition of games and simulations, increas ed motivation, engagement, and active learning are often cited as benefits (Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2010; Ke, 2008 ; Royle & Colfer, 2010 ; Torrente et al., 2010). Additionally, games and simulations can encourage active learning or learning by doing, can enhanc e learning of complex subject matter, can foster collaboration among learners, and can encourage systematic ordering and solving of problems ( Gee, 2003; Ke, 2008; Royle & Colfer, 2010 ; Torrente Moreno Ger, Martinez Ortiz, & Fernandez Manjon 2009 ). Conve rsely, some people see the costs of games and simulations outweighing the benefits. For example, parents and teachers fear that students will develop aggressive tendencies from the violence in games or may become addicted to playing these games ( Koh et al ., 2011). Although Rogers (2003) found that compatibility is usually a smaller predictor of adoption than relative advantage the educational system, which is an organization that changes quite slowly and appears inflexible, may see compatibility as a mo re important issue. The adoption of games and simulations in a classroom can be linked to the practices (Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; Koh et al., 2011; Niederhauser & St oddart, 2001; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Rosas et al., 2003; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Sanford et al., 2006; Taylor, 2008 ; Vos & Brennan, 2010 ). The compatibility of the old and new tions ( Becker & Jacobsen, 2005 ; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008; Torrente et al., 2010 ). The complexity of an innovation refers to how difficult it is to harness the relative advantage from the innovation. For instance, the complexity of games and simulations

PAGE 30

30 require extra time by instructors to incorporate into lessons and also the game complexity requires extended time to be played by students ( Baek, 2008; Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; Koh et al., 2011 ; Rice, 2007 ; Squire, 2006 ; Torrente et al., 2010 ) For these reasons, games and simulations may be considered complex by some potential adoptees. As for trialability games and simulations may not be very easy to experiment with in schools. Cost of the equipment, lack of specific methodologies, negative opinions ab out gaming, and cultural resistance lessen the trialability of games and simulations in education ( Baek, 2008; Becker & Jacobsen, 2005 ; Kenny & Gunter 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Royle & Colfer, 2010 ). F inally, it is important for potential adoptees to see the benefits that adopters have using the innovation. This is quite difficult in public schools since, as Egenfeldt Nielsen (2010) points out, many teachers essentially work in a vacuum and do not see what other teachers do in their own classrooms. The more research done on the adoption of games and simulations in education can be one way educators can see the benefits of adopting games and simulations in their own classrooms. As research indicates, the adoption of any new technology is not an easy proposition for educators (Taylor, 2008). Identifying the barriers to adopting games and simulations will give insight into the adoption process, but also may assist teachers, administrators, and policy makers in understanding how to successfully adopt t his instructional technology. Demographic B arriers Terminology: D EMOGRAPHIC BARRIER For the purposes of this study, a demographic barrier

PAGE 31

31 gender, age, ethnicity, highest degree earn ed ), which discourages the use of technology in the classroom. For example, a male teacher may have different perspectives about the introduction of a specific technology than a female teacher. Demographic b arriers Do the demographic characteristics of a teacher ( i.e. gender, age, ethnicity, highest degree earned ) influence the decision to add games and simulations into the curriculum? Jensen and De Castell (2010) suggest that no technology should be assumed as value neutral, or, in other words, no tech nology should be indiscriminately used regardless of identity factors like gender, race, nationality, or class. Also, research suggests that teaching level, years of experience, and teaching subject affected the potential adoption of games and simulations by a teacher ( Kenny & McDaniel, 2011; Koh et al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al. 2010). Gender d ifference has been a focus of a n array of research on technology integration in formal education (Annetta et al., 2009; Bourgonjon et al., 2011; Greenberg, Sherry, Lachlan, Lucas, & Holstrom, 2008; Hainey, Connolly, Stansfield, & Boyle, 2011; Jensen & De Castell 2010; Joiner Iacovides, Owen, Gavin, Clibbery, Darling, & Drew 2011; Kenny & McDaniel, 2011; Robertson, 2012; Wilson, 2006). Technology has been stereoty ince males, in general, showed more positive attitudes toward computers and other forms of digital media ( Abbiss, 2008; Annetta et al., 2009 ; Cockburn, 1992 ; Jensen & De Castell 2010). Additiona lly, supporting this idea that technology is gendered, both scientific and technological careers have more males enter and persist in these fields than do females (Annetta et al., 2009).

PAGE 32

32 However, it may be that these gender based differences are gradually disappearing as technology becomes more commonplace and mainstream. For example, one study suggests that girls may spend more time than boys using computers; however, males show a more positive attitude toward computers, are more self confident in compute r use, and use a computer out of school more frequently ( Annetta et al.; 2009) Surprisingly, this study found that girls tended to maintain relationships by email, chat with friends online, and search information on the Internet more frequently than male s. Studies of this nature suggest that technology is not really gendered, but that each gender is using the technology in different ways (Annetta et al., 2009; Jensen & De Castell 2010; Join er et al., 2011; Padilla Walker, Nelson, Carroll, & Jensen, 2010 ; Wilson, 2006). One of the ways that males use technology differently from females is playing computer and video games. Males tend to play games more frequently and for longer periods of time than females (Annetta et al., 2009; Hainey et al., 2011; Ha mlen, 2010; Joiner et al., 2011; Padila Walker et al., 2010; Roberts & Foehr, 2008; Robertson, 2012). Additionally, because boys tend to begin playing digital games at a younger age this gender gap t ends t o be magnified with age; therefore, by the time an average young male enrolls in college, he has accumulated many more hours of experience than an average young female of the same age (Hainey et al., 2011 ; R obertson, 2012 ). The interesting question then becomes why why is there such a difference in the amount of game play between males and females? Just as researchers identified that females and males use computers differently, other researchers have noticed that female and male game playing is also different. For example, research suggests that

PAGE 33

33 males and females prefer different types of games with females preferring more logic and puzzles for leisure and males prefer ring more competition/ challenge and graphic sophistication for engagement ( Annetta et al., 2009; Bourgonjon et al., 2011; Chen et al., 20 10; Hainey et al., 2011; Lowrie & Jorgensen, 2011). Additionally, several researchers point out that many of the recent generation of games were created by males for males as evidenced by the lack of active female characters or, if a female character is p resent, the female character is highly sexualized (Greenberg et al., 2008; Hamlen, 2010; Jensen & De Castell 2010). Because games often force players to engage in behaviors that are inherently masculine in nature they may be less appealing to girls and women who are reluctant to cross gender barriers ( Annetta et al., 2009 ; Greenberg et al., 200 8 ; Jensen & De Castell, 2010 ). Both parental and peer support (Jensen & De Ca stell 2010). Another possible explanation for the gender difference is that girls may not have as much access to games in domestic spaces because parents do not purchase gaming systems as re adily for daughters as for sons; therefore, g wait al., 2008; Jensen & De Castell 2010). Additionally, one study found that women h ave less free time, and that free time is in smaller chunks, than men, which may help explain a decreased amount of female game play (Joiner et al.; 2011). Regardless of the cause for preventing girls from gaming in the past, recent research has suggested that girls are catching up with the boys (Annetta et al., 2009;

PAGE 34

34 Bourgonjon et al., 2011). Because females are the highly sought market for the next generation of games, girls and women can be considered as the future central consumers of games ( Greenberg et al., 2008; Jensen and De Castell 2010; Joiner et al., 2011). What do gender differences mean for using games and simulations as instructional tools? One study found no gender differences in learning outcomes, motivation, or self efficacy when a simu lation was intro duced in a science lesson (Dede, Nelson, & Ketelhut, 2004). Another study suggests that female students will benefit as equally as male students regardless of the type and design o f a digital game (Joiner et al., 2011). Nonetheless, resea rchers suggest that teachers should take into consideration the design of the lesson and the context of the game or simulation when integrating the two (Joiner et al., 2011; Robertson, 2012; Wilson, 2006). For example, one study suggests that when adding technology to a lesson, educators should give more attention and encouragement to female students to ensure a more positive learning experience (Chen et al., 2010). Unlike gender, there has been little research on age or ethnicity with the use of instructi onal technology in respect to teachers. Interestingly, one study did find that older teachers have less confidence in technology and their ability to use that technology (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009). Additionally, t a term that has bee n bandied about to describe the generation gap between technology savvy students versus the non technology savvy teachers (Buckingham, 2003 ; Tapscott, 1998 ). Tapscott (1998) focuses primarily on age as the main explanation for this digital

PAGE 35

35 divide; however since Hamlen (2010) found a technology gap in school children, age may not be the only factor in differing technology abilities. Aarsand (2007) suggests that socio economic background, ethnicity, gender, geography as well as age are all of the social v ariables that explain this digital divide. Interestingly, African Americans reported spending more time on the Internet than any other ethnicity (Padilla Walker et al., 2010). Roberts and Foehr (2008) found that African American youths reported playing g ames longer (40 minutes) per day than Hispanics (34 minutes) and Caucasians (30 minutes). What do age and ethnicity differences mean for using games and simulations as instructional tools? In short, if a lesson successfully incorporates a game or simula tion type of learning and teaching systems and his or her pedagogical style is the driving influence on learning (Clark, 1983). For example, Kenny and McDaniel (2011) suggest that older peo ple (40 years old and over) are playing more video games, which means that these older teachers may be more at ease to introduce a game or simulation into a lesson. Consequently gender, age, and/or ethnicity could lead to a lack of technology skills and/ o r game playing skills This type of deficiency may be a barrier to the introduction of a game or simulation in a lesson, but more research is merited to establish this concept and determine if this concept is actually correlated to gender, age and/or eth nicity. Inexperience with Games and Simulations Barriers Terminology: I NEXPERIENCE WITH GAM ES AND SIMULATIONS B ARRIER For the purposes of this study, an inexperience with games and simulations barrier is any barrier, rience with games and simulations (i.e. the

PAGE 36

36 teacher does not frequently play games or simulations ), which discourages the use of games and simulations in the classroom. For example, a teacher who frequently plays games and simulations may see more educati onal value in a game than a teacher who does not frequently play games and simulations. Inexper ience with games and simulations b arriers Does the frequency in which a teacher plays games and simulations influence the adoption of games and simulations int o the curriculum? Does it increase or reduce any potential barriers in the addition of games and simulations into lessons? It makes sense that an instructor should know how to play a game or simulation before introducing it to students so that the instru ctor can teach students how to play and guide simulation can be instrumental in assisting students with learning to play the game, reducing frustration and trouble shoo ting sticking points (Charsky & Mims, 2008). But if a teacher is inexperienced with games and simulations, would a teacher even want to incorporate one into a lesson? Research suggests that educators who play more games tend to be more empathetic toward this type of technology, thus being more motivated to adopt a game or simulation (Hamlen, 2010; Koh et al., 2011; Lim, 2008). De Aguilera and Mendiz (2003) suggest that teachers who denounce the use of games and simulations in education have no game play ing experience. They maintain that this lack of experience is a main contributor to the hostile criticism of all games, simulations, gaming technology, and players. Additionally, it has been suggested that to gain parental and community support for the u se of games and simulations in education, those individuals should play games (Bourgonjon et al., 2011). This study goes on to hypothesize that experience with video games will lessen the perception that playing these games can have negative side effects, like aggression

PAGE 37

37 Several researchers note that inexperience is a barrier to adoption and suggest that teachers increase their experience with games and simulations if they want to incorporate them into lessons ( Kenny & McDaniel, 2011; Ritzhaupt et al. 20 10; Schrader, Zheng, & Young, 2006). Interestingly, Kenny and McDaniel (2011) claim that although many people play games and simulations, and game time has been on a steady increase, teachers do not follow this gaming trend. They suggest that a particul arly disproportionate percentage of preservice teachers either do not play games and simulations or do not play them as frequently as their non teaching counterparts. Curiously their study showed that many of these non playing preservice teachers had a c hange of attitude, from negative to positive, about using games and simulations in curriculum after playing only one game. For these reasons, inexperience with games and simulations may be a potential barrier for educators in the adoption of games and si mulations into his or her curriculum. Grade Category Barriers Terminology: G RADE CATEGORY BARRIE R For the purposes of this study, a grade category barrier is any barrier, stemming from the grade category (i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, adult education) of the students intended for the technology, which restrains a teacher from using that technology. For example, some educators may view games and simulations as ideal for younger students; whereas, other educators think that games and simulati ons should only be used with older students. Grade c ategory b arriers Does the category of education ( i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary adult education ) make a difference in the adoption of games and simulations in the classroom? It has been suggested that since playing games is a natural activity for children and an excellent example of learning through authentic situations, that

PAGE 38

38 Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) suggest that younger grade s have more of a child centered approach to learning and that teachers of this learner centered pedagogy tend to choose different types of software to meet specific educational goals. Conversely, in college, most classes are teacher centered, where the professor transmits his or her knowledge to students who memorize the information and later reproduce it on an exam (King, 1993). Thi s type of passive learning does no t seem to correlate with the complex problem so lving of games and simulations. One suggested reason for this outdated teaching method may be that many post secondary educators have had little prep aration to be educators (Schrum, Burbank, Engle, Chambers, & Glassett, 2005). These faculty members may h ave had little experience with newer educational technology tools and, with large teaching loads, have little time for professional development. Another challenge for post secondary schools, community colleges in particular, is the diversity of the studen t population. The students have a wide range of skills and experiences with which they begin taking classes (Cox, 2003). This variety may make student centered learning difficult. Alternatively, it has been suggested that it would be easier to incorpora te games and simulations in the curriculum of secondary schools and community colleges, before students encounter the more specific, advanced curriculum of higher education (Koh et al., 2011). A survey found that some of the disadvantages of using games and simulations in higher education were the lack of technology skills, the lack of resources, the lack of time, the lack of familiarity with games and simulations, and the uncertainty of how to use and where to begin using

PAGE 39

39 games and simulations. These are some of the same barriers found in elementary, middle (pre secondary), and secondary schools. Rieber (1996) points out that some adult educational settings, such as corporate and military training env ironments, successfully incorporate games and simulations; however, due to the unfortunate misconceptions that reduce their learning potential, game use in education will have the greatest success in younger grades ( i.e. elementary). Student Learner level Barriers Terminology: S TUDENT LEARNER LEVEL BARRIER For the purposes of this study, a student learner level barrier is any barrier, originating from the learning level (i.e. low level learners, general learners, gifted learners) of the students intended for the technology, which prevents the use of that technology in the classroom. For example, low level learners may get too frustrated if the game is difficult and gifted students may get bored if the game is too easy. Student learner level b arriers Doe s the learning level ( i.e. low level learners, general learners, gifted learners) of the student make a difference in the addition of games and simulations in the curriculum? Squire (2005) suggests that game based formats can make complex thinking accessi ble to a broader range of students, including those who are generally unsuccessful in school. Conversely, Villalta, Gajardo, Nussbaum, Andreu, Escheverria, and Plass (2011) cite information overload in games as confusing for student use in the classroom. This suggests that low level learners may have trouble using games and simulations as educational tools. Mann (1994) suggests that the role of teacher and learner are often blurred in the new learning environments due to the advancement of multimedia and technology. She proposes that teachers often may learn only hours or minutes before students do and there are times when they learn together, which seems

PAGE 40

40 to happen frequently with gifted students. This role reversal of teacher and student is part of lea rning in technology rich environments which may include games and simulations. As a final point Winberg and Hedman (2008) argue that learning level is not an issue unless there is too large of a gap between the student and the game or simulation causing the student to be overwhelmed or, alternatively, not challenged enough to be engaged. School based Barriers Terminology: S CHOOL BASED BARRIER For the purposes of this study, a school based barrier is any barrier, caused by any employee or design of the s chool, which discourages the use of technology in the classroom. Examples of school based barriers include, but are not limited to: class size (i.e. too large or too small), too much variation of student abilities, resistance to a shift in pedagogical pra ctices, school culture (i.e. administrator, peer, and community support; standardized testing influence on teaching activities), and characteristics of the teacher (i.e. confidence with technology, how familiar the teacher is with games, belief games cause addiction/bad behavior, fear games will replace teachers). School based b arriers One example of a school based barrier is class size since many teachers have no control over the number of students in their classrooms; however, class size can be a barrie r for the introduction of any new technology. With the use of games and simulations in education, Egenfeldt Nielsen (2004) cites larger class sizes as a barrier to adoption. Another school based barrier that is not specific to games and simulations, but would be a school based barrier for any new technology is the wide range of student skill and experience in the classroom (Schrum et al., 2005 ; Vos & Brennan, 2010 ). Variation in student abilities may make it difficult for an educator to keep all students on task because some may be familiar with the technology and become bored; whereas others will be lost and need extra help.

PAGE 41

41 From an instructive point of view, many new technologies require a more learner centered type of teaching which may require a major shift in pedagogical practices. instructional practices (Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001). For many schools, teaching with technology is so far outside traditional peda gogical practices, that computers are often banished to another room (Rosas et al., 2003). School cultural resistance is also cited by several researchers as a barrier to the adoption of games and simulations in education ( Koh et al., 2011 ; Royle & Colfe r, 2010; Sliney et al. 2009 ). For example, in their survey, Becker and Jacobsen (2011) found that many teachers did not try to integrate games and simulations into their lessons stration. Furthermore, administrators verbally supporting or making policies to support games and simulations is not enough to create a new culture. For instance, Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) point out that often policy makers assume teachers will ac cept and implement any instructional methods mandated from the top down. If any instructional technology is to be incorporated in education, administrators should be encouraging and supportive of the incorporation and, perhaps, even offer incentives (Kotr lik & Redmann, 2009 ; Smarkola, 2007 ). If administration were to be more supportive with clear expectations and assessments, then there may be more adoption of instructional technologies, such as games and simulations ( Koh et al., 2011; Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009; Royle & Colfer, 2010). For example, administrators could encourage a collaborative teaching environment with communities of practice around using games and simulations ( Royle & Colfer, 2010; Sabin, 2011; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008).

PAGE 42

42 Moreover, Simps on and Stansberry (2008) suggest that because the current political mandates for public schools require institutional accountability to be measured on mechanisms such as high stakes testing, there is no room for instructional technologies that cannot prove higher test scores on these assessments. Educators have a huge influence on the culture of the school, including the community as well. Community support of the use of games and simulations in education could lead to the effective incorporation of this instructional technology (Koh et al., 2011). One major barrier of adopting games and simulations in the classroom identified by researchers is the characteristics of the teacher ( Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004 ; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Ritzhaupt et al., 2 010; Rosas et al., 2003; Royle & Colfer, 2010 ; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008 ; Taylor, 2008 ; Virvou, Katsionis, & Manos, 2005 ). For example, Kotrlik and Redmann (2009) propose that older teachers have less confidence in technology and their ability to use tha t technology. Additionally they suggest that any technology adoption decreases as the age of the teacher increases which insinuates that more experienced teachers are less likely to utilize technology than less experienced teachers. Smarkola (2007) sugge sts that student teachers apply the instructional technology that they have learned from faculty when they begin teaching on their own. Simpson and Stansberry (2008) point out that preservice teachers do not identify themselves as gamers but, more importa ntly, are also not being taught to use games and simulations in their more traditional education classes. Several researchers imply that teachers are just not into gaming ( Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Rosas et al., 2003; Royle & Colfer, 2010). Although educat ors, as a whole, may have little experience with games, they must be willing to play them to become familiar with

PAGE 43

43 their learning potentials, which may help bridge the gap between the traditional teacher centered classroom and the newer learner centered cla ssroom ( Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004 ; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008). Many teachers may be unable to bridge this gap due to their own perception of gaming (Rice, 2007; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010). Kenny and Gunter (2011) go a step further and suggest that an antago nistic relationship has appeared between the proponents of educational games, who suggest that the use of video games is a cure to all that ails the educational system, and the teachers, parents, and administrators who are inexperienced with and reluctant to adopt video games. Some teachers cannot bridge the gap because they are fearful that games will eventually replace them as instructors (Summers, 2004 ; Virvou et al., 2005 ). Researchers have tried to pointedly state that human teachers should never be replaced in the classro om (Virvou et al., 2005). A s for video games in the classroom, it has been suggested that neither the game nor the teacher would be completely understood in isolation (Royle & Colfer, 2010). These negative feelings and associatio ns are indicative of second order barriers (Ertmer, 1999). This concept suggests that first order barriers are extrinsic (i.e. lack of access, insufficient time to plant, lack of support) and second order barriers are intrinsic em, teacher motivation). In other words, the intrinsic about games and simulations, established teaching practices, and willingness (or unwillingness) to change can be a barrier to the adoption of any technology. Ertmer (1999) goes a step further by suggesting that this belief system, which may not even be

PAGE 44

44 apparent to the teachers themselves, is what determines if a technology is successfully adopted. Technology based Ba rriers Terminology: T ECHNOLOGY BASED BARRIER For the purposes of this study, a technology based barrier is any barrier, instigating from the technology in question, which discourages a teacher from using that technology. Examples of technology based bar riers include, but are not limited to: general fear of new technology (i.e. lack of confidence in individual technology skills), technology self efficacy, technology training (i.e. lack of offered trainings, technical support, cost of trainings, ineffectiv e trainings), lack of quality equipment, cost of new technology, and the extra time and effort needed to learn the technology and incorporate it into lesson plans. Technology based b arriers Redmann and Kotrlik (2009) propose that many educators face the following technology based barriers: lack of self confidence in using technology, lack of technology self efficacy, lack of necessary knowledge about technology, lack of time to figure out how to use technology, and also the lack of access to resources suc h as institutional support, equipment, and state of the art software. Kotrlik and Redmann (2009) suggest that a lack of self confidence and self efficacy was linked to a deficiency in technology training and availability in the use of a new technology in curricula since hours of training and availability were significantly related to classroom usage of technology. Researchers consistently identify training as a barrier to the adoption of any instructional technology (King, 2002; Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009 ; Smarkola, 2007 ). For instance, many teachers have increased technology anxiety since administrators equip educators with new technology but fail to provide adequate training on this technology. Several researchers find training to also be a significant b arrier to the adoption of

PAGE 45

45 games and simulations in education ( Koh et al., 2011 ; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008 ). For example, in 2005, Becker and Jacobsen discovered that surveyed teachers who had incorpora ted games and simulations in the classroom found professional development trainings were significantly helpful in the adoption process. For instance those instructors who are inexperienced with this technology, but are willing to attempt a lesson that in corporates a game or simulation without proper training, may trigger a significant setback. Some inexperienced educators so poorly integrate the game or simulation in their lesson that neither the student nor the instructor wishes to use a game or simulat ion in class again ( Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; Koh et al., 2011; Sliney et al., 2009). To bypass a potential failing first attempt, Royle and Colfer (2010) suggest a more developed view of implementation is needed to account for all of the interlocking fact ors within the implementation of technology in formal education. Their suggestion also verifies the need for proper teacher training. Administrators can show their support by providing technical assistance, purchasing up to date equipment and software, an d by ensuring access to the necessary equipment (Redmann & Kotrlik, 2009; Smarkola, 2007). Researchers found that schools rarely have access to top quality equipment and software ( Becker & Jacobsen, 2005; Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; Rice, 2007). If schools did have up to date equipment and software, then staff and student acce ssibility to this equipment beca me an issue ( Koh et al., 2011; Rosas et al., 2003 ; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Russell & Shepherd, 2010; Torrente et al., 2009 ). More specifically the lack of technical support is

PAGE 46

46 cited by several researchers as a barrier to the adoption of games and simulations in education ( Becker & Jacobsen, 2005 ; Koh et al., 2011; Torrente et al., 2009 ). Another technology ontrol, is the cost and expense of adopting any new technology. One of the most argued barriers to introducing games and simulations in education is the cost ( Koh et al., 2011 ; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Sliney et al., 2009; Torrente et al., 2010; Vos & Brenna n, 2010 ). For instance, there is the price of equipment, such as computers or gaming systems, as well as licensing costs and agreements, if using a gaming subscription. Additionally, Summers (2004) points out that like many technology products, simulatio ns are risky because customers cannot always try them without buying them. Although demo copies may partially relieve this problem, customers face a risk unless lead users can prove the new technology has value and show others how to incorporate this into curricula. Many educators would be able to overcome their lack of training by teaching themselves a new technology, they may be able to correctly integrate this new technology without technical support, and perhaps they even could overcome the problem s of cost and skill levels if these educators were given an appropriate amount of planning time. Lack of extra planning time has been identified as a major barrier to incorporating games and simulations in education by several researchers ( Becker & Jacobs en, 2005 ; Koh et al., 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010 ; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008 ). This barrier is not specific to games and simulations; extra planning time is essential for any instructional technology to be successfully introduced i n the classroom (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009; Smarkola, 2007). Royle and Colfer (2010)

PAGE 47

47 warn that unless teachers are given extra time to correctly implement technology usage in the classroom, technology will continue to be underutilized in education. Becker and Jacobsen (2005) specifically suggest that teachers should be given extra planning time after any training to incorporate the concepts just learned into their classrooms. If incorporating games and simulations in a lesson, extra planning time is needed just for finding and evaluating the game and/or simulation to be used in class, just as with finding and evaluating any new technology before introducing it into a lesson ( Koh et al., 2011 ; Vos & Brennan, 2010). Game specific Barriers Terminology: G AME SP ECIFIC BARRIER For the purpose of this study, a game specific barrier is any barrier, specifically due to a game or simulation, which prevents an educator from using that game or simulation. Examples of game specific barriers include, but are not limite d to: negative connotations of the term class time, lack of adaptability, the lack of balance between entertainment and education, the ability to track and assess student progres s within a game, lack of available lesson plans for games, game incompatibility with lesson objectives and state standards, and the cost to develop a game or simulation. Game specific b arriers Strangely, an unfortunate example of a game specific barrier are the terms Furthermore, in 2007, Wexler, Aldrich, Johannigman, Oehlert, Qui nn, and V an Barneveld found that the term game suggested play and not learning. They found that p the term sometimes has a stigma of violence attached (Koh et al., 2011). Moreover, some educators and parents worry that children will become over stimulated by games or become addicted to games (Koh et al., 2011). Many researchers also

PAGE 48

48 suggest that teachers have negative perceptions of video games being used as educational components ( Kenny & Gunter, 2011 ; Koh et al., 2011, Rice, 2007; Rosas et al., 2003 ). Koh, Kin, experience with video games may be the root cause for the opinion that video games should be used strictly for entertainment. Another identified problem with using games and simulations in the classroom is the amount of class time needed for this complex software (Kebritchi, 2010; Koh et al., 2011; Royle & Colfer, 2010, Torrente et al., 2010). It is difficult to learn to play a game within one class period, and then continue that play a day or two later. Most students have little recollection and will essentially start from scratch each day (Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; Squire, 2006). Consequently, a school day divided by short class periods is not conducive to the long term engagement necessary w ith complex games and simulations (Rice, 2007). Additionally, games and simulations tend to lack adaptability (i.e. cannot be customized) They are distributed as self contained products with specific goals and uses that can rarely be adjusted to other c ontexts. Since instructors need to adapt, reuse, maintain, and share their materials, this lack of customizability, adaptability, and reusability increases costs and reduces the potential for video game use in the classroom ( Beggs et al., 2009 ; Rice, 2007 ; Torrente et al., 2010 ). Of those educators who want to use video games in the classroom, one of their main concerns is achieving an adequate balance between entertainment and educational value, both of which are indispensable for the successful incorpora tion of the game into the classroom (Torrente et al., 2010). For instance, if the students do not

PAGE 49

49 have some fun while they are playing the game, they will likely quit playing. Conversely if fun becomes the main focus and the educational value is left ou t, the game would have little impact on learning outcomes. be entertaining, but lack the aspects that are attractive to children and the pedagogical tasks that are attractive to educators (Rosas et al., 2003). Furthermore, there is a fine line between students engaged in an activity and those immersed in learning (Kenny & Gunter, 2011). For example, students could be engaged in the non relevant content of learning to play, r ather than being immersed in learning the desired educational content. Unfortunately, many researchers suggest that the development of video games is not currently compatible with formal education ( Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Rice, 2007 ; Rosas et al., 2003; Royl e & Colfer, 2010; Torrente et al., 2010 ). For instance, high profile commercial video games have budgets similar to movie productions with multiple people and millions of dollars. These game designers, who are under pressure for successful games, have li ttle incentive to incorporate pedagogical components into the games they are constructing (Kenny & Gunter, 2011). Also, current game development has no room for instructors with little to no technical background. Unfortunately, that implies that if educa tors wish to see truly educational games balanced with the high graphics and entertainment of high profile games, then education must pay the multimillion dollar bill for their own production of a video game (Torrente et al., 2010). If educators could cr eate their own game, one suggested addition is the ability to track and assess student progress through the game. Several researchers have

PAGE 50

50 through the game or simulation ( Rus sell & Shepherd, 2010 ; Sliney et al., 2009; Torrente et al., 2009; Torrente et al., 2010 ). Using the immersive learning of games and simulations requires teachers to think outside of the traditional beliefs of teaching and learning that they have been us in g for years ( Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2010 ; Koh et al., 2011 ). By scaffolding new methodologies to older practices, teachers may be more comfortable to experiment with alternative methods of teaching, like using games and simulations as Rogers (2003) points out in the theory of Diffusion of Innovation. Consequently, if educators were given proven ways (i.e. specific lesson plans, established methods, best practices) and ideas of incorporating games and simulations into their curriculum, they may be more open to doing so. Thus, the avant garde nature of games and simulations coupled with a lack of research and methodologies can be considered another barrier to the adoption of games and simulations in the classroom ( Becker & Jacobsen, 2005 ; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010 ; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008; Torrente et al., 2010 ). Nonetheless educators must be willing to take the first steps in adding games and simulations into their curriculum. Instructors may be more willing to take these steps if the rewards outweighed the ri sks. Unfortunately, many researchers cite that a major barrier to using games is that very few games match curricular activities and desired learning outcomes ( Kenny & Gunter, 2011 ; Rice, 2007; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Vos & Brennan, 2010 ). For example, typical commercial, off the shelf video games have learning outcomes more related to procedural knowledge rather than the complex conceptual knowledge of classroom lessons (Reese, 2007). Additionally, another major problem for admini strators as well as instructors is that

PAGE 51

51 game and simulation learning outcomes usually lack alignment to state standards (Rice, 2007). Synopsis of Reviewed Literature The review of literature on the use of games and simulations in education demonstrates the benefits and difficulties associated with this form of educational technology. Unfortunately, even with current research, no specific reason can be indicated for the lack of adoption of games and simulations in curriculum. By incorporating research that suggests potential hindrances of game and simulation adoption and by reassessing th e path of adoption through the t heory Diffusion of Innovation, I better understood what is required to create a valid and reliable survey instrument. For instance I had a clearer idea of what types of questions to ask in educator interviews. These questions reflected both the Diffusion of Innovations and previously cited barriers in recent studies. For example, I had not previously thought about how important it is to se e the successful use of an innovation by peers (Rogers, 2003). Upon understanding this importance, I inserted a question in the educator interview that specifically asked how many colleagues were seen using games and simulations in their curriculum. The l iterature on the potential barriers to the adoption of games and simulations was quite diverse. Dividing the potential barriers into categories helped to organize the information into manageable chunks. I was able to incorporate interview questions that broadly addressed some of these topics. For example, I asked each educator which grade category ( (i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, adult education) or learner level that he or she thought would benefit from the addition of games and simulations in lessons. Additionally, I was able to ask some specific questions about a category. For

PAGE 52

52 instance I asked about the opinions of administrators, peers, and the surrounding community about the incorporation of games and simulations in education. The probl ems associated with the Diffusion of Innovations and the research identified barriers to the adoption of games and simulations were blended with the results from educator interviews to create a survey draft. This was a large step in my process of trying t o identify why games and simulations are not widely adopted in formal education.

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Although the adoption of game and simulation based learning may have positive results in education, and, moreover, the addition of instructional techn ology has been widely promoted in classrooms, the use of games and simulations has not been widely embraced in formal education ( Gee 2003; Gee & Levine, 2008 ; Kenn y & Gunter, 2011; Prensky, 2001 ) The need to understand why games and simulations are not c ommonly used in instruction is the driving force in the creation of a valid and reliable instrument to measure the teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education. Conception of the Instrument To create this instrument, I incorporated the research already conducted, which is outlined in the previous chapter, with interviews from educators to design a comprehensive survey of the barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in curriculum. In particular, my focus was eight main components of the research: Diffusion of Innovation (Conceptual Framework), Demographic Barriers, Inexperience with Games and Simulations Barriers, Grade Category Barriers, Student Learner level Barriers, School based Barriers, Technology based Barriers, and Game specific Barriers This research, divided into these eight categ ories, is detailed in C hapter 2 Using educator interviews and previously ide ntified barriers from research I created a draft of the instrument. I used a focus group, ex pert review, and think aloud protocol to increase the accuracy and efficacy of the survey instrument ( AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999; Beatty, 2004 ; Chioncel, Van Der Veen, Wildemeersch, & Jarvis, 2003; Grant & Davis, 1997; Jones & Hunter, 1995 ; Rabiee, 2004 ; Van Someren Barnard, & Sandberg

PAGE 54

54 1994; Vogt King, & King 2004 ) Upon the finalization of the survey, I tested the survey by distributing it to a group of educators. T he results were analyzed to ensure that the data gathered corresponded to the intent for which the survey instrument was designed, to determine the teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education. Participants of the Interview For the interviews, I spoke with educators to help develop an unbiased set of sur vey questions. Interview participants included educators from all grade categories ( i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary, adult education) and from all learner levels ( i.e. low level learners, general learners, gifted learners). Inte rviews were done in person or by phone, depending on the location and schedule of the interviewee. All interviewees were either public or private school educators who were teaching during the 2011 2012 school year. I began with a few educators that were acquaintances who were interested in being interviewed. I then began the snowball or chain referral sampling technique where each interviewee was given an opportunity to suggest another educator to be interviewed (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). I completed 20 interviews, 17 females and 3 males, using this sampling technique (see Appendix A for a copy of the questions asked and Appendix B for a sample interview). Table 3 1 contains the demographic and teaching information of the interviewees. Materials and Methods of the Interviews The interviews contained questions to determine demographic information ( i.e. age, gender, ethnicity, education). Additionally, educators were asked about their experience with and opinion of games and simulations since the s e ch aracteristic s may

PAGE 55

55 influence their opinions ( Kenny & Gunter, 2011 ; Ritzhaupt et al ., 2010 ). Given that a key component of the research is the conceptual framework of the t heory of Diffusion of Innovation, I composed several interview questions with this in mind. For example, understanding the importance of seeing the benefits of adoption from other adopters in the Diffusion of I worker successfully using Also, I noted the characteristics of the educator being interviewed, paying particular attention to the grade category ( i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary adult education ) and the student learner level(s) ( i.e. low level learners, g eneral learners, gifted learners) that the educator was currently teaching. In the interviews, I did not directly address specific technology based barriers and game specific barriers because asked generic barrier questions to determine if the interviewed educator would supply me with some specific barriers (Shafer & Lohse 2006 ). For instance, I asked if the interviewee was concerned that his or her school does not have the equipment or resou rces to be able to use games and simulations in the classroom and then, based on the response, I asked for specific clarification. Those interviews that were completed before March 9, 2012, were considered in the design of the survey. Furthermore, I incl uded any interview for consideration in the construction of the survey instrument only if all of the interview questions were asked and answered (see Appendix A for a complete list of all questions). Results of the Interviews Upon completion, each inter view was typed into a transcript. Then, I developed a list of barriers from the research and from the questions I asked (i.e. grade category

PAGE 56

56 and learner level). After inserting this list into a spreadsheet, I used the interview transcripts to code (eithe r numeric codes or lettered codes, depending on the information) the responses by the interviewees and, if necessary, added to the list of barriers (Beatty, 2004; Glaser, 1965). For example, I coded numerically when coding to a degree such as how much an interviewee thought class size was a barrier to the use of games and simulations in the classroom. The higher the number reflected the greater the concern of the interviewee. As another example, I used the lettered code ng what they thought could be potential barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in education. Once this information was entered, I averaged the numeric codes to identify which barriers were more of a concern by the interviewees because those ite ms had a higher averaged number. I also could tally which barriers were suggested as potential barriers by multiple interviewees and also compare any other lettered codes such as perceived value of games and simulations. Results of the interviews were gr ouped according to the type of questions asked. For example, questions dealing with Diffusion of Innovations (i.e. relative advantage compatibility complexity trialability and observability ) were analyzed together. All interviewees agreed that studen t motivation and engagement were definite advantages adding games and simulations into education. Other relative advantages included: using different learning styles, reviewing material, increasing retention, immediate feedback, using varied learning, hav ing real life connection, increasing recall of information, improving coordination, using self correction, increasing use of problem solving and critical thinking skills, and fostering good natured competition. Other than

PAGE 57

57 one person, the interviewees list ed multiple benefits for incorporating games and simulations in curriculum. The one exception stated that besides engagement/motivation and reviewing material, there was not much more use for games and simulations in education. As for the rest of the Diff usion of Innovation categories, on average, the majority of interviewees said that they thought educational games and simulations were fairly compatible with their pedagogical practices. They also suggested that games and simulations were not too complex to harness the perceived values for a particular lesson, a nd that games and simulations would be fairly easy to experiment with in a lesson. Although most interviewees have observed co workers using games and simulations in their curriculum, they have not seen many co workers doing this either because they do not get to regularly observe co workers or that not many co workers were currently using games and simulations in their classrooms. When asked which grade category would benefit the most from the addit ion of games and simulations in education, eight respo ndents the majority, categorie s Seven See Table 3 2 for all of the results from this question. Additionally, when asked which learner level would benefit the most from the addition of games and simulations in education, eleven respon dents the majority, Eight respon d e nts replied ow level learners See Table 3 3 for all the results from this question. Interestingly, n o respondents said specifically gifted learners would benefit the most from the addition of games and simulations into their curriculum. When asked if classes with mixed learner levels would present a problem, all of the respondents said no. Most cited that games and

PAGE 58

58 simulations easily lend themselves to peer learning or have differentiated learning and would therefore work much better in classes with multiple learner levels. S ee Appendix C for all of the data from these interviews. Design and Implemen tation of the Survey Instrument The results of the interviews, along with the corresponding research were the foundation in the design of the survey instrument. For example, by using the interview responses to generic barrier questions, along with resear cher suggested barriers, I was able to determine a more precise list of potential barriers. This list was included in the survey so that respondents could rank these potential barriers on a scale from zero (no barrier) to 4 (definite barrier) according to how much of a barrier the item is considered. Verifying the Accuracy of the Survey Draft A focus group, expert review and the think aloud protocol were used to verify that the survey is accurately measuring what I intend it to measure, the teacher perce ived barriers to using games and simulations in the classroom. These additional procedures helped to increase accuracy and efficacy before the survey draft was finalized ( AERA et al., 1999; Beatty, 2004; Van Someren et al., 1994) Focus g roup After I c ompiled the information to help design a draft of the survey instrument, but before finalizing and distributing the survey, I gathered a focus group of educators to validate the content of the survey instrument draft (Chioncel et al., 2003; Grant & Davis, 1997; Rabiee, 2004 ; Vogt et al., 2004 ) Participants in the focus group were eight interviewed educators that were able to meet and discuss the survey at one time. The focus group consisted of 2 men and 6 women. All eight participants work for my colleg e in some capacity. Other individuals were invited, but these participants were the only

PAGE 59

59 ones available to meet at the time and place arranged. The purpose of the focus group was to check the information, especially the list of potential barriers in the adoption of games and simulations, for accuracy and, also, to help clarify any inform ation that I found confusing. Additionally, they offered insight to the survey by providing views that I had not previously considered. Upon arrival to the meeting, par ticipants were given a copy of the survey draft. Each question had a space allocated for participants to survey question (Jones & Hunter, 1995) Since all participants were educators, they are very familiar with the traditional A to F gradin g scale. I asked them to read through the survey, independently, and grade each question. When everyone had completed the grading Participants were asked to grade questions based on grammar, clarity, and general opinion. When there was a question that received a lower grade, we discussed why it did no not like about the question. Other participants were encouraged to comme nt and discuss the question during this process. For example, the first question that was discussed included the age categories. Several of the participants did no t understand, nor like, the categories. They suggested that the first category should be of 21 and that the categories build off of this number. I responded that this was fine, but that I needed to know if any survey participant was over 65. So, they suggested a split including each sub question ( i.e. each potential barrier in the barrier question).

PAGE 60

60 Additionally, I asked them that if I was asked to remove any questions, which questions or barriers they t hought may be frivolous and therefore easy to remove. They did not want to remove any questions or barriers. One problem that came to light during the focus group was the l ength of the survey. After ranking approximately 20 25 barriers, which is near the end of the survey, information and seemed to care less about the quality of the survey. I do not know if this reflects the length of the survey or the length of the focus group discus sion. Nevertheless, it was a concern I noted. Input from t he focus group resulted in a solid survey draft. Questions were corrected for grammar and also worded to reduce any potential confusion by a survey participant. However, since the group started to suffer from burn out at the length of the survey, I thought that perhaps the survey was too long. Thus I asked the focus group specifically to reduce the list of potential barriers to rank because I thought the list might be too long. Ironically, al though the group poured over the list and discussed it thoroughly, the result was the addition of two more barriers to the list of barriers to rank. Expert r eview Following the incorporation of the comments of the focus group, the survey instrument was re ady for an expert review. The expert review consisted of three educational technology professionals. These professionals each reviewed an electronic copy of the survey, separately, and returned their electronic edits and/or comments to me. The expert r comments helped to reduce potential confusion of survey respondents. Since these

PAGE 61

61 experts had not previously seen my survey, they had a fresh insight into each question. For instance, one pro fessional suggested the addition of mobile devices to the question about use of technology in curriculum. Also, b ecause of their expertise, these professionals could easily identify questions that were not worded thoroughly enough to capture the meaning o f the question. For example, one professional suggested Additionally, these exp erts could offer insight into how to better set up surveys in general since t hey had plenty of experience. Overall, t his portion of the process helped immensely in solidifying the survey draft. Think aloud p rotocol After incorporating the suggestions fro m the expert review, the survey draft went under a think aloud protocol ( V an Someren et al., 1994) I utilized this type of usability test to review the survey for clarity and intent. Three people agreed to perform the think aloud protocol asynchronousl y Two of the three were familiar with my project. For example, o ne participant was an interviewee and a nother participant was an interviewee that had also participated in the focus group. Conversely the third participant had not participated in either the interviews or focus group. The participants were instructed to say everything they were thinking out loud. I gave them an example by asking them to tell me their thought processes in answering how many windows that they have in their house. Frequ ently, during the process of answering the question, they would fall silent in thought. At that point, I would remind them that I needed to hear what they were thinking. A few times during each protocol, I would again remind them of this if they fell sil ent.

PAGE 62

62 Although all three participants contributed something to improve the survey, the person who had not participated in either the focus group or the interviews had a fresh perspective that was immensely helpful. He helped with some wording of the que stions, as did the others, but most importantly, he suggested a change in the order of the barriers to rank. For example, he suggested putting the longest worded barriers at the beginning and the shortest at the end since people would be more likely to re ad and rate a short barrier. He also assisted in getting questions in more layman terms since he did not understand several questions due to jargon. Overall, this procedure helped me to understand if the potential participants of the survey would com prehend the survey instructions and/or questions as intended, or if any potential difficulties may be encountered. Consequently several questions were re written for clarification. Participants of the Survey Instrument Trial After using the focus group the expert review, and the think aloud protocol techniques to increase the accuracy and efficacy of the survey draft, the survey was considered complete ( AE RA et al., 1999; Beatty, 2004; V an Someren et al., 1994) To test that the survey gathered the in formation for which it was designed, determining the teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education, the survey instrument was distributed to a large number of educators so that a sufficient number of responses could be acquired and measured (Johanson & Brooks, 2010). About the Survey The survey consisted of 18 questions, two of which were open ended, six of which had the option of writing in an answer for clarification, and one contained a list of 32 potential barriers for the respondent to rank. Respondents could rank these potential

PAGE 63

63 the po Respondents were also allowed the option of writing in a barrier to the adoption of games and simulations in the classroom in case their barrier(s) was not on the list to rank. Additionally, five questions were intentionally designed to have multiple responses. For example, respondents were asked their opinion about how games or simulations could be useful for educational purposes. The respondents we re asked to mark all th e answers that apply Also, there wa s a space available for them to write in an option if they wanted to add anything To review the full survey, see Appendix D. Procedures for Survey Data Collection The survey was open to educators who taught duri ng the 2011 2012 school year An invitation to participate, including a hyperlink to the survey, was sent out by the Chair of NCPN (National Career Pathways Network), a group of adult educators who are interested in the promotion of Career Pathways (an ed ucation plan that helps students determine a career and then plan their education to achieve the certificate or degree needed for that chosen career); the Chair of the ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) special interest group for game s and simulations; and the Chair of the RCCPN (Research Coast Career Pathways Network), the local chapter of the Career Pathways Network. The survey was open to participants from May 3, 2012 to May 30, 2012. Educators from all grade categorie s ( i.e. el ementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary, adult education) and learning levels ( i.e. low level learners, general learners, gifted learners), world wide, were eligible to participate in this study. The survey was

PAGE 64

64 made available in a web based for mat using Survey Monkey. The survey was closed for participation on May 30, 2012 Data Analysis of the Survey Instrument There were 275 individuals that opened the instrument and at least answered the first question, the Informed Consent question. Since no question beyond the Informed Consent question was required, a different number of respondents (N) completed each portion of the survey. Consequently, each question had to be reviewed independently from the others by the number of individuals who respon ded to that specific question. The completed survey instruments were sorted by demographic information ( i.e. gender, ethnicity, age) to better understand the group of participants. To explore the underlying relationships between the barriers of the adopti on of games and simulations, the demographic information, and the eight main research categories ( i.e. Diffusion of Innovation (Conceptual Framework), Demographic Barriers, Inexperience with Games and Simulations Barriers, Grade Category Barriers, Student Learner level Barriers, School based Barriers, Technology based Barriers, and Game specific Barriers ), I conducted an exploratory factor analysis. This procedure helped to reduce the data to a smaller set of variables that were easier to compare. To unde rstand the statistical correlation between the reduced variables, a standard Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used. If significance was detected, a follow up one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed.

PAGE 65

65 Table 3 1. Demographic infor mation of interviewees Interviewee Sex (F/M) Age Ethnicity 1 Highest d egree Grade l evel 2 Learner l evel 3 Class s ize AKW2 F 56 65 White M.S. Post M 26 30 BJ5 F 56 65 White Ed.S. Adult M 21 25 BS13 F 56 65 White M.S. Post M >40 CORL8 F 56 65 White B.S. Hig h M, F 26 30 DAO14 F 56 65 White M.S. Middle M 26 30 DDKD24 M 46 55 White M.S. High M 21 25 JFL7 F 56 65 White Ed.S. Adult M 10 15 JHKH7 F 56 65 White A.S. High M 26 30 JM11 F 46 55 White M.S. Adult G 10 15 JS4 F 26 35 Black B.S. Post M 36 40 KJ10 F 56 65 White B.S. Adult M 16 20 KK84 F 56 65 Hispanic B.S. Elem M 16 20 LL7 F 56 65 White B.S. Middle M 21 25 MA7 F 36 45 White M.S. Post M 16 20 MAM9 M 46 55 White M.S. Post G 16 20 MJ3 F 36 45 Hispanic Ed.D. Post M 16 20 MT69 F 46 55 White M.S. Pos t M 16 20 RCS16 F 26 35 White B.S. Middle M 21 25 SHC2 F 26 35 White B.S. Adult G 10 15 SPW5 M 26 35 White M.S. Adult G 10 15 Ethnicity 1 three categories were used: Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and White/Caucasian Grade level 2 five cate gories were used: Elementary, Middle School, High School, Post secondary, and Adult Education Learner Level 3 three categories were used: G = general learners, F = gifted learners, and M = mixed (classes containing a mixture of low level learners, general learners, and/or gifted learners) Table 3 2. category would benefit the Grade c ategory Number of r esponses 1 (out of 20 Interviewees) Elementary 7 Pre secondary (Middle School) 5 Secondary 5 Post Secondary 2 All grade categorie s 8 Number of Responses 1 interviewees could choose more than one grade category

PAGE 66

66 Table 3 3. uld benefit the Learner l evels Number of responses 1 (out of 20 Interviewees) Low level learners 8 General learners 3 Gifted learners 0 All learner levels 11 Number of Response s 1 interviewees could choose more than one learner level

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS As previously sta ted, the purpose of this study wa s to create a valid and reliable instrument to measure teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education. To complete this task, I incorporated the research already conducted with interviews from educators to comprehensively identify the barriers to the incorporation of games and simulations in curriculum. From the collation of this informa tion, I created a draft survey. A focus group, an expert review, and a think aloud protocol were used to improve the accuracy and efficacy of the survey. At this point, after the survey was finalized, it was then tested by a group of educators to determi ne if the information gathered corresponded to the purposes of this study, to identify the teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in the classroom. Answering my Research Question The initial intent of this study was to answer my research question, what are the barrier to adopting games and simulations in education? Unable to answer this question with only previous research, I designed a survey for educators to identify the barriers. In particular, I paid close attention to the d emographic results (i.e. age, ethnicity, highest degree) to answer Part A of my question ( Are there any barriers ). Additionally, as a portion of Part A ( Are there any barriers related to the instruc simulations? ), I noted the amount and frequency of game playing by the respondents. All of these results can be found in the following subsections of this chapter: Demographic Results Demographic Results about Education and Teaching and Results about Games and Simulations

PAGE 68

68 After respondents rated potential barriers, a factor analysis could better describe what the barriers to game and simulation adoption are in education. These results can be found in the Results about the Potential Barriers subsection, below. Once the variables were reduced by the factor analysis and the barrier categories were identified, Part B of my research question ( Is there a variation in the barriers between grade categories? ) was also consider ed. These results can be found in the Results about Games and Simulations and the Results about the Potential Barriers subsections. Demographic Results Of the 255 individuals that responded to the gender question, 176 (69%) were female and 79 (31%) were male. The same number of individuals responded to the age and ethnicity questions. Seventy eight percent of those respondents were between the ages of 31 an d 60 ( Table 4 1 ). Additionally, 87.1% of those respondents identified the mselves as White/Caucas ian ( Table 4 2 ). Demographic Results about Education and Teaching The majority, 55.6%, of 261 respondents ha d Masters Degrees ( Table 4 3 ). The grade categories that 264 respondents taught were fairly equally distributed except for adult education (only 3.8%). Elementary, middle, high, post ranged between 16% and 21% ( Table 4 4 ). When asked how respondents use technology in their curriculum, 252 participants answered ( Table 4 5 Figure 4 1). Over 90% of participants identified t hat they use electronic presentations ( i.e. PowerPoint Prezi SlideRocket ) and Internet searches/research in their curriculum. Interestingly, only 10.3% of respondents identified that they use gaming platforms ( i.e. Wii Xbox PlayStation ).

PAGE 69

69 Resul ts about Games and Simulations Of the 243 participants who responded, 86% identified that they play some type of game on a weekly basis and 100% of them thought that games or simulations could be useful for educational purposes (Table 4 6 Table 4 7, and Figure 4 2, respectively). O f 240 respondents 96.7% considered that games and simulations compatible with their teaching practices (Figure 4 3). Out of 243 participants, 96.6% respondents supposed that games and simulations were not too complex for stu dents to learn an intended lesson (Figure 4 4). Only 7.5% of 241 participants regarded games and simulations as difficult to experiment with in a lesson (Figure 4 5). Interestingly, 66.5% of 239 participants have either seen very few or no co workers usi ng games or simulations in their classroom, teaching practice, curriculum, or lesson plans (Figure 4 6). When asked which grade levels would benefit from the addition of games and simulations, no respondents out of the 241 that replied, (Table 4 8 ). Elementary, Middle School, and High School had relatively similar responses with 88.8%, 94.2%, and 88.4% respectively. Interestingly, both Post secondary (67.2%) and Adult Education (62.2%) had similar responses albeit considerably lower tha n K 12 categories. Two noteworthy open ended responses suggested certificate programs and corporate trainings. Another respondent was unsure about adult education and wished to see research in this area. Out of 239 respondents, all learning levels wer e perceived to benefit from the addition of games and simulations (Table 4 9 ). No one particular learning level seemed either preferred or not preferred : Low L evel L earners (92.9%), General (i ntermediate )

PAGE 70

70 L earners (93.3%), Gifted (h igh level) L earners (85 .5%), and Mixed ( two or more groups combined into one class ) Learners (86.6%) Results about the Potential Barriers There were 32 potential barriers that respondents could rate from 0 (not a barrier) to 4 (d efinitely a barrier). Of those ratings, most respondents chose the 0 category (not a barrier) overall since it was chosen 2,225 times out of a total of 7 157 responses (Table 4 1 0 ). The least frequently chosen category was 4 (definite ly a barrier) with 867 responses (Table 4 1 0 ). The overall averag e r ating for all barriers was 1.59 ; since at a barrier, the average rating can most teachers may think these potential barriers are no t definite obstacles to using games and simulations in their curriculum Interestingly, when each of the lowest ranked barriers included: the lack of student motivation to use games and simulations (0.61), th lack of technology abilities (0.63), the lack of motivation to use games and simulations (0.71), the perception that student aggression may result (0.85), the perception that student addiction may result (0.92), and the perception that student behavioral problems may result (1.01). These results suggest that students and teachers may be very motivated to use games and simulations in education. Additionally, some of the acknowledged concerns associated with games and sim ulations by researchers (i.e. aggression, addiction, behavioral problems) may not be perceived by respondents as likely impediments to the use of games and simulations.

PAGE 71

71 Conversely, some of the higher rated barriers included: the cost of the equipment (2.62 ), the lack of time to plan and implement (2.52), the inability to try out games and simulations before purchase that lack balance between entertainment and education (2.34), the lack of available les son plans and examples (2.22), the lack of games and simulations that align to state standards or standardized testing (2.20), the inability to customize the game or simulation (2.18), and the inability to track student progress through the game or simulat ion (2.08). Many of these highly rated barriers are issues with the game or simulation itself. For example, tracking student abilities, customizability of the game or simulation, aligning to standards or standardized tests and balancing entertainment an d education are all issues that game or simulation designers would be able to address. T ime to plan and implement and cost of the equipment may be more of a reflection of the teaching profession rather than a game or simulation For instance, i t seems th at shrinking budgets and planning periods may be more of a problem than actually adding a game or simulation to curriculum Although many respondents attempted the question on ranking potential barriers to the addition of games and simulations in education 184 participants fully completed the question by ranking all 32 potential barriers (Table 4 1 0 and Figure 4 7). An exploratory factor analysis was run using only the 184 fully completed rankings. To examine the underlying structure of the data of the 32 item instrument, the 2 = 3573.77 ( p < .001). The Kaiser Meyer Olkin me asure of sampling adequacy was .897, which was above the .5 recommended limit (Kaise r, 1974). The

PAGE 72

72 participant to item ratio was approximately 5:1, which is below the 10:1 ratio for factor analysis suggested by Kerlinger (1974) and above the thresholds described as more than adequate by some researchers in maintaining factor stability (Ar rindell & Van der Ende, 1985; Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). Therefore, these data appeared to be well suited for exploratory factor analysis. All models were executed using principal component analysis and an oblique (promax) rotation, as the factors were anticipated to be related. The initial unconstrained model resulted in seven factors explaining i.e. eigenvalues greater than 1) and a review of the Scree plot (Figure 4 8). The model co nverged after 8 rotations. After reviewing the correlation matrix, it was determined that no unusual correlations were detected (e.g., negative correlations between items since all were positively stated). Further, the pattern matrix (Shown in Appendix E ) coefficients exhibited a reasonably simple structure with each item loading on an associated item and very few cross loadings. The Scree plot for the model is illustrated in Figure 4 8. As can be gleaned, the seven factor model appears to be a reasonab le representation of these data. Defining the Seven Factors Each of the seven factors was identified by using the basis of barrier items correlated to the factor. Six of the seven groups and .70 (Table 4 11 ), which sugge sts the set of six items is closely related as a group ( Nunnaly, 1978). The seventh group nears the .70 threshold at .65 and so could be fairly related to the others. The cumulative variance of these seven groups accounts for 67.36% of the data (Table 4 1 2 ). All factors are significantly correlated, from a mild to

PAGE 73

73 strong correlation, suggesting the barriers construct is cohesive (Table 4 1 3 ). Those seven factors were identified as: Iss ues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes Technology Issues Issu es Specific to Games and Simulations Teacher Issues Issues with Games and Simulations in Education Incorporation Difficulties and Student Ability Issues with negative p otential s tudent o utcomes Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes was defin ed as a category of the barriers to the addition of games and simulations in education that addresses concerns about the effect the addition has on the student. This category contained six individual barriers: games and simulations can cause behavioral pro blems, the perception that they can cause aggression, the perception that they can cause addiction, students may not learn the intended lesson when using games and simulations, the opinion that students learn more from a teacher than from a game or simulat ion, and the opinion that other learning strategies are more effective than games or simulations. For example, some teachers are concerned that the outcome of using a game and simulation in a lesson is that it may cause behavioral problems or addiction. Additionally, another potential outcome of using a game or simulation in a lesson is that i.e. not learning the intended lesson or not learning as well from a game as from other educational reso urces ). = .93), which suggests a high internal consistency between six of the ranked barriers. Although this data appears normally distributed, with a mean of 1.12 and standard deviation of 1.08, the data appears moderately positively skewed and slightly leptok urtic ( skewness = .97, Table 4 1 1 ). The highest ranked barrier in this category was the opinion that other learning

PAGE 74

74 strategies are more effective than games and simulations (average of 1.41). The lowest ranked barrier was the perception that games and si mulations may cause student aggression (average of 0.85). Technology i ssues Technology Issues was defined as a category of the barriers to the addition of games and simulations in education that concerns problems with technology. This category includes di fficulties with the technology itself, such as the cost, the inability to preview, and the lack of accessibility to disabled students. Additionally, this category also reflects the usage of the technology, for instance, the reliability of the technology, the amount of technical support available, and if the technology can be easily accessed outside of school. between the six barriers in this group. Although this data is also n ormally distributed, with a mean of 2.04 and standard deviation of .95, the data appears approximately symmetric (slight negative skew) and somewhat platykurtic ( skewness = 22, Table 4 11 ). The highest rated barrier in this category was the inability to try out a game or simulation before purchase (average of 2.62). The lowest rated barrier was the lack of game and simulation options for students with disabilities (average of 1.69). Issues specific to games and s imulations Issues Specific to Games and Si mulations was described as a category of the barriers to the addition of games and simulations in education that addresses concerns about games and simulations in general. Some examples include the lack of games and simulations that balance education and entertainment, the lack of customizability or

PAGE 75

75 adaptability, the lack of the ability to track student progress, and the lack of games and simulations that are not considered too easy and simplistic for students. This cate .75, which suggests a good relationship between this set of four barriers. There is a normal distribution of data with a mean of 2.05, a standard deviation of .91, and approximate symmetry (slight negative skew) with slightly flattened curve ( skewness = .16, Table 4 1 1 ). The highest ranked barrier in this and education (average of 2.34). The lowest ranked barrier is the perception that games are too simple for students (avera ge of 1.62). Teacher i ssues Teacher Issues was identified as a category of the barriers to the addition of games and simulations in education that concerns problems that teachers may face. Some of these barriers include time ( i.e. to plan and implement th e use of a game or simulation), finding games or simulations that match state standards or standardized testing, the lack of available lesson plans or examples of game and simulation incorporation, and characteristics of the teacher ( i.e. not motivated to use games and simulations, not very tech savvy, lack of knowledge about games and simulations). The Teacher Issues cate .79, suggesting good internal consistency between the six barriers in this group. The data is normally di stributed with a mean of 1.65, a standard deviation of .87, and an approximate symmetry and a moderately flattened curve ( skewness = .67, Table 4 11 ). The highest ranked barrier in this category is time to plan and implement (average of 2.52). The lowes (average of 0.63).

PAGE 76

76 Issues with games and simulations in e ducation The Issues with Games and Simulations in Education category was defined as a group of barriers specific to usin g games and simulations in education. For example, teachers may feel more comfortable about using games and simulations if there were more evidence that they were helpful to student learning. Additionally, if there were clearly outlined expectations by a dministrators, it may be easier for teachers to add belief that students are playing and not learning. Furthermore, if parental and community support were openly display ed, teachers might also feel more inclined to incorporate games and simulations in their lessons. relationship between the 5 barriers in this group. Although this data is normally dis tributed with a mean of 1.55, a standard deviation of 1.10, and an approximate symmetry, the distribution curve appears quite flat ( skewness = 1.00, Table 4 11 ). The highest rated barrier in this category is the lack of parental and/or community support ( average of 1.58). The lowest rated barrier was the lack of evidence to support the use of games and simulations in education (average of 1.46). Student i ssues Student Issues was defined as a category of barriers to the adoption of games and simulations i n education that are specific to students. For instance, students have a wide range of technical abilities, which makes it difficult for a teacher since some students may need extra help and other students may become bored while waiting for others to catc h up. Additionally, some students may not be very motivated to use a game or simulation in class. For example, the student may have had a previous bad

PAGE 77

77 experience with a game or simulation and thus may have decided not to try any more games or simulations acceptable, which suggests a relationship between the two barriers in this group. As with the subsequent category, Incorporation Issues this category, Student Issues may have a y two barriers in this group. This data was normally distributed, with a mean of .83 and a standard deviation of .88, but moderately positively skewed and leptokurtic (skewness = 1.00, Table 4 11 ). Since there w ere only two barriers in this category, one is the highest (varying student abilities (i.e. technology skills, learning ability) 1.05 average) and one is the lowest (lack of student motivation 0.61 average). Incorporation i ssues Incorporation Issues wa s described as a category of barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in education that reflect some of the specific issues in the integration of this technology into the classroom. For example, many games and simulations are too complex to fit i nto one class period or there may be too many students in the class to help each student effectively. The Incorporation Issues = .65). Since the lowest acce .7, this group of barrie rs may not be as closely related as the other barrier groups (Nunnaly, 1978) This may be a reflection that only three barriers make up this group. Interestingly two of the barriers in this group, class period length and class size, are related to the c lass or school. Additionally, class period length and the third barrier, complexity of games and

PAGE 78

78 simulations, are related since class periods may be too short for a complex game or simulation However, class size and complexity do not have an obvious con nection, although one can suppose that a complex game or simulation may be more difficult if there is a large class. This unclear connection between these two individual barriers may also explain why this category is not as significant as the other groups Nonetheless this data showed a normal distribution with a mean of 1.75, a standard deviation of 1.03, and an approximate symmetry with moderate platykurtosis ( skewne ss = .33, Table 4 11 ). The highest ranked barrier in this category is the length of t he class period (average of 1.57). The lowest barrier in this category is the perception that games and simulations are too complex for students (average of 1.38). MANOVA Results A one factor, between subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) wa s conducted for each of the demographic questions ( i.e. gender, age, ethnicity, highest degree earned, grade category currently taught) and the question about the average amount of time the respondent spends gaming on the survey. Each of the seven categor ies of barriers determined by the exploratory factor analysis served as the dependent variables in each analysis. Each question on the survey comprised the independent variable for that particular MANOVA. Results from the MANOVA including those that were statistically significant and approaching significance a t the a priori level of significance of .05 are found in Table 4 1 4 Four dependent variables (i.e. barrier categories) had a significant interaction, at the .05 level, with two independent variables (i.e. gender and respondent game playing frequency) Approaching significance was defined as any probability between .05 and .10. These results were interesting since they would have been significant if was set at .10 (Table 4 1 4 for overall results).

PAGE 79

79 Gender r esults Gender, an independent variable, had a significant relationship with three dependent variables: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes ( ( .835), F = 6.577, p = .011); Technology Issues (.835), F = 8.050, p = .005) ; and Teacher Issues (.835), F = 4.293, p = .040). The other four dependent variables had no significance: Issues Specific to Games and Simulations (.835), F = 0 .017, p = .896); Issues with Games and Simulations in Education (.835), F = 0 .990, p = .321); Incorporation Issues (.835), F = 0 .644, p = .423); and, Student Issues (.835), F = 0 .007, p = .931). See Table 4 1 4 for overall results. Age r esults The independent variable, age, had no significant relationship at the .05 level with six dependent variables: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes (.835), F = 0 .704, p = .647); Technology Issues (.835), F = 0 414, p = .869); Teacher Issues (.835), F = 0 .291, p = .941); Issues with Games and Simulations in Education (.835), F = 0 .615, p = .718); Incorporation Issues (.835), F = 0 .694, p = .654); and, Student Issues (.835), F = 1.314, p = .253). Interestingly, the dependent variable, Issues Specific to Games and Simulations (.835), F = 2.106, p = .055) was approaching significance and would have been significant if was set at .10 (Table 4 1 4 for overall results). Ethnicity r esults Ethnicity, an independent variable, had no significant relationship at the .05 level with six of the dependent variables: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes (.835), F = 0 896 p = 410 ); Technolo gy Issues (.835), F = 1.099 p =

PAGE 80

80 336 ); Issues Specific to Games and Simulations (.835), F = 0 .919, p = .401); Teacher Issues (.835), F = 0 .2 89 p = 749 ); Incorporation Issues (.835), F = 1.346 p = 263 ); and, Stud ent Issues (.835), F = 1. 743 p = 178 ). Interestingly, the dependent variable, Issues with Games and Simulations in Education (.835), F = 2. 351 p = .0 98 ) was approaching significance and would have been significant if was set at .1 0 (Table 4 1 4 for overall results). Highest degree e arned b y the r espondent The independent variable, highest degree earned by the respondent, had no significant relationship at the .05 or .10 level with any of the dependent variables: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes (.835), F = 1.461, p = .205); Technology Issues (.835), F = 0 .255, p = .937); Issues Specific to Games and Simulations (.835), F = 0 .792 p = .557 ); Teacher Issues (.835), F = 1.137 p = 343 ); Issues with Games and Simulati ons in Education (.835), F = 1.675 p = 143 ); Incorporation Issues (.8 35), F = 0 .565 p = 727 ); and, Student Issues (.835), F = 0 .347 p = 88 3). See Table 4 1 4 for overall results. Grade c ategory t aught by the r espondent The independent variable, grade category taught by the respondent, had no significant relationship at the .05 level with five dependent variables: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes (.835), F = 1.214, p = .305); Issues Specific to Ga mes and Simulations (.835), F = 0 .979, p = .432) Issues with Games and Simulations in Education (.835), F = 1.493, p = .194); Incorporation Issues (.835), F = 1.181, p = .320); and, Student Issues (.835), F = 1.420, p = .219). Interestingly, two dependent variables, Technology Issues (.835), F = 2.157, p = .061) and Teacher Issues (.835), F = 2.183, p

PAGE 81

81 = .058), were approaching significance and would have been significant if was set at .10 (Table 4 14 for overall results). ame p lay f requency The r espondent an independent variable, had a significant relationship with one dependent variable. T echnology Issues according to ( .787), F = 3.163 p = .009 w as significant at the .05 level. Interestingly, the dependent variable, Teacher Issues (.835), F = 2.159, p = .061) was approaching significance and would have been significant if was set at .10 (Table 4 14 for overall results). The other fiv e dependent variables had no significance: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes (.835), F = 1.002, p = .418); Issues Specific to Games and Simulations (.835), F = 0 .549, p = .739) Issues with Games and Simulations in Educatio n (.835), F = 0 .583, p = .713); Incorporation Issues (.835), F = 1.317, p = .259); and, Student Issues (.835), F = 0. 741, p = .594). ANOVA Results Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) for each dependent variable were cond ucted as follow up tests to the MANOVA results that were significant at the .05 level. The four follow up analyses included two independent variables, gender and frequency of game play. Gender and i ssues w ith negative potential student o utcomes The ANOV A using gender and Issues with N egative Potential Student O utcomes resulted in a significant difference between males and females (F = 3.286, p = .030 ; Table 4 1 5 ). Females had a mean of 0 .9954 (SD = 0 .96963, N = 145 ; Table 4 1 6 ) and males had a mean of 1 .3819 (SD = 1.25860, N = 72 ; Table 4 1 6 ). These results

PAGE 82

82 suggest that, on average, males thought that this barrier, Issues with N egative Potential Student O utcomes was more of a barrier than females. Gender and t echnology i ssues Also, the ANOVA using gender and Technology I ssues resulted in a significant difference between males and females (F = 6.164, p = .032; Table 4 1 5 ). Females had a mean of 2.1598 (SD = 0 .92928, N = 146; Table 4 1 6 ) and males had a mean of 1.7971 (SD = 0 .96333, N = 69; Table 4 1 6 ). These results suggest that Technology I ssues were, on average, more of a barrier for females than for males. Gender and t eacher i ssues An additional significant difference between genders surfaced in the ANOVA examining gender and Teacher I ssues ( F = 3.393 p = .03 1 ; Table 4 1 5 ). Females had a mean of 1.7483 (SD = 0 84964 N = 14 5 ; Table 4 1 6 ) and males had a mean of 1. 4718 (SD = 0 86968 N = 71 ; Table 4 1 6 ). These results suggest that Teacher I ssues were, on average, more of a barrier for female s than for males. Game p lay f requency and t echnology i ssues A follow play frequency and the dependent variable of Technology I ssues yielded results that were not significant at the .05 leve l (F = 2.030, p = 0.076; Table 4 1 5 ). However, by using the definition previously applied, these results are approaching significance since the results would be considered significant at the .10 level. Game play frequency was based on the average amoun t of time the respondent played games in one week. There were six categories: 0 hours per week (Mean = 2.2759, SD = 0 .95460, N = 29), 0 2 hours per week (Mean = 2.1556, SD = 0 .92063, N = 90), 2 5 hours per week (Mean = 1.9340, SD = 0 .92412, N = 53), 5 10 hours per week

PAGE 83

83 (Mean = 1.9710, SD = 1.04767, N = 23), 10 25 hours per week (Mean = 1.6765, SD = 0 .97088, N = 17), and >25 hours per week (Mean = 1.0000, SD = 0 .66667, N = 3). See Table 4 17 for these overall results. Interestingly, the means decrease as the frequency of game playing increases. This suggests that respondents who play games more frequently do not view technology as much of a barrier as those respondents who play games less frequently. Summary of Statistical Analyses Three statistical anal yses were used on the survey data: an exploratory factor analysis, a MANOVA, and an ANOVA. Each of the statistical analyses had significant results. The exploratory factor analysis on the 32 potential barriers to using games and simulations in education f ound that seven factors explained 67% of the variance in the data. By identifying the barriers in each of the seven factors, the barrier categories between .95 and .70, which suggests the set of six items is closely related as a group (Nunnaly, 1978). These seven categories include: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes ( = .93), Technology Issues ( = .80), Issues Specific to Games and Simulations ( = .75), Teacher Issues ( =.79), Issues with Games and Simulations in Education ( = .87), Student Issues ( = .73), and Incorporation Issues ( = .65). By using the seven ba rrier categories as dependent variables, I could use demographic information ( i.e. age, ethnicity, gender, highest degree earned, grade category taught) and the amount of time the respondent spent playing games as independent variables for MANOVA analyses. Out of these analyses, only four interactions were significant: Gender and Issues with Negative Potential Student

PAGE 84

84 Outcomes ( p = .011), Gender and Technology Issues ( p = .005), Gender and Teacher Issues ( p = .040), and Technology Issues ( p = .009). To understand how each variable in the significant MANOVA analyses was related to each other, I di d a follow up ANOVA analysis. For example, t he ANOVA for Gender and Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes was signif icant ( p = .030) with a male mean of 1.3819 and a female mean of 0 .9954. This suggests that on average, males ranked this category as more of a barrier than females. The Gender and Technology Issues ANOVA was significant ( p = .032) with a female mean o f 2.1598 and a male mean of 1.7971. This suggests that, on average, women rated Technology I ssues as more of a barrier than men did. The Gender and Teacher Issues ANOVA was also significant ( p = .031) with a female mean of 1.7483 and a male mean of 1.4718 These results imply that, on average, females ranked barriers in this category as stronger barriers than males. The ANOVA using Technology Issues ( p = .076) was not significant at the .05 level. However, it is inter esting to note that the means for each category of game play ( i.e. 0 hours per week 0 2 hours per week 2 5 hours per week, 5 10 hours per week, 10 25 hours per week, more than 25 hours per week) decreased as the amount of time per week the respondent pla yed a game increased. This suggests that those who play games more frequently do not think that those potential barriers in the Technology I ssues category are as much of a barrier as compared to those who play games less frequently.

PAGE 85

85 Chapter 5 discuss es th e significance of these findings and how they relate to the study as a whole. Also, I consider data from questions for the t heory of Diffusion of Innovations, grade categories and learner levels, along with the potential barriers to determine if the surv ey instrument corresponded to the intent for which the survey was designed, to determine the teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education.

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 1 Age of the survey respondents Answer o ptions Response p ercent Re sponse c ount 0 20 0.0% 0 21 30 9.8% 25 31 40 22.7% 58 41 50 28.2% 72 51 60 27.1% 69 61 65 7.5% 19 Older than 65 4.7% 12 A nswered question 255 Table 4 2 Ethnicity of the survey respondents Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount 1 Asian 2.4% 6 Black/African American 3.1% 8 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.8% 2 Hispanic/Latino/Caribbean Islander 7.1% 18 White/Caucasian 87.1% 222 Native American 0.4% 1 Other 3.1% 8 A nswered questio n 255 Response count 1 respondents could choose more than one answer option

PAGE 87

87 Table 4 3 Highest degree earned by survey respondents Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount Associates 1.2% 3 Bachelors 17.6% 46 Masters 55.6% 145 S pecialist 5.7% 15 Doctorate 16.1% 42 Other (please specify) 3.8% 10 A nswered question 261 Table 4 4 Grade category survey respondents teach Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount Elementary 20.0% 53 Middle School 16.3% 43 H igh School 20.8% 55 Post secondary (i.e. college, university, technical) 18.6% 49 Adult Education ( i.e. ABE/GED, ESL/ESOL, Adult High School) 3.8% 10 Other (please specify) 20.5% 54 A nswered question 264

PAGE 88

88 Table 4 5 How survey respondent s use technology in their curriculum Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount 1 Electronic presentations ( i.e. PowerPoint Prezi SlideRocket and so on) 92.9% 234 Digital Programs included with textbooks 44.8% 113 District programs ( i.e. Disco very Education Standardized Test Prep programs, and so on) 40.1% 101 Learning/Course Management Systems ( i.e. BlackBoard Angel WebCT and so on) 54.8% 138 Mobile Digital Devices 42.5% 107 Internet Searches/Research 90.5% 228 Internet/Specific Web sites 88.9% 224 Electronic meeting place ( i.e. Elluminate Wimba and so on) 28.6% 72 Gaming Platforms ( i.e. Wii Xbox PlayStation and so on) 10.3% 26 Computer games/simulations ( i.e. software, internet, mobile application) 56.0% 141 Teacher created digital media for lesson 73.4% 185 Students create digital media 63.9% 161 Other (please explain) 12.7% 32 A nswered question 252 Response count 1 respondents could choose more than one answer option Figure 4 1. How survey respondents use technology in their curriculum 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Electronic presentations Digital Programs included with District programs (i.e., Discovery Learning/Course Management Mobile Digital Devices Internet Searches/Rese Internet/Specific Websites Electronic meeting place Gaming Platforms (i.e., Wii, Xbox, Computer games/simulati Teacher created digital media for Students create digital media

PAGE 89

89 Table 4 6 How often do survey respondents play games (board, card, Internet, software, gaming platform, mobile application, etc.) Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount 0 hours per week 14.0% 34 0 2 hour s per week 42.0% 102 2 5 hours per week 24.3% 59 5 10 hours per week 11.1% 27 10 25 hours per week 7.0% 17 More than 25 hours per week 1.6% 4 A nswered question 243 Table 4 7 How survey respondents thought games or simulations could be useful for educational purposes. Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount 1 Games are NOT useful for education 0.0% 0 Review of material 75.3% 183 Motivating & engaging students 94.7% 230 Applying learning styles & varied learning 82 .3% 200 Immediate feedback & self correction 86.4% 210 Building hand eye coordination 54.7% 133 Problem solving and critical thinking 89.3% 217 Differentiated (personalized) learning 81.5% 198 Peer learning opportunities 64.6% 157 Pre test for curren t skills to assign lessons 58.8% 143 Post test for learned skills 56.8% 138 Foster good natured competition among students 59.7% 145 Approximate real life situations 73.3% 178 As a reward for students 46.5% 113 Other (please explain) 7.8% 19 A nsw ered question 243 Response count 1 respondents could choose more than one answer option

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4 2. How survey respondents thought games or simulations could be useful for educational purposes Figure 4 3. Survey respondents who thought games and simulations are compatible with their own teaching practices. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Games are NOT Review of material Motivating & Applying learning Immediate feedback Building hand Problem solving Differentiat ed Peer learning Pre test for current Post test for Foster good Approximat e real life As a reward Not at all compatible Somewhat compatible Mostly compatible

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 4. Survey respondents who thought games or simulations were too complex for their students to learn the intended lesson Figure 4 5. Survey respondents who thought that it wo uld be easy to experiment with an educational game or simulation for one of their lessons Too complex Somewhat complex Not at all complex Not at all easy Somewhat easy Mostly easy

PAGE 92

92 Figure 4 6. Survey respondents who have seen co workers using games or simulations in their classroom, teaching practices, curriculum, or lesson plans Table 4 8 Grade category( s) survey respondents thought would benefit from the addition of educational games and simulations. Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount 1 None 0.0% 0 Elementary 88.8% 214 Middle School 94.2% 227 High School 88.4% 213 Post secondary (i.e. college, university, technical) 67.2% 162 Adult Education (i.e. ABE/GED, ESL/ESOL, Adult High School) 62.2% 150 Other (please explain) 5.4% 13 A nswered question 241 Response count 1 respondents could choose more than one answe r option Table 4 9 Learner level(s) survey respondents thought would benefit from the addition of educational games and simulations. Answer o ptions Response p ercent Response c ount 1 None 0.0% 0 Low level learners 92.9% 222 General (intermediat e) learners 93.3% 223 Gifted (high level) learners 85.8% 205 Mixed learners (two or more groups combined in one class) 86.6% 207 Other (please explain) 5.0% 12 A nswered question 239 Response count 1 respondents could choose more than one answer option Many Some Very Few None

PAGE 93

93 Table 4 1 0 Survey respondents rank how much each of these potential barriers prevent them from using games and simulations Answer o ptions 0 Not a barrier 1 2 Somewhat a barrier 3 4 Definitely a barrier Rating a verage Re sponse c ount 1) Lack of time (i.e. find a game or simulation, learn the game or simulation, incorporate a game or simulation into the lesson) 27 18 66 41 74 2.52 226 2) Lack of games and simulations for disabled students (i.e. access, eq uip ment, game/sim. options) 60 34 72 26 30 1.69 222 3) Lack of games and simulations with a good balance between education and entertainment (i.e. game/simulation is entertain ing but with little learning, or it has enough learning but has little entertainment) 19 26 86 50 45 2.34 226 4) Complexity (too difficult) of games and simulations for my students 65 59 65 25 12 1.38 226 5) Simplicity (too easy) of games and simulations for my students 49 56 6 2 39 15 1.62 221 6) Lack of customizability or adaptability in a game or simulation (i.e. inability to modify game/simulation subjects, goals, or objectives) 23 38 73 56 34 2.18 224 7) Lack of the ability to track and/or assess stude nt progress within a game/simulation 31 33 73 54 29 2.08 220 8) Lack of knowledge about how to use games and simulations appropriately 63 52 42 47 21 1.60 225 9) The opinion that games and simulations cause problems with cla ssroom management and/or in class student behavior 115 47 26 19 18 1.01 225

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 1 0 Continued Answer options 0 Not a barrier 1 2 Somewhat a barrier 3 4 Definitely a barrier Rating average Response count 10) The perception that games may cause student behavioral problems ( i.e. violence or aggression) 127 46 22 15 14 0.85 224 11) The perception that games may cause student obsession or addiction 113 59 23 12 16 0.92 223 12) The con cern that students will not learn the intended lesson using the game/simulation 77 58 43 27 20 1.36 225 13) The opinion that students learn more from a teacher than from a game or simulation 93 53 36 27 14 1.17 223 14) The o pinion that other learning strategies are more effective than using games or simulations 74 50 50 31 18 1.41 223 15) Lack of games/simulations that are aligned to state standards or standardized testing 38 31 47 67 42 2.20 22 5 16) Lack of examples and available lesson plans using games and simulations 36 29 57 56 47 2.22 225 17) The perception of the for example) 81 34 42 38 29 1.55 224 18) Lack of evidence to support the use of games and simulations in education 67 48 56 39 12 1.46 222 19) Lack of parental and/or community support for the use of games and simulations in classrooms/lessons 70 42 45 46 21 1.5 8 224 20) Lack of your own motivation to use games and simulations in lessons 125 54 32 10 3 0.71 224

PAGE 95

95 Table 4 1 0 C ontinued Answer options 0 Not a barrier 1 2 Somewhat a barrier 3 4 Definitely a barrier Ra ting average Response count 21) Lack of student motivation to use games and simulations in lessons (i.e. students do not seem interested in games/simulations) 143 38 30 10 2 0.61 223 22) Varying student abilities (i.e. technology skil ls, learning ability) 84 71 49 16 5 1.05 225 23) Lack of clear expectations, by administrators, for teacher usage 67 44 57 34 22 1.55 224 24) Cost/expense of games/simulations/equipment 18 21 59 58 69 2.62 2 25 25) Inability to try a game or simulation before purchase 28 23 62 47 61 2.41 221 26) Lack of access to games and simulations outside of school 53 38 59 40 35 1.85 225 27) Lack of technical support (for teachers and/or s tudents) 54 32 53 45 40 1.93 224 28) Lack of technology reliability 60 42 53 40 29 1.71 224 29) Lack of my own technology abilities 140 41 21 13 4 0.63 219 30) Lack of administrative support 72 47 40 33 31 1.57 223 31) Length of class period 76 41 41 38 29 1.57 225 32) Class size 77 45 39 35 26 1.50 222 Category t otals 2225 1350 1581 1134 867 -------7157 Average r ating 1.5 9 Total r espondents 226

PAGE 96

96 Figure 4 7. Survey respondents rank (0= no barrier to 4= definite barrier) how much each of these potential barriers prevent them from using games and simulations Table 4 1 1 The seven identified factors from the model Factor M SD Skewnes s Kurtosis Items Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes 1.12 1.08 0.97 0.18 .93 6 Technology Issues 2.04 0.95 0.22 0.61 .80 6 Issues Specific to Games & Simulations 2.05 0.91 0.16 0.32 .75 4 Teacher Issues 1.65 0.87 0.05 0.67 .79 6 Issues with Games & Simulations in Education 1.55 1.10 0.23 0.95 .87 5 Student Issues 0.83 0.88 1.00 0.36 .73 2 Incorporation Issues 1.75 1.03 0.33 0.76 .65 3 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 1) Lack of time (i.e. find a game or 2) Lack of games and simulations for 3) Lack of games and simulations 4) Complexity (too difficult) of games 5) Simplicity (too easy) of games and 6) Lack of customizability or 7) Lack of the ability to track and/or 8) Lack of knowledge about how to 9) The opinion that games and 10) The perception that games may 11) The perception that games may 12) The concern that students will not 13) The opinion that students learn 14) The opinion that other learning 15) Lack of games/simulations that 16) Lack of examples and available 17) The perception of the term 18) Lack of evidence to support the 19) Lack of parental and/or 20) Lack of your own motivation to 21) Lack of student motivation to use 22) Varying student abilities (i.e. 23) Lack of clear expectations, by 24) Cost/expense of 25) Inability to try a game or 26) Lack of access to games and 27) Lack of technical support (for 28) Lack of technology reliability 29) Lack of my own technology abilities 30) Lack of administrative support 31) Length of class period 32) Class size

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 1 2 Eigenvalues and cumulative variance explained by the model Factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Eigenvalues 11.19 2.88 1.94 1.61 1.55 1.24 1.14 Variance (%) 34.98 9.01 6.06 5.03 4.84 3.87 3.56 Cumulative Variance (%) 34.98 43.99 50.05 55.08 59.93 63.80 67.36 Table 4 1 3 Correlation matrix for the model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 2 .364 ** 1 3 .293 ** .474 ** 1 4 .482 ** .582 ** .458 ** 1 5 .675 ** .543 ** .389 ** .508 ** 1 6 .429 ** .480 ** .523 ** .500 ** .504 ** 1 7 .400 ** .408 ** .292 ** .470 ** .415 ** .388 ** 1 **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed). Figure 4 8. Scree plot for 32 item instrument.

PAGE 98

98 Table 4 14 MANOVA results for the demographic and game frequency survey questions Independen t v ariable Lambda Dependent v ariable F Significance Gender 0.835 Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes 6.577 0.011* Gender 0.835 Technology Issues 8.050 0.005* Gender 0.835 Issues Specific to Games & Simulations 0.01 7 0.896 Gender 0.835 Teacher Issues 4.293 0.040* Gender 0.835 Issues with Games and Simulations in Education 0.990 0.321 Gender 0.835 Incorporation Issues 0.644 0.423 Gender 0.835 Student Issues 0.007 0.931 Age 0.770 Iss ues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes 0.704 0.647 Age 0.770 Technology Issues 0.414 0.869 Age 0.770 Issues Specific to Games & Simulations 2.106 0.055* Age 0.770 Teacher Issues 0.291 0.941 Age 0.770 Issues with Games and Simulations in Education 0.615 0.718 Age 0.770 Incorporation Issues 0.694 0.654 Age 0.770 Student Issues 1.314 0.253 Ethnicity 0.892 Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes 0.896 0.410 Ethnicity 0.892 Technology Issues 1 .099 0.336

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 1 4 Continued Independent v ariable Lambda Dependent v ariable F Significance Ethnicity 0.892 Issues Specific to Games & Simulations 0.919 0.401 Ethnicity 0.892 Teacher Issues 0.289 0.749 Et hnicity 0.892 Issues with Games and Simulations in Education 2.351 0.098* Ethnicity 0.892 Incorporation Issues 1.346 0.263 Ethnicity 0.892 Student Issues 1.743 0.178 Highest Degree Earned 0.806 Issues with Negative Potential Student Ou tcomes 1.461 0.205 Highest Degree Earned 0.806 Technology Issues 0.255 0.937 Highest Degree Earned 0.806 Issues Specific to Games & Simulations 0.792 0.557 Highest Degree Earned 0.806 Teacher Issues 1.137 0.343 Highest Degree Ea rned 0.806 Issues with Games and Simulations in Education 1.675 0.143 Highest Degree Earned 0.806 Incorporation Issues 0.565 0.727 Highest Degree Earned 0.806 Student Issues 0.347 0.883 Grade Cat. Taught 0.729 Issues with Negative Pote ntial Student Outcomes 1.214 0.305 Grade Cat. Taught 0.729 Technology Issues 2.157 0.061* Grade Cat. Taught 0.729 Issues Specific to Games & Simulations 0.979 0.432

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 1 4 Continued Independent v ariable Lambda Dependent v ariable F Significance Grade Cat. Taught 0.729 Teacher Issues 2.183 0.058* Grade Cat. Taught 0.729 Issues with Games and Simulations in Education 1.493 0.194 Grade Cat. Taught 0.729 Incorporation Issues 1.181 0.320 Grade Cat. Ta ught 0.729 Student Issues 1.420 0.219 Game Play Frequency 0.787 Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes 1.002 0.418 Game Play Frequency 0.787 Technology Issues 3.163 0.009* Game Play Freq uency 0.787 Issues Specific to Games & Simulations 0.549 0.739 Game Play Frequency 0.787 Teacher Issues 2.159 0.061* Game Play Frequency 0.787 Issues with Games and Simulations in Education 0.583 0.713 Respond Game Play Frequency 0.787 Incorporation Issues 1.317 0.259 Game Play Frequency 0.787 Student Issues 0.741 0.594 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 1 5 Follow up ANOVA results on significant (at the .05 level) MANOVA Independent variable Dependent variable F Significance Gender Result to student 3.286 .030 Gender Tech issues 6.164 .032 Gender Teacher issues 3.393 .031 Game Play Frequency Tech issues 2.03 0 .076 Table 4 1 6 involving gender Dependent v ariable Gender Mean Standard d eviation N Result to Student Female 0 .9954 0 .96963 145 Male 1.3819 1.25860 72 Tech issues Female 2.1598 0 .92928 146 Male 1.7971 0 .96333 69 Teacher Issues Female 1.7483 0 .84964 145 Male 1.4718 0 .86968 71 Table 4 17 Descriptive statistics for the ANOVA for g ame p lay f requency Game play frequency Mean Standard deviation N 0 hours per week 2.2759 0 .95460 29 0 2 hours per week 2.1556 0 .92063 90 2 5 hours per week 1.9340 0 .92412 53 5 10 hours per week 1.9710 1.04767 23 10 25 hours per week 1.6765 0 .97088 17 >25 hours per week 1.0000 0 .66667 3

PAGE 102

102 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLI CATIONS Summary of the Study Many resear chers have identified electronic games and simulations as a potential teaching tool with a degree of interactivity that can cause intense engagement and deep, meaningful learning experiences (Aldrich, 2005; Annetta, 2008; Annetta et al., 2009; Cameron & Dw yer, 2005; Coller & Scott, 2009; Gee, 2003; Halverson, 2005 ; Hamlen, 2010 ; Prensky, 2001; Rieber, 1996 ; Shaffer, 2006; Shaffer et al., 2005; Squire, 2006). Although the potential benefits of incorporating games and simulations in education have been ident ified and supported and there seems to be interest in incorporating games and simulations by educators, some researchers have noticed that game and simulation integration into education has been slow ( Gee 2003; Gee & Levine, 2008; Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Koh et al., 2011 ; Prensky, 2001 ). Consequently, researchers have tried to identify the barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in education ( Baek, 2008; Becker & Jacobsen, 2005 ; Boyle et al. 2012 ; Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; KeBritchi, 2010; Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Rice, 2007; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008). Furthermore, Bourgonjon (2011) questions whether current research is taking a broad enough approach when studying these key issues. Because at present, very few, if any, st udies take a broad, comprehensive look at potential barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in formal educat ion, the purpose of this study wa s to create a n all inclusive survey to discern these barriers. For example, there is a definite lack of research in barriers across grade categories ( i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary, adult education), teacher

PAGE 103

103 demographics ( i.e. gender, age, ethnicity, highest degree earned), and teacher inexperience with games and simulations. Also consideration should be given that the barriers to adoption may be similar in nature to the adoption of any new technology ( i.e. the t heory of Diffusions of Innovations) or specific to the adoption of games and simulations. A comprehensive survey that d istinguishes if teacher perceived barriers vary at different grade categories, teacher demographics, teacher game and simulation inexperience, and if the identified barriers are general to the adoption of any new technology or are specific to games and sim ulations may be more likely to become a widely accepted, valid and reliable instrument in ascertaining the barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in formal education To achieve this goal, I incorporated research already conducted (detailed in C hapter 2) with interviews from educators to design a draft of a survey of the potential barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in curriculum. I used a focus group, expert review, and think aloud protocol to increase the accuracy and efficacy of the survey instrument ( AERA et al., 1999; Beatty, 2004 ; Chioncel et al., 2003; Grant & Davis, 1997; Rabiee, 2004 ; Van Someren et al., 1994 ; Vogt et al., 2004 ) By incorporating the comments and suggestions of the focus group, the expert panel, and think aloud protocol, I was able to finalize the survey. Then I transferred the survey onto the Internet so that I could test the survey by distributing it to a group of educators. Finally, I analyzed the results to ensure that the data gathered corresponded to the intent for which the survey instrument was designed, to determine the teacher perceived barriers to the use of games and simulations in formal education.

PAGE 104

104 Summary of the Findings This section of Chapter 5 is divided into sections based on my resear ch questions and research components of the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. This summary of findings includes the following sections : Perceived Barriers to the Adoption of Games and Simulations in Education (further divided into the seven barrier catego ries), Grade Category Learner Level Diffusion of Innovations and Teacher Inexperience with Games and Simulations Perceived Barriers to the Adoption of Games and Simulations in Education Please recall my research question: what are the barriers to adopt ing games and simulations in education? Because the barriers were the central focus of my research, they are the focus of my findings. A large portion of the survey included 32 potential barriers that respondents ra t ed according to how much (or how litt le) the respondent perceived the item as a barrier to the adoption of games and simulations into his or her curriculum. An exploratory factor analysis helped to understand the underlying structure by identifying seven factors that accounted for most of th categories of barriers were: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes Technology Issues Issues Specific to Games and Simulations Teacher Issues Issues with Games and Simulations in Educati on Incorporation Issues and Student Issues barriers included: the lack of student motivation to use games and simulations (0.61), motivation to use games and simulations (0.71), the perception that student aggression may result (0.85), the perception that student addiction may result (0.92), and the

PAGE 105

105 perception that student behavioral problems may result (1.01). Alternatively, some of the higher rated barriers included: the cost of the equipment (2.62), the lack of time to plan and implement (2.52), the inability to try out games and simulations before games and simulations that lack balance between entertainment and education (2.34), the lack of available lesson plans and examples (2.22), the lack of games and simulations that align to state standards or standardized testing (2.20), the inability to cu stomize the game or simulation (2.18), and the inability to track student progress through the game or simulation (2.08). Some of these categories had no significant or only approaching significant interactions with specific demographic information. For this study, approaching significance was defined as having a p value between .05 and .10. For instance, Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes included six individual barriers and had one significant interaction, where p < .05, one approaching s ignificant interaction, where .05 < p < .10, and four no significant interactions, where p > .10 Issues with n egative p otential s tudent o utcomes This category contained six individual barriers that concerned possible behavioral problems ( i.e. addiction, aggression, classroom behavior al problems ) and negative educational outcomes ( i.e. not learning intended lessons, better learning from other strategies or from the teacher). Interestingly, average ranking ranged from 0.85 to 1.41 (recall that 0 is no barrier and 2 is somewhat a barrier), which is low. Three of the six barriers in this category were identified as the lowest overall (i.e. class behavioral problems, aggression, and addiction). This suggests that, on the whole, this category was not considered as much of an obstacle for the addition of games and simulations into the classroom.

PAGE 106

106 Another interesting point is that all six of these barriers have been identifi ed and previously discussed as g ame specific barriers (Chapter 2). For e xample, o ver stimulation, a ggression and addiction have been identified as concerns by some educators and parents who worry about games and simulations being used as educational components ( Kenny & Gunter, 2011 ; Koh et al., 2011; Rice, 2007; Rosas et al., 2003). Additionally, s everal researchers suggest that the development of video games is not currently compatible with formal education since there is little incentive to incorporate pedagogical components to guarantee learning outcomes into the high prof ile, multimillion dollar games they are constructing ( Kenny & Gunter, 2011 ; Rice, 2007; Rosas et al., 2003; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Torrente et al., 2010 ). Because all six of these barriers are teacher concerns that are specific to games and simulations, it is reasonable that they are contained within one barrier category. Gender was the only demographic characteristic that had significant interactions with this barrier category. Thus, gender was a significant ( p = .030) factor in ranking the individual bar riers in the Issues with Negative Potent ial Student Outcomes category. On average, male educators had a tendency to rank these individual barriers as more of a barrier than did female educators. This is very interesting since much of the research shows t hat males tend to enjoy playing games and simulations more and prefer learning by the use of games and simulations more than females (Greenberg et al., 2010; Hainey et al., 2011; Hamlen, 2010; Robertson, 2012). One could speculate that p erhaps the suppose d male affinity for games and simulations enables a sympathy and understanding for addiction or aggression as potential outcomes of games and simulations. Moreover, the supposed female distain for games and simulations could

PAGE 107

107 explain the lack of understand ing of how a game or simulation could cause addiction or aggression. However, one study hypothesize s that experience with video games lessen s perceived negative effects, like aggression, of playing these games (Bourgonjon et al., 2011) This suggests tha t if males are truly playing so much more than females, they would be less concerned about behavioral outcomes like aggression. Interestingly, more recent statistics show that males and females play games just as frequently and in a similar amount of time, but, each gender plays different types of games (Annetta et al., 2009 ; Bourgonjon et al., 2011 ; Chen et al., 2010; Hainey et al., 2011; Lowrie & Jorgensen, 2011). Also, Wilson (2006) suggests that females prefer to learn by case study and practical appli cation. If this female preference is true, one would expect increased rankings of individual negative learning outcome barriers in this category by females; however, that did not seem to happen. In summary these confusing results are very interesting an d merit a more in depth study. Technology i ssues The six individual barriers in this category include: cost of th is technology, access to this technology outside of school, technical support, technology reliability, inability to try the technology before b uying, and technology availability for students with disabilities. Interestingly, on the whole, this category was rated fairly high in comparison to other categories. The range of average ratings was between 1.69 and 2.62. This category contained two of the highest overall ranked barriers (i.e., cost of the equipment (2.62) and the inability to try out a game or simulation before purchase (2.41) ). The higher ratings for this whole category suggest that perhaps these individual barriers are thought to be more of a challenge in the adoption of games and simulations in education.

PAGE 108

108 Similarly, all but one of these individual barriers were previous ly identified and discussed as t echnology based b arriers (Chapter 2). For example, r esearchers identified some ser ious problems with top quality equipment and software in schools: cost of the technology, availability as well as accessibility to staff and students and the inability to try out products, like simulations, before buying ( Becker & Jacobsen, 2005; Egenfe ldt Nielsen, 2004; Koh et al., 2011; Rice, 2007 ; Rosas et al., 2003 ; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Russell & Shepherd, 2010; Summers, 2004 ; Torrente et al., 2009 ). The one barrier that was not previous ly identified in this category was accessibility to disabled s tudents. This barrier was suggested from several educators during interviews The gender of the respondent also significantly ( p = .032) influenced how the individual barriers in the Technology Issues category were ranked. In general, female educators r anked individual technology items as more of a barrier than male educators. Given some of the research on females and technology, this result is provocative For example, one study suggests that technology is a male domain since males have positive attit udes toward technology, report less problems with technology, and can integrate technology smoothly into lessons (Bourgonjon et al., 2011) Additionally, Abbiss (2008) broadly characterized technology as a male domain and a female deficit. Conversely man y researchers claim that females use technology just as much as males or that females use technology in different ways in males ; therefore their motivations and level of confidence may not be the same as males (Annetta et al., 2009; Jensen & De Castell 20 10 ; Joiner et al., 2011; Padilla W alker et al., 2010; Wilson, 2006). These starkly opposing sides to the question of gender and technology

PAGE 109

109 significant results, indicates this subject this deserve s a closer look. Further study is recommended. Teacher i ssues This category included six individual barriers: time (for implementation and planning), finding games to match standards and testing, lack of available lesson plans and examples, and teacher characteristics ( i.e. self motivation knowledge about games and simulations, technology abilities). Interestingly, this category had a wide range ( 0.63 2.52 ) of average ratings of individual barriers. Three of the barriers were identified as the overall highest (i.e. time to plan and imp lement (2.52), alignment to state standards and standardized testing (2.20), and the lack of available lesson pl ans and examples (2.22)). T wo barriers were identified as the overall lowest (i.e. the abilities (0.63)). These results suggest that some of these individual barriers are much more of a concern to educators than other individual barriers in this category. Like the previous two categories, this category conta ins individual barriers that were previously identified and discussed (Chapter 2); however, unlike the previous two categories, this category contains barriers that were identified in multiple sections (i.e. t e chnology based, game specific, and s chool base d barriers ) of the literature review This suggests that although each of these barrier s originate from different places ( i.e. administrator pressure, state standardization, understanding complicated technology) all of these problems ultimately cause a pe rceived barrier to the teacher. Although m any researchers claim that a major barrier of adopting games and simulations in the classroom is the characteristics of the teacher p erhaps, at least in this study, it is more a case of the beliefs and/or percept ions of the teacher, rather than the characteristics of

PAGE 110

110 the teacher (Egenfeldt Nielsen, 2004; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Rosas et al., 2003; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008; Taylor, 2008 ; Virvou et al., 2005 ). For example, Simpson and Stansberry (2008) suggest that political mechanisms, such as high stakes testing, cause pressure on teachers to teachers may not risk an unknown technology, like games and simulations, which could take time away from technologies and lessons that have been proven to increase test scores Another example is the teacher perceived confidence in their knowledge of gam es and simulations. Since researchers consistently identify training as a barrier to the adoption of any instructional technology, this could be a perceived problem to teachers who have had little to no training in the use of games and simulations (King, 2002 ; Koh et al., 2011 ; Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Simpson & Stansberry, 2008; Smarkola, 2007 ). Again, gender was a significant ( p = .031) factor in ranking the se individual barriers. In this study, fem ale educators ranked these items as more of a barrier than their male counterparts. Some recent research may help explain these results. For instance Hamlen (2010) concluded that although females initially have the same ability as males, their lack of m otivation about using technology leads to less overall experience and thereby lowering their confidence. In other words, because females do not receive the same feelings of reward for using technology that males do, females may not be motivated to continu e using technology. Interestingly, Lim (2008) suggested that a major barrier to designing successful learning environments was a

PAGE 111

111 lack of motivation by teachers coupled with a n induced emphasis on standards, grades, and measured outcomes. Unfortunately, gender difference was not a focus of (2008) study but these results are results In general, to understand how these individual barriers are specifically associated with gender, more research is re quired. Issues s pecific to g ames and s imulations The four individual barriers in this barrier category included : the inability to track student progress, the inability to customize a game/simulation, the belief that games are too simple for students, and t he lack of games/simulations with a good balance between education and entertainment. Three out of the four barriers in this category were rated as the highest barriers (i.e. edutainment or the lack of balance between entertainment and education (2.34), t he inability to customize the game or simulation (2.18), and the inability to track student progress within the game or simulation (2.08)). The fourth barrier was also ranked fairly high (i.e. the perception that games and simulations are too simple for s tudents (1.62)). Taken together, this suggests that this category of barriers was viewed by respondents as substantial barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in education. All of these individual barriers were previously identified an d discusse d (Chapter 2) as g ame specific barriers. These barriers are not relate d to the outcome of the student as with the category Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes These barriers seem to be problems with the construct of the game or simulation it self. For instance many educators, who are not opposed to using games and simulations in (i.e. a game that does not balance entertainment and education) in finding a game to use in a lesson ( Rosas et al., 2003 ;

PAGE 112

112 To rrente et al., 2010 ). Another example is the inability to monitor and evaluate each Russell & Shepherd, 2010; Sliney et al., 2009 ; Torrente et al., 2009 ; Torrente et al., 2010 ). Without this ability, it becomes almost impossible for teachers to assign a grade, based on progress or improvement, to a student. There were no significant interactions with this barrier category. Age was approaching a significant ( p = .055) interaction with Issues Specific t o Games and Simulations Unfortunately, not much research has been done in regards to age and game and simulation usage. Kotrlik and Redman (2009) did find that older teachers have less confidence in technology and their ability to use that technology, b ut this is not specific to games and simulations. The main concern between age and technology use is the generation gap ( i.e. digital divide) between technology savvy users and those who are not very savvy with technology (Buckingham, 2003 ; Tapscott, 1998 ). Perhaps there is a difference in the understanding and use of game and simulation technology between younger teachers, who are familiar with game and simulation technology, and older teachers, who are not familiar with game and simulation technology, a s they speculation. Issues with g ames and s imulations in e ducation This barrier category contained five individual barriers: the perception of the term the lack of evidence to support use, the lack of administrative support, the lack of parental/community support, and the lack of clear expectations by administrators. The average rating of barriers in this category ranged from 1.46 to 1.58. This is a ver y close range, which suggests that respondents viewe d the barriers in this category

PAGE 113

113 almost equally as obstacles to game and simulation adoption in their curriculum. Also, these ratings are about the middle of the total range (0.61 2.62) which insinuates that overall these barriers are not the most nor the least problematic of the potential barriers to the adoption of games and simulations. This is another category with individual barriers that were previously identified and discussed from two different s ections of the literature review ( Chapter 2 ). For example, t wo of the individual barriers, were cited as specific to games. The term which is sometimes associated with playing rather than learning, and other negative perceptions of games and simu lations may cause the need for extra evidence to justify use in education ( Kenny & Gunter, 2011 ; Koh et al., 2011 ; Rice, 2007; Rosas et al., 2003 ; Wexler et al., 2007 ). The other three individual barriers were discussed as s chool based barriers. School c ultural resistance, especially support from administrators, parents, and community, has been cited by several researchers as a barrier to the adoption of games and simulations in education ( Koh et al., 2011 ; Royle & Colfer, 2010; Sliney et al. 2009 ). For example, administrators often make policies and assume teachers will accept and implement them without any provisions or assistance (Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001). This barrier had no significant interactions. Ethnicity had an approaching significant ( p = .098) interaction with this category As with age, there has been little research in the differences between ethnicities in regards to game and simulation usage. Although Roberts and Foehr (2008) found that African American males played games longer th an other ethnicities, it is interesting that most video games today offer very few characters of ethnicities other than Caucasian. Some of those video games

PAGE 114

114 that do offer minority characters may not have the most positive character roles or those games ma y be strictly for entertainment purposes. For example, if a person of a minority ethnicity plays a game with a character of the same ethnicity and this game has the character stealing cars, selling drugs, or talking to prostitutes, then it might be diffic ult for this game player to see any educational potential in this type of game. Perhaps as game designers create more positive character roles of ethnicities other than Caucasian, the possible interaction between ethnicity and Issues with Games and Simula tions in Education will decrease. Of course, without further study, this is just conjecture. Student i ssues This barrier category contained two individual barriers: the lack of student motivation and the variation in student abilities ( i.e. technology sk ills, learning abilities). The barrier about student motivation was proposed in the interview process The variation in student abilities w as previously discussed in the s chool based barriers section (Chapter 2). Neither of these barriers is specific to games and simulations, but could potentially be a barrier for any new technology. Both, lack of student motivation and a wide range of student skill and experience, would make it difficult for an educator to keep all students on task because some may be disinterested or familiar with the technology and become bored; whereas others will be lost and need extra help ( Schrum et al., 2005 ; Vos & Brennan, 2010 ). Interestingly, there were no significant or approaching significant interactio ns with this barrier category. One barrier did have the lowest averaged ranking (i.e. the lack of student motivation to use games and simulations (0.61)). The other barrier was not rated very highly either (i.e. varying

PAGE 115

115 student abilities (1.05)), which suggests that perhaps this category is not much of a perceived barrier overall to the adoption of games and simulations in education. Incorporation i ssues This category contained three individual barriers : the length of class period, the size of the class, and the belief that games are too complex for students. This barrier category had a very small range of average rankings (1.38 1.57), which suggests that the individual barriers in this category may be viewed as comparable impediments to using games and simulations in curr ratings fall toward the lower half of the overall range (0.61 2.62), then perhaps these barriers are somewhat perceived as inconsequential hindrances to the use of games and simulations in the classroo m. These individual barriers were previously discussed in Chapter 2. Class size was discussed as s chool based barrier, since many teachers have no control over the number of students in their classrooms. Complexity of games and simulations was discussed a s a g ame specific barrier since they are difficult to play in one day; consequently, most students will have little recollection from the previous day and will essentially start from scratch each day the game or simulation is played (Egenfeldt Nielsen, 200 4; Squire, 2006). Interestingly, the length of the class period could be considered both school based and g ame specific barriers. For example, the length of a class period is not controlled by the teacher, but is dictated by the school; thus it could be considered a s chool based barrier. Additionally, because of the way games and simulations are constructed, a typical game or simulation cannot be completed within one day despite one class period. Hence it could be considered a g ame specific barrier.

PAGE 116

116 Ano ther identified problem with using games and simulations in the classroom is the amount of class time needed for this complex software (Kebritchi, 2010; Koh et al., 2011 ; Royle & Colfer, 2010 ; Torrente et al., 2010). It is difficult to learn to play a game within one class period, and then continue that play a day or two later. Additionally class size can be a barrier for the introduction of any new technology. With the use of games and simulations in education, Egenfeldt Nielsen (2004) cites larger clas s sizes as a barrier to adoption. Incorporation Issues had no significant or approaching significant interactions. All interactions were considered not significant. Grade Category A question on the survey asked the opinion of the respondent to which gr ades would benefit by the adoption of games and simulations. It is noteworthy that not one al career M iddle school grades (94.2%) were thought the grade category to benefit most, while Elementary (88.8%) and High School (88.4%) closely followed. Post secondary (67.2%) and Adult Education (62.2%) were also thought to be a benefit by more than half of the p eople who responded to this question. Additionally, the g rade level the respondent taught had an approaching significant interaction with Teacher Issues ( p = .058) and Technology Issues ( p = .061). The differences in the requirements for teachers in diffe rent grade levels can be extreme For example, i f asked about various items within the Teacher Issues category I believe many teachers would say there are varying amounts of planning time, consequences of standardized testing technology usage, availabil ity of lesson plan s

PAGE 117

117 and so on, when contrasting high school with elementary The same could be said for items within the Technology Issues category, which includes individual barriers like access to technology outside of school, cost, technology reliabili ty, tech nical support, and accessibility for disabled students. For instance, technology usage may not be as frequent or intricate in a first grade classroom as in an eleventh grade classroom; therefore, technology costs and technical support may be more of a problem in high school than elementary. Because neither Teacher I ssues nor Technology I ssues are standardized across grade categories this might explain an approaching significant interaction between grade categories and Teacher Issues and grade cat egories and Technology I ssues Without further research though, this is just a supposition. Learner Level Another question on the survey instrument regarded learner levels of students. Respondents were asked which learner levels they thought would benefi t from the addition of games and simulations to the curriculum. Again, it is noteworthy that no that all learner levels would benefit in some way by the addition of ga m es and simulations. General/ intermediate learners (93.3%) were thought to benefit the most while Low level (92.9%) and Gifted/ high level (85.8%) learners followed closely. Interestingly, w hen asked about Mixed learners ( i.e. when two or more g roups of l earners are combined), 86.6% of respondents thought this category would benefit from the addit ion of games and simulations. On a side note, d uring the interview process, several interviewees responded that Mixed learners would benefit because those stude nts who understood could help

PAGE 118

118 those students who did not understand. This form of peer learning may have led to the higher response in this category. Diffusion of Innovations A portion of the survey dealt with questions that involved the t heory of Diffusi on of Innovations. Those questions that related to relative advantage compatibility complexity and trialability had positive responses. For instance, out of 243 respondents, 100% thought games and simulations could be useful ( i.e. relative advantage ) and 96.6% thought games and simulations were compatible ( i.e. compatibility ) with their teaching practices. Additionally, only 7.5% of 241 respondents thought games would be too difficult to experiment with in a lesson ( i.e. complexity and trialability ). Interestingly, 66.5% of 239 respondents have seen very few or no co workers using games and simulations in their teaching practices ( i.e. observability ). This makes sense since many teachers rarely get to observe their peers teach because for the most part, everyone is teaching at the same time in separate classrooms. The t heory of Diffusion of Innovations states that it is essential for potential adopters to observe the success of those who have successfully adopted the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Con sequently this lack of observed peers who have successfu l l y adopt ed games and simulations may contribute to the slow overall adoption of games and simulations in education. Teacher Inexperience with Games and Simulations Interestingly, although the MANOVA had a significant ( p = .009) interaction between Respondent Game Play Frequency and Technology Issues the follow up ANOVA had an approaching significant (p = .076) interaction between the factors. On

PAGE 119

119 closer inspection of the means for each category of f requency of game play by the respondent, a general trend appeared. It seems that those respondents that played games less frequently ranked technology barriers higher than those respondents that played games more frequently One study, that cited some th e differences between genders in regards to technology suggests that females have less experience with technology and therefore have more problems with technology (Bourgonjon et al., 2011) On the surface, it makes sense that those individuals who use on e specific technology more frequently would be more comfortable with technology in general ; however, t his result merits further study. Limitations and Del imitations Several of the limitations of this study center on the respondents. For example, since th e survey was sent via the Internet, it is assumable that the respondents are comfortable with using technology. Additionally, the respondents may not represent a random sample of the whole population of educators since the invitations to the internet surv ey were sent to two groups of educators: members of a special interest group of ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) that is a proponent of the use of games and simulations in classrooms and members of two different sub groups of a caree r pathway organization that is primarily composed of various types of educators from Adult Education (i.e. ESL, ABE/GED, AHS). As a result, most of the ISTE respondents can be considered bias in that they are comfortable with technology, and that these ed ucators approve of the use of technology, games and simulations in particular, in formal education. As for those respondents in Adult Education, they may be biased toward issues within their own educational level. Additionally, another

PAGE 120

120 respondent limitat ion was the assumption that all respondents were proficient enough with the English language to understand the terminology and questions in the survey. the data collecte d, especially the interpretation of interviewed individuals and the definition of the seven categories of barriers created by the exploratory factor analysis during this study. An additional limitation of this study was not discovered until the analysis of the data. A few of the questions were not placed correctly into the Internet survey host to permit their use in the data analyses. For example, the question about which grade categories would benefit from the addition of games and simulations included an option for the respondent to choos e more than one grade category The option for multiple answers made this question ineligible for statistical analysi s. This same problem occurred for the question that asked what learner level would benefit from the addition of games and simulations and the question that involved the amount and types of technology used by the respondent. If this data would have been correctly collected, this information could have been included in the statistical analyses, which wou ld have led to a broader approach to identifying the barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in education. A delimitation of this study is that the survey results may not be generalized to all learning with games and simulations. For example, t he results of this study may not be applicable to a company that trains their employees through the use of computer simulations or a branch of military that trains their soldiers with computer simulations. Also, the results of this study may not be comple tely generalizable to online educational programs, since those barriers ( i.e. access to the Internet) may be quite different from

PAGE 121

121 brick and mortar schools. Since the respondents were comfortable with technology, those schools that have little technology m ay have more severe technology problems (i.e. access, comfort with technology) than what is reflected in this study. Finally since the ISTE group respondents were more than likely proponents of the use of games and simulations in education, those results that show teacher bias with games ( i.e. game experience/self confidence with games, games not appropriate for learning), may not accurately reflect educators as a whole. Recommendations This section of C hapter 5 is divided into t hree sub sections: recomme n dations for future research, recommendations for educators and recommendations for administrators All sections contain suggestions that may be helpful to those individuals who wish to study games and simulations in education or those individuals who wi sh use games and sim ulations in their curriculum Interestingly, three categories, Teacher Issues Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes and Technology Issues had the largest number of individual barriers (six in each category) and contained si gnificant interactions with gender and/or respondent game playing frequency. Because these categories contain the most individual barriers and significant interactions, these categories may explain a lot of the problems associated with the introduction of games and simulations in education. Given their significant and approaching significant interactions and their large amount of individual barriers, researchers as well as educators may want to pay particular attention to these three identified barrier ca tegories and their individual barriers.

PAGE 122

122 Recommendations for Future Research The purpose for this study was to design a valid and reliable survey instrument that could help discern the teacher perceived barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in f ormal education. With a few modifications ( i.e. making all questions single response only, see limitations section), I believe the survey instrument to be valid, reliable for the data it obtains and able to capture the data for which it was intended the teacher perceived barriers to using games and simulations in formal education This survey was tested on a sample of educators to ensure that it collected the information corresponded to the intent for which the survey instrument was designed. One of th e limitations in this study was the nonrandom groups of educators surveyed. By using a more random sample of educators, future researchers may have more valid results. In this study, the data from the survey gave insight to the complicated question of what are the barrier s to game and simulation adoption in education. A larger, more random population and a corrected survey instrument (i.e. broader scope) may provide new interactions and/or more understanding about those interactions that this study fou nd significant and approaching significant. Future study is imperative to understanding the teacher perceived barriers so that these barriers may be overcome and, subsequently, that games and simulations are successfully introduced into formal education. Because of the limitation of the technology question, this data could not be used in the statistical analysis; however, I believe it would have been interesting to compare the amount of technology a respondent used to the ranking of barriers. For example, if a respondent used a lot of technology, he or she may have ranked the individual

PAGE 123

123 barriers in the Technology Issues category lower. It would also have been interesting to look more in depth at the particular technologies used and barrier rankings. In t he Summary of Findings section, I suggested several topics for more research especially when the results and research differed For example, the confusing results of males rating barriers higher in Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes do not correspond with some of the research suggesting that players who play more are desensitized to some of the negative behavioral outcomes like aggression ( Bourgonjon et al., 2011 ; Greenberg et al., 2010; Hainey et al., 2011; Hamlen, 2010; Robertson, 2012;). Additionally, females tend to like learning with practical applications more than games, which suggests that they would be more concerned about negative learning outcomes (Wilson, 2006). Due to these contradictory results and research I suggest further study is necessary concerning gender and student, both behavioral and learning, outcomes I proposed another possible study due to the difference in gender ratings of the barriers in Technology Issues Please recall that barriers in this category were rated higher by females than males. This was a confusing result given recent research that suggests females and males use technology in similar amounts but may have different motivations and confidence levels (Annetta et al., 2009; Jensen & De Castell, 20 10; Joiner et al., 2011; Padilla walker et al., 2010; Wilson, 2006). How do these differing motivations and confidence levels result when frequency of use is similar? Is technology male dominated as some research suggests ( Abbiss, 2008 ; Bourgonjon et al. 2011)? Further study is recommended to answer these questions.

PAGE 124

124 Another potential study including gender is the perceived pressures of the teacher (i.e. administrator pressure, state standardization, understanding complicated technology) that deal with barriers in the Teacher Issues category. Hamlen (2010) suggested that although females and males initially have the same ability, female lack of motivation about using technology leads to less overall experience which lowers their confidence. This is in motivation by teachers coupled with a focus on standards, grades, and measured outcomes is a major barrier to designing successful learning environments. Further research into these percei ved pressures along with gender and, possibly, technology use, such as games and simulations is recommended Age, ethnicity, and grade level taught did hav e approaching significant (.05 > p > .10) interactions with four of the barrier categories. All o f these demographic interactions, both significant and/ or approaching significant, w ere very interesting and give insight on some of the problems of introducing games and simulations into curriculum. These demographic characteristics are points to conside r for future research, especially since there is a definite lack of research on these demographics and games and simulations in education. Interestingly, two categories, Technology Issues and Issues Specific to Games and Simulations had some of the highes t rated barrier averages. This suggests that perhaps these two categories may contain the foremost hindrances to the adoption of games and simulations in education. Further, in depth study should look into the individual barriers in this category. Perha ps resolving these obstacles will lead to better chances for successful game and simulation adoption into curriculum. Another point of

PAGE 125

125 interest is that two categories, Student Issues (two individual barriers) and Incorporation Issues (three individual bar riers) had no significant interactions. What does that mean? Is it because these are the two smallest categories of barriers? Are the individual barriers in these categories equally perceived as barriers by all educators? Perhaps these barriers are rem nants of 20 th century classrooms and are diminishing as 21 st century classrooms are becoming established. No hypothes is can be given at this time; however, f uture research may hold the explanation for no significant interactions from these two barrier cat egories. Gender of the respondent was a very significant factor when rating individual barriers in three categories: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes Teacher Issues and Technology Issues Interestingly, it was not one particular gender th at was ranking these items as more of a barrier. M ale educators ranked those items in Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes as more of a barrier than female educators; whereas, female educators ranked items in Teacher Issues and Technology Issue s as more of a barrier than male educators. By reviewing gender differences in playing games and simulations to investigate these results, I found that many researchers suggest that females either do not play or do not enjoy playing games and simulations as much as males do (Greenberg et al., 2010; Hainey et al., 2011; Hamlen, 2010; Robertson, 2012). Furthermore, research suggests that although females may play games just as frequently and in a similar amount of time as males each gender plays different types of games ( Annetta et al., 2009; Bourgonjon et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2010; Hainey et al., 2011; Lowrie & Jorgensen, 2011). Given these obvious gender differences in recent research, the question then becomes why gender was not

PAGE 126

126 significant when rat ing the barriers in Issues Specific to Games and Simulations (four individual barriers) and Issues with Games and Simulations in Education (five individual barriers). Both of these categories have barriers that would seemingly fluctuate in rank depending on a respondent s opinion of games and simulations. For example, the balance between education and entertainment may not be as much of a barrier with those individuals who like games and can see educational value in them. Consequently, i t is very interes ting that gender made no difference in these two barrier categories and so further research is recommended. Recommendations for Educators Teachers should consider adding games and simulations to their curriculum given the positive research on the subject as previously stated in the C hapter 1 For instance there is a large amount of research that suggests that games and simulations are a beneficial, engaging, motivational educational tool that promotes deep meaningful learning ( Aldrich, 2005; Annetta, 2 008; Annetta et al., 2009; Cameron & Dwyer, 2005; Coller & Scott, 2009; Gee, 2003; Halverson, 2005; Hamlen, 2010; Prensky, 2001; Rieber, 1996; Shaffer, 2006; Shaffer et al., 2005; Squire, 2006). Additionally many groups of students (i.e. gender, physical disability, lower socio economic, hyperactivity) are being underserved since they cannot perform the lesson to the degree for which it was intended. Many of these neglected groups do better when games and simulations are added to the curriculum (Angelone 2010 ; Chen et al., 2010 ; Squire 2005 ). One suggested barrier was that educators are not exposed to good research and practices ( Grimley, Green, Nilsen, Thompson, & Tomes, 2011; Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Schrader et al., 2006). Grimley, Green, Nilsen, Thom pson, and Tomes (2011) remind educators that it is the perception of the student, not the actual instruction, which

PAGE 127

127 determines learning; therefore, it is not the instructional technique but how the student perceives the technique that inspi res learning. A dditionally it has been suggested that not only do educators not incorporate enough technology into our classrooms; educators have not yet moved away from the 18 th century definition of what it is to be educated (Schrader et al., 2006). If educators had more access to good research and proven teaching practices, games and simulations may be more widely accepted and implemented in formal education. Additionally, b y being aware of the identified barriers in this study, it may be easier for educators to be a ble to incorporate games and simulations into their own curriculum. For example, by knowing that inexperience with game playing is related to educators regard ing technology issues as more of a barrier, an interested educator could increase his or her game playing to potentially reduce these barriers. Consequently educators should pay attention to the individual barriers in the two highest rated categories, Technology Issues and Issues Specific to Games and Simulations Because these two categories ha d t he highest average rankings, being aware of the individual barriers in these categories may help a teacher be able to resolve these problems before they become major obstacles. For example, by knowing that the inability to customize or track student progr ess in a game or simulation was a problem for other educators, a teacher may better informed about which games or simulations to choose to incorporate into his or her own lessons On a more practical note, educators should understand that it is not necess ary to be a gaming guru to introduce games and simulations into the classroom. Although a few students may not know much about gaming technology and some students may

PAGE 128

128 have more experience than the instructor, there is no cause for concern since these cond ition s set up an opportunity for a peer learning situation Adams (2009) points out that grouping older students with younger students to improve their skills is not a new concept, but the benefits are still present regardless if the skill is reading or t echnology. Those students who know more about games and simulations will be able to help those students, and possibly instructors, who do not know very much about the technology. Nonetheless given the results of this study, the more the instructor plays games, the less the instructor struggles with technology. Considering this result, my recommendation is for teachers to play games and simulations in class and out of class This experience, given the se results, will help build technology skills, but, i n my opinion, will also aid the teacher in helping the students grasp the intended lesson of the game without getting caught up i n lear ning game playing skills (i.e. the unintended lesson of the game ) Also, the more students play games and simulations, t he more they may improve their technology skills as well. So the addition of games and simulations into However, given the gender results of this study, perhaps educators s hould be sensitive to the unusual relationship that females have with games and simulations. Perhaps educators could be more encouraging and understanding with their female students when assigning lessons with games and simulations. Additionally, a new tr end in education is differentiated learning, and despite the push for it, grading students can pose ethical problems for instructors when a grade represents different sets of skills for different students (Jackson, 2009). Games and simulations may be more adaptable for differentiated learning since these are actually

PAGE 129

129 forms of assessment (Gee, 2003). As students devote more time to the game or simulation, they build their skills, thereby passing the assessment by moving on to the next level. Moreover i t is a common fear of educators that if they do not do what is necessary to adjust to the cognitive structures of digital natives, technology may replace them (Adams, 2009; Annetta et al., 2009). Several researchers have tried to allay these fears by estab lishing reasons that students will always need a human teacher to be able to interact and learn ( Grimley et al., 2011 ; Jackson, 2009 ). At any rate, educators should not let this unsubstantiated fear be a barrier to the adoption of a teaching tool with so much potential. Recommendations for School Administrators As for school administrators, I recommend that they study the identified teacher perceived barriers of the adoption of games and simulations into curriculum. Several individual barriers should be c orrected at the administrator level. For example, one of the ranked barriers dealt with technical support. When given the opportunity to write in barriers on the survey many respondents acknowledge the supportive attitude of their sc Additionally, the amount of Technology I ssues with web filters, fire walls, restricted technology access, and lack of updated technology were cited as definite barriers. All of these issues cannot be solved by individu al teachers; however an administrator could address most of these problems. games, the less the teacher thought technology was a challenge. Several researchers have also sug gested that teachers who play games are more likely to view them as

PAGE 130

130 useful teaching tools ( De Aguilera & Mendiz, 2003; Kenny & McDaniel, 2011; Koh et al., 2011; Lee & Hoadley, 2007; Ritzhaupt et al. 2010 ; Schrader et al., 2006 ). For these reasons, admini strators should encourage their teachers to play games and simulations. They could do this by offering trainings that expose teachers to games and simulations or by setting aside professional development time for research and practice of games and simulat ions. Administrators could also create their own form of peer learning by pairing experienced game playing teachers with non playing teachers or create some other form of professional development activities with players and non players. Moreover recall that the t heory of Diffusion of Innovations states that it is essential for potential adopters to observe the success of those who have already adopted the innovation (Rogers, 2003). S ince many teachers rarely get to observe their peers teach because usu ally everyone is teaching at the same time in separate classrooms, this lack of observed peers who have successfully adopted games and simulations may contribute to the slow overall adoption of this type of technology Administrators, however, could allow peer observation of successful adopters of games and simulations. Additionally, administrators could, as previously stated create groups of peers who can learn from each other abo ut game and simulation adoption Both of these recommendations may increa se the rate of game and simulation adoption by teachers as they would see the benefits of adding games and simulations first hand. Conclusions My research helped to create a valid and reliable survey instrument to discern teacher perceived barriers to the adoption of games and simulations in formal education. This survey instrument, with slight improvements (i.e. changing the multiple response questions cited in the limitations section to single response ), can be used on a

PAGE 131

131 larger scale with a more random set of educators to definitively ascertain the barriers that teachers identify as preventing them from using games and simulations in their curriculum. This research has led to the identification of some of these barriers. An exploratory factor analysis l ed to the discovery of seven barrier categories: Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes Technology Issues Issues Specific to Games and Simulations Teacher Issues Issues with Games and Simulations in Education Incorporation Issues and Student Issues These categories accounted for approximately 67% of the variance in the results. By using a MANOVA and then a follow up ANOVA on significant results, I found that gender had a significant interaction with three barrier categories: Issues with Ne gative Potential Student Outcomes Technology Issues and Teacher Issues Upon reviewing the means, it appears that males are more concerned with individual barriers, like negative student behavioral outcomes and negative student learning outcomes, in the Issues with Negative Potential Student Outcomes category. Female educators ranked individual barriers in the Technology Issues category (i.e. technical support, technology reliability, accessibility outside of school) as more of a barrier to the adoption of games and simulations in their curriculum than male educators. And finally, female educators thought that individual barriers in the Teacher Issues category (i.e. time to plan and implement, matching to standards or standardized testing) were more of a barrier than male educators. Another significant interaction was Respondent Game Play Frequency and Technology Issues After reviewing the means, it appears that those individuals who are inexperienced with playing games and simulations ranked the indi vidual barriers in the Technology Issues

PAGE 132

132 (i.e. technical support, technology reliability, accessibility outside of school) category as more of a barrier. As for my own current professional practices, this research has given me a great insight as to why I have trouble persuading my peer teachers to use games and simulations in their curriculum. Now that I have a better understanding of the perceived barriers, I can better support my peers and ask my administrators for specific help. For instance, I can as k my administrators for professional enhancement with games and simulations and I can ask that my peer teachers be able to observe my class as the students successfully use games and simulations in a lesson. I can also understand that if my peer teacher i s female, she may need more support and encouragement with technology and teacher issues. Or, if my peer teacher is male, he may need to completely understand the potential outcomes, both behavioral and learning, to the student. For my potential future pr ofessional practice, I found this research a wealth of information. All of these barrier categories will help me to present the individual barriers to my future students who are studying to become teachers. By breaking these barriers into categories and recognizing the impact demographic information and game inexperience can have on the adoption of this technology, I hope to eliminate the potential barriers that these future teachers would face when they want to introduce games and simulations into their own curriculum This subject is quite complex so these categories and interactions coupled with some pertinent research will help these students to understand how and why to introduce games and simulations into their curriculum.

PAGE 133

133 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUES TIONS 1) What is your gender? Male/Female 2) What is your age? 0 25, 26 35, 36 45, 46 55, 56 65, >65 3) What is your ethnicity? Asian, Black/African American, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, White/Caucasian, Other 4) Highest Degree Earned Associates, Bachelors, Masters, Specialist, Doctorate/PhD 5) What grade(s) do you currently teach? Kindergarten, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, post secondary, adult education, other 6) Are your current stude nts considered low level learners, general learners, or gifted learners? Low level General Gifted Mixed levels all two or more in the same classroom 7) What subjects do you currently teach? Elementary, Language Arts, Social Studies, Science, Math, Computer s, Second Languages, Music, fine Arts, Health/Physical Education, Other 8) On average, how many students do you have in a class? <10, 10 15, 16 20, 21 25, 26 30, 31 35, 36 40, >40 9) Do you currently use technology in your classes? If so, can you explain a li ttle of how you use this technology? 10) Do you play games for entertainment? If so, roughly how many hours per week do you play games? o 0 1, 1 3, 3 5, 5 10, 10 25, 25 40, >40 What kind of games (i.e. computer, video, board, cards, etc)?

PAGE 134

134 (Appendix A continued) 11) Do you play games or simulations for any reason other than entertainment? If so, can you share why? 12) Have you played a gaming system ( i.e. Xbox Wii Play S tation )? Do you or someone in your household own one? If yes, how frequently do you play? 13) Have you ever played computer games ( i.e. software and/or internet)? If so, how frequently? 14) How do you think games could be useful for educational purposes? 15) Do you think games and simulations could be beneficial to your curriculum? If so, do you think the benefits outweigh the costs? Can you explain your thoughts? 16) Do you think it would be easy to try out a game or simulation in one of your lessons? Can you please explain? 17) Have you seen a co worker or co workers successfully usi ng games and simulations in their classes? How frequently? 18) Do you think your administrators would support your use of a game and/or simulation? Why or why not? 19) Do you think the school culture ( i.e. class sizes, class periods, peer opinions) would s upport the addition of games and simulations in your classroom? Why or why not?

PAGE 135

135 (Appendix A continued) 20) What are you r foremost concerns about adding a game or simulation into your curriculum? Are you concerned because games and simulations are no t appropriate for school ( i.e. strictly entertainment)? o Can you please explain? Are you concerned because games and simulations are not appropriate for students ( i.e. may be bad ( i.e. behavior, health) or addictive for students)? o Can you please explain? Are you concerned about using games and simulations because you are not familiar with them ( i.e. o Can you please explain? Are you concerned because your school will not have the resources to purchase this type of equipment? o Can yo u please explain? Are you concerned about using games and simulations because you i.e. you want lesson plans or examples)? o Can you please explain? 21) Which grade categories ( i.e. elementary, pre secondar y, secondary, post secondary) do you think would benefit the most from the addition of games and simulations in the curriculum? Can you please tell me more about why you think this? 22) Which learner levels ( i.e. low level learners, general learners, gif ted learners) do you think would benefit the most from the addition of games and simulations in the curriculum? Can you please explain? What about classes with mixed learner levels (two or more)?

PAGE 136

136 (Appendix A continued) 23) In your opinion, how would the following feel about having games and simulations added into the curriculum? Students Parents Teachers Administrators The majority of the community around your school 24) Think of someone who does NOT want games and simulations added into the curriculu m. Why do you think this person thinks this way? 25) Do you have any final comments or questions?

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX B SAMPLE INTERVIEW Interviewee: _________ AKW2 ___________ Date: ______ 03/02/2012 ________ Gender: Female Male Age: 0 25 26 35 36 45 46 5 5 56 65 >65 Ethnicity: Asian Black/African American Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino White/Caucasian Other: Highest Degree Earned: Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctorate What grade(s) do you currently teach? Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Post secondary Adult Education Other: Are your current students considered low level learners, general learners, or gifted learners? low level general gifted mixed two or more in the same classr oom What subject ( s ) do you currently teach? Elementary Language Arts Social Studies Science Math Computers Second Languages Music Fine Arts Health/Physical Education Other: On average, how many students do you have in a class? <10 10 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 >40 Do you currently use technology in your classes? yes no If so, can you explain a little of how you use this technology? My students have a website that is associated with their textbook that they have to watch spee ches on and answer questions. They are also assigned to watch certain TED videos and answer questions about them. They also take some online quizzes associated with the textbook website. And in addition I have my Angel website (LMS) and on Angel I als them to the 10 best graduation speeches in history or something like those. They also have the link to great American speeches and they watch some speeches in there plu s I I wish I did, but I

PAGE 138

138 (Appendix B continued) Do you play games for entertainment ? yes no If so, roughly how many hours per week do you play games ? 0 1 1 3 3 5 5 10 10 25 25 40 >40 What kind of games (i.e. computer, video, board, cards, etc) ? Mostly board games and card games. Do you play games for any reason other than entertainment ? yes no If so, can you share why ? Have you played a gaming system (i.e. Xbox Wii PlayStation )? yes no Do you or someone in your household own one ? yes no If yes, how frequently do you play ? Do you play computer games ( i.e. software and/or internet)? yes no If yes, how frequently do you p lay ? A couple times a month How do you think games could be useful for educational purposes? I use them some. I have my students play Jeopardy. I use it primarily as review before groups and their teams. I give them true or false ins and they have to help study for the test. The first team that answers all the questions correctly gets points towards their test. So I use it primarily as a review and to prepare they all have a good day when we do this. Do think games and simulations could be beneficial to your curriculum? yes no If so, do you think the benefits outweigh the costs ? Can you explain your thoughts? I think they would because I have a lot of students who are poor attention students, class the day before the test when you that they remembered. But, clearly they were engaged and they were not easy to engage. And I think it helps engage them. Do think it would be easy to try out a game or simulation in one of your le ssons? yes no Can you please explain? I think I could incorporate it fairly easily as long as it matched my content. And it could said that the true art of retent ion is attention, and if you never got their attention than retention is out of the question.

PAGE 139

139 (Appendix B continued) Have you seen a co worker or co workers successfully using games and simulations in their classes? yes no How frequently? Some of them showed me the Jeopardy game two or three. Do you think your administrators would support your use of a game and/or simulation? yes no Why or why not? the gr id, so to Do you think the school culture (i.e. class size, class periods, peer opinions) would support the addition of games and simulations? yes no Why or why not? class and since it is a performance class and they all have to give speeches, I am finding that I have less time and this is one of the things I do less because of it. Since I just read that the average attention span of a 16 year old is 8 seconds, then t he night class, which is 2.5 hours long is probably a little much. The hour and 15 minute classes would probably be better. So the night classes may be harder for attention, but may lend themselves to be better for gaming, just for a break, to get them b ack engaged again. What are your foremost concerns about adding a game or simulation into your curriculum? savvy. And the couple of times that I tried to mess with templat es you know if I could have somebody help me create them, the first time especially, I mean if you show me once I can get it. But just to give me instructions, some support in creating the initial template would be all I would need to administer the gam e. Are you concerned because, in your opinion, games and simulations are not appropriate for school ( i.e. strictly entertainment)? Can you please explain? No. They are not just for entertainment. Are you concerned because, in your opin ion, games and simulations are not appropriate for students ( i.e. may be bad ( i.e. behavior, health) or addictive for students)? Can you please elaborate? including my there are some kids, but I think they have some other issues than just playing Mortal Kombat when they were 7 or something.

PAGE 140

140 (Appendix B continued) Are you concerned about using games and simulations because you are not familiar with them ( i.e. Can you please explain? Yes I would need more training because I know there are a lot more games online Are you concer ned because your school will not have the resources to purchase this type of equipment? Why or why not? I usually get most things I want when it comes to resources as long as they deem it they would be too, too costly. Are you concerned about using games and simulations because you i.e. you want lesson plans or examples)? Can you please elaborate? I think I could figure it out, how to do that, as long as I was shown some of the different games you could play. I think I could figure where to put them in my lessons. Which grade categories (i.e. elementary, pre secondary, secondary, post secondary) do you think would benefit the most from the addition of games and simulations in the curriculum? Can you please tell me more about why you think this? would engage them more because the y are so dis engaged. When I go to observe they are like a bunch of zombies. Which learner levels (i.e. low level learners general learners gifted learners ) do you think would benefit the most from the addition of games and simulations in the curriculum? Can you please explain? More low and general. I think the gifted ones would figure it out and create their own ones. But they tend to find ways to engage themselves. Both the low and the general could use games. I think it would gain at tention, keep them involved, they like to win. And what do you think about classes with mixed learner levels (two or more)? course the next day, when I tell them you have 5 points extra credit, then they really liked it. So, I think if you make it rewarding for

PAGE 141

141 (Appendix B continued) In your opinion, how would the f ollowing feel about having games and simulations added into the curriculum? Students: Parents: I think it would be varying I think some would think we are trying to dummy things as not really involving education. Teachers: I think most teachers unengaged students have become. So, I think they would be ok with it. Administrators: I think that would be mixed also. If they see it as kind of a means to an end they could kind of be ok with it. I suspect some are going to think, you know old The majority of the community around your school: I think they would be mixed as well. I think their education level and their factor. If they knew a lot of Think of someone who does NOT want games and simulations added into the curriculum. Why do you think this person thinks this way? One person I chatted with about it. He said it was just one more gimmick to try to get kids to learn having an end goal of learning. not valid because you could be teaching those are or where the countries are or whatever. Instead of think that through this game they could learn where all t hese countries are because they are going to have to mark it on something here. doing something else of paper so why is anybody going games and going over the questions and it also forces them to study a little sooner because I do it the Wednesday before the next Monday so that way they also have some ideas of what they do k necessarily one or the other, which is what I think some of the people who object to it think. Final comment I know how busy you are, but I would like to know of s ome places I could go on the web to find some interesting games or templates or whatever.

PAGE 142

142 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW DATA Appendix C 1. Demographics, grade category and learner level of interviewees Interviewee Sex (F/M) Age Ethni city 1 High est Degree Grade Level 2 Learner Level 3 Class Size Suggested Grades Suggested Learners Mixed Classes AKW2 F 56 65 W M.S. Post M 26 30 High L & G 0 BJ5 F 56 65 W Ed.S. Adult M 21 25 Middle All 1, peer BS13 F 56 65 W M.S. Post M >40 All All 1, diff. CORL8 F 56 65 W B.S. High M, F 26 30 Middle, High All 0, peer DAO14 F 56 65 W M.S. Middle M 26 30 Elem All 0, peer DDKD24 M 46 55 W M.S. High M 21 25 All L 0, diff. JFL7 F 56 65 W Ed.S. Adult M 10 15 All All 0 JHKH7 F 56 65 W A.S. High M 26 30 All All 0, pe er JM11 F 46 55 W M.S. Adult G 10 15 High, Post All 0 JS4 F 26 35 B B.S. Post M 36 40 Elem All 0, diff. KJ10 F 56 65 W B.S. Adult M 16 20 All All 0, peer KK84 F 56 65 H B.S. Elem M 16 20 Elem, High L 0, peer LL7 F 56 65 W B.S. Middle M 21 25 Elem, Mid dle All 0 MA7 F 36 45 W M.S. Post M 16 20 Elem, Post L, G 0, peer MAM9 M 46 55 W M.S. Post G 16 20 All All 1, peer MJ3 F 36 45 H Ed.D. Post M 16 20 Middle L 0, peer MT69 F 46 55 W M.S. Post M 16 20 All L 0, diff. RCS16 F 26 35 W B.S. Middle M 21 25 El em, Middle G 1 SHC2 F 26 35 W B.S. Adult G 10 15 All All, L 0, diff. SPW5 M 26 35 W M.S. Adult G 10 15 Elem, High L 0, diff.

PAGE 143

143 Appendix C 2. Interviewee responses to Diffusion of Innovation questions Interviewee Perceived Value Compatibility Com plexity Trialability Observability AKW2 R,E,M 1 1 BJ5 E,LS,I,M 3, PB 3 3 0 BS13 N, R, M 2 2 2 2 CORL8 M, E, LS 1 1 1 1 DAO14 E, M, LS, V, RL 0 1 1 5 DDKD24 E, M, RC, LS 0 0 0 5 JFL7 E, M, LS, RL 1 1 1 2 JHKH7 R, E, M, LS 0 2 2 1 JM11 E, M 0 1 0 1 JS4 LS, E, M 2 2 2 1 KJ10 C, M, E, LS 0 1 0 2 KK84 E, M, SC 0 0 0 5 LL7 R, E, M, LS 3 3 3 1 MA7 PS, R, RL, E, M, LS, SC, PT 0 0 0 5 MAM9 PS, CT, M, E 3 3 3 0 MJ3 E, M 0 1 1 0 MT69 E, M, CT, PS, FC, LS 0 1 1 2 RCS16 R, E, M 1 1 1 5 SHC2 E, M, R 3 3 3 1 SPW5 E, M, R, RL, LS, C 2 2 2 2 Appendix C 3. Interviewee responses to potential school based barriers Interviewee Time to plan Class Size Class Period Student Skills Shift in Pedag. Admin. Support Peer Support Parent Support Comm. Support T Confid ence Experi ence Too much work for teacher Class Manage AKW2 3 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 BJ5 3 2 PB 2 0 1 0 0 0 BS13 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 CORL8 3 1 PB 0 2 1 2 3 3 DAO14 2 1 PB 3, PB 0 1 1 1 1 DDKD 24 3 0 PB 1 1 2 0 0 0 JFL7 0 PB 3 2 2 3 0 0 JHKH7 3 2 1 PB 0 0 1 1 3 3 PB JM11 3 1 PB 0 0 1 2 1 1 JS4 PB 0 0 PB 0 1 0 0 PB PB KJ10 1 0 0 PB 1 1 2 1 1, PB 1, PB KK84 0 0 1 1 1 1 3, PB LL7 * PB 1 1 0 0 * MA7 1 0 0 PB 1 0 1 2 0 0 MAM9 PB 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 * MJ3 0 0 PB 1 1 1 3 PB PB PB MT69 3 0 0 PB 0 2 1 1 0, PB 0, PB PB RCS16 1 * 3 1 0 2 2 SHC2 3 3 3 PB 3 3 2 2 * SPW5 1 1 PB 1 2 1 2 PB P B PB

PAGE 144

144 Appendix C 4. Interviewee responses to potential technology based barriers Interviewee Tech Training Quality/Cost of Equipment Tech support (teachers/ student) Tech Resistant AKW2 2 1 BJ5 0 3 3 BS13 1 2 CORL8 2, PB 3 D AO14 0 2 PB DDKD24 1 3, PB 3, PB PB JFL7 2 0 2 3, PB JHKH7 3 3 JM11 2 2 2 PB JS4 2 3 KJ10 1 1 KK84 0 0 LL7 2 0 MA7 1 1 MAM9 0 1 MJ3 1, PB 1 PB MT69 1, PB 0 PB RCS16 1 3 SHC2 3 3 PB SPW5 0 1 PB App endix C 5. Interviewee responses to potential game specific barriers Interviewee Games only Entertain Violence/ Addiction Time incompat ibility Balance of Enter. & Ed. Tracking Ability Available Lesson Plans Standards & Testing Gimmick/ Frivolous Time aw ay from lesson Term Disabled Students AKW2 0 0 PB 0 1, PB PB PB BJ5 0 0 3 0 3 PB BS13 0 0, PB 2 0 3 2 CORL8 0 0 0, PB PB DAO14 1, PB 0 PB 0 3, PB * DDKD24 0, PB 0 1 * JFL7 0 0 3 0 3 * JHKH7 0 0 2 * JM11 0 0 2 PB JS4 0 0 3 2 3 3 3 3 KJ10 0 0 1 1 PB KK84 0 0 0 PB 1 LL7 0 0 3 PB 3, PB MA7 0 0, PB 0 PB 2, PB MAM9 0 3 0 PB 2, PB 2, PB MJ3 0 0 0 PB PB MT69 0 0 0 * RCS16 0 1 2 1 3 PB 3, PB SHC2 0 1 3 3 3, PB PB 3 SPW5 0 0 2 2 3

PAGE 145

145 APPENDIX D SURVEY INSTRUMENT Informed Consent Protocol Title: Identifying the Barriers to Using Games and Simulations in Education: Creating a Valid and Reliable Survey Instrument Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to create a valid and reliable survey, using information from research and education practitioners ( i.e. instructors, teachers, professors), to determine why games and simulations are not more commonly used in formal education. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to complete an electronic survey. At the conclusion of the survey, your information will be submitted electronically. No personal data will be shared with anyone and will be removed from the data before it is analyzed (see the c onfidentiality section for more information). Time required: A maximum of 30 minutes Risks and Benefits: There is minimal risk since this survey is a standard electronic survey. You may not personally benefit from this survey. However, educators who wish to incorporate games and simulations in their curricula may find the results of this research beneficial to their cause. Compensation: There will be no compensation for participating in this research. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. To ensure your confidentiality, your name will not be tied to this information. Additionally, your name will not be used in any report or publication. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.

PAGE 146

146 Whom to contact if y ou have questions about the study: Jeannie Justice, University of Florida Graduate Student, PO Box 7863, Port St. Lucie, FL 34985, 772 341 1394. Albert Ritzhaupt, University of Florida Research Advisor, PhD, College of Education, 2423 Norman Hall, PO B ox 117048, Gainesville, Fl 32611, 352 273 4180. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. 1) By participating in this survey, you show your consent as a participant in the study described above. In other words, you are demonstrating that you have read the procedure described above and are voluntarily agreeing to participate in the procedure. (Please note if you wish, you may print this page to keep a copy of this document for your records.) If you choose NOT to participate, please exit this survey by clicking on the "Exit this survey" button at the top right corner of this page or by closing this website. If you choose to click next to begin the survey. 2) Gender Female Male 3) Age 0 20 21 30 31 40 41 50 51 60 61 65 Older than 65 4) Ethnicity (please check all that apply) Asian Black/African American Haw aiian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino/Caribbean Islander White/Caucasian Native American Other

PAGE 147

147 5) Highest Degree Earned Associates Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctorate Other (please specify) 6) What grade category do you currently teach? Elementary Mi ddle School High School Post secondary (i.e. college, university, technical) Adult Education ( i.e. ABE/GED, ESL/ESOL, Adult High School) Other (please specify) 7) How do you use technology in your curriculum? Please check all that apply. Electronic prese ntations ( i.e. PowerPoint Prezi SlideRocket and so on) Digital Programs included with textbooks District programs ( i.e. Discovery Education Standardized Test Prep programs, and so on) Learning/Course Management Systems ( i.e. BlackBoard Angel We bCT and so on) Mobile Digital Devices Internet Searches/Research Internet/Specific Websites Electronic meeting place ( i.e. Elluminate Wimba and so on) Gaming Platforms ( i.e. Wii Xbox PlayStation and so on) Computer games/simulations ( i.e. softwa re, internet, mobile application) Teacher created digital media for lesson Students create digital media Other (please explain) 8) How often do you play games (board, card, Internet, software, gaming platform, mobile application, etc.)? Please check the box next to the number of hours per week you play games. 0 hours per week 0 2 hours per week 2 5 hours per week 5 10 hours per week 10 25 hours per week More than 25 hours per week 9) How do you think games or simulations could be useful for educational p urposes? Please check all that apply.

PAGE 148

148 Games are NOT useful for education Review of material Motivating & engaging students Applying learning styles & varied learning Immediate feedback & self correction Building hand eye coordination Problem solving and c ritical thinking Differentiated (personalized) learning Peer learning opportunities Pre test for current skills to assign lessons Post test for learned skills Foster good natured competition among students Approximate real life situations As a reward for s tudents Other (please explain) 10) In general, how compatible (complimentary/well suited) are educational games and simulations with your own teaching practices? Not at all compatible Somewhat compatible Mostly compatible 11) In general, are educational games or simulations too complex (challenging/time consuming) for your students to learn the intended lesson? Too complex Somewhat complex Not at all complex 12) In general, how easy do you think it would be to experiment with an educational game or simul ation for one of your lessons? Not at all easy Somewhat easy Mostly easy 13) How many co workers have you seen using games or simulations in their classroom, teaching practices, curriculum, or lesson plans? Many Some Very Few None 14) Which grade categor y (s) do you think would benefit from the addition of educational games and simulations? Please check all that apply. None Elementary Middle School

PAGE 149

149 High School Post secondary (i.e. college, university, technical) Adult Education (i.e. ABE/GED, ESL/ESOL, Ad ult High School) Other (please explain) 15) What learner level(s) do you think would benefit from the addition of educational games and simulations? Please check all that apply. None Low level learners General (intermediate) learners Gifted (high level) learners Mixed learners (two or more groups combined in one class) Other (please explain) 16) Please rate each potential barrier according to your opinion of how much the item may be an obstacle to your use of educational games and simulations in your cl assroom, teaching practices, lesson plans, or curriculum. In other words, how much does each of these potential barriers prevent you from using games and simulations? Scale: 0 (not a barrier), 1, 2 (Somewhat a barrier), 3, 4 (Definitely a barrier) 1) La ck of time (i.e. find a game or simulation, learn the game or simulation, incorporate a game or simulation into the lesson) 2) Lack of games and simulations for disabled students (i.e. access, equipment, game/simulation options) 3) Lack of games and simu lations with a good balance between education and entertainment (i.e. game/simulation is entertaining but with little learning, or it has enough learning but has little entertainment) 4) Complexity (too difficult) of games and simulations for my students 5) Simplicity (too easy) of games and simulations for my students 6) Lack of customizability or adaptability in a game or simulation (i.e. inability to modify game/simulation subjects, goals, or objectives) 7) Lack of the ability to track and/or assess student progress within a game/simulation 8) Lack of knowledge about how to use games and simulations appropriately

PAGE 150

150 9) The opinion that games and simulations cause problems with classroom management and/or in class student behavior 10) The perception th at games may cause student behavioral problems ( i.e. violence or aggression) 11) The perception that games may cause student obsession or addiction 12) The concern that students will not learn the intended lesson using the game/simulation 13) The opinio n that students learn more from a teacher than from a game or simulation 14) The opinion that other learning strategies are more effective than using games or simulations 15) Lack of games/simulations that are aligned to state standards or standardized t esting 16) Lack of examples and available lesson plans using games and simulations 17) 18) Lack of evidence to support the use of games and simulations in edu cation 19) Lack of parental and/or community support for the use of games and simulations in classrooms/lessons 20) Lack of your own motivation to use games and simulations in lessons 21) Lack of student motivation to use games and simulations in lesson s (i.e. students do not seem interested in games/simulations) 22) Varying student abilities (i.e. technology skills, learning ability) 23) Lack of clear expectations, by administrators, for teacher usage 24) Cost/expense of games/simulations/equipment 25) Inability to try a game or simulation before purchase 26) Lack of access to games and simulations outside of school

PAGE 151

151 27) Lack of technical support (for teachers and/or students) 28) Lack of technology reliability 29) Lack of my own technology abilit ies 30) Lack of administrative support 31) Length of class period 32) Class size 17) Are there any barriers missing from the list on the previous page? In other words, is there something not previously listed that is preventing you from using educat ional games and simulations in your lessons, curriculum, teaching practices, or classroom? 18) Do you have any general comments or concerns about this survey and/or study?

PAGE 152

152 APPENDIX E PATTERN MATRIX Pattern Matrix a Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Barrier1 .199 .009 .326 .383 .072 .110 .185 Barrier2 .320 .415 .274 .146 .405 .162 .083 Barrier3 .102 .076 .693 .107 .070 .057 .147 Barrier4 .017 .092 .308 .106 .150 .581 .271 Barrier5 .165 .094 .846 .170 .062 .100 .026 Barrier6 .052 .019 .857 .031 .028 .035 .097 Barrier7 .170 .038 .617 .085 .124 .036 .079 Barrier8 .145 .056 .068 .778 .059 .013 .005 Barrier9 .832 .096 .039 .075 .064 .033 .058 Barrier10 .916 .020 .059 .005 .065 .039 .047 Barrier11 .859 .012 .022 .073 .062 .14 3 .008 Barrier12 .651 .034 .155 .096 .157 .003 .018 Barrier13 .810 .017 .012 .010 .227 .239 .049 Barrier14 .756 .012 .026 .107 .185 .108 .009 Barrier15 .009 .210 .225 .459 .027 .104 .128 Barrier16 .049 .067 .282 .615 .109 .113 .162 Barrie r17 .362 .006 .042 .185 .507 .011 .133 Barrier18 .160 .068 .050 .136 .662 .059 .046 Barrier19 .268 .007 .013 .035 .670 .099 .030 Barrier20 .026 .034 .242 .647 .072 .133 .541 Barrier21 .079 .005 .038 .116 .050 .029 .842 Barrier22 .006 .0 72 .216 .026 .168 .144 .673 Barrier23 .028 .131 .026 .114 .710 .058 .201 Barrier24 .048 .747 .150 .115 .204 .236 .021 Barrier25 .149 .589 .239 .000 .246 .202 .131 Barrier26 .023 .750 .104 .122 .068 .124 .004 Barrier27 .055 .754 .128 .295 001 .051 .132 Barrier28 .046 .614 .105 .045 .124 .149 .080 Barrier29 .076 .206 .258 .724 .321 .084 .229 Barrier30 .054 .281 .159 .359 .722 .175 .094 Barrier31 .035 .037 .161 .004 .257 .892 .015 Barrier32 .026 .032 .114 .025 .121 .898 .043 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

PAGE 153

153 LIST OF REFERENCES Aarsand, P. (2007). Computer and video games in family life: The digital divide as a reso urce in intergenerational interactions. Childhood 14(2), 235 256. literature. Gender and Education, 20, 153 165. Adams, M. (2009). Engaging 21 st century adolescents: V ideo games in the reading classroom. English Journal 98(6), 56 59. Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: a comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e learning and other educational experiences. Pfeiffer San Francisco Ameri can Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME). (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Angelone, L. (2010). Commercial video games in the science classroom. Science Scope 33(6), 45. Annetta., L. (2008). Video games in education: Why they should be used and how they are being used. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 229 239. Annetta, L., Mangrum J., Holmes, S., Collazo, K., & Meng Tzu, C. (2009). Bridging realty to virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learning through video game play in an elementary school classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1091 1113. Arrindell, W. A., & Van der Ende, J. (1985). Cross sample invariance of the structure of self reported distress and difficulty in assertiveness. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 7 205 243. Baek, Y. K. (2008). What hinders tea chers in using computer and video games in the classroom? Exploring factors inhibiting the uptakes of computer and video games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 665 671. Beatty, Paul. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In Methods for Testin g and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires ed. S. Presser, J. Rothgeb, M. Couper, J. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Marting, & E. Singer. Wiley New York Becker, K., & Jacobsen, D. (2005). Games for learning: A come? Proceedings of DI GRA 2005 Conference

PAGE 154

154 & Alexander, S. (2009). The perception of gaming in higher education. 2009 Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball Sampling: Problems and techniques of Chain Referral Sampling. Sociological methods and Research 10(2), 141 163. Boyle, E., Connolly, T., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. (2012). Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2012), 771 780. Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., de Wever, B., & Schellens, T. (2011). Parental acceptance of digital game based learning. Computers & Education, 57(2011) 1434 1444. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Educati on: Literacy, Learning, and Contemporary Culture. Polity Press/Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge and Malden, MA. Cameron, B., & Dwyer, F. (2005). The effect of online gaming, cognition and feedback type in facilitating delayed achievement of different learning objectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 16(3), 243 258. Charsky, D., & Mims C. (2008). Integrating commercial off the shelf video games into school curriculums. TechTrends, 52(5), 38 44. Chen, H. P., Lien, C. J., Annetta, L., & Lu, Y. L. (2010). The influence of an educational Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 94 105. Chioncel, N. E., Van Der Veen, R. G. W., Wildemeersch, D., & Jarvis, P. (2003). The validity and reliability of focus groups as a research method in adult education. International Journal of Lifelong Education 22(5), 495 517. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445 459. Cockburn, C. (1992). The circuit of technolog y: Gender, identity and power. In Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces ed. R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch. Routledge, London. Coller, B., & Scott, M. (2009). Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a course in mechanical engi neering. Computers & Education 53(2009), 900 912. Cox, R. (2003). Community college teaching: T he view from inside the classroom. ERIC C learinghouse for Community Colleges ( EDO JC 03 07)

PAGE 155

155 D e Aguilera, M., & Mendiz, A. (2003). Video games and education. ACM Computers in Entertainment 1(1), 1 14. Dede, C., Nelson, B., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2004). Design based research on gender, class, race, and ethnicity in a multi user virtual environment Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association San Diego, CA. Egenfeldt Nielsen, S. (2004). Practical barriers in using educational computer games. On the Horizon 12(1), 18 21. Egenfeldt Nielsen, S. (2010). The challenges to diffusion of education computer games. Proceedings of ECGBL 2010, The 4 t h European Conference on Games Based learning, Copenhagen, Denmark Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing First and Second Order Barriers to Change: Strategies for Technology Integration. Educational Technology Research and Development 47(4), 1042 1629. Ferdig R., & Boyer, J. (2007). Can game development impact academic achievement? Retrieved February 23, 2009 from http://thejournal.com/artic les/2007/10/25/can game development impact academic achievement.aspx?sc_lang=en Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Gee, J., & Educatio n Week 202774232, 9/17/2008, 8(4) Germann, P., & Sasse., C. (1997). Variations in concerns and attitudes of science teachers in an educational technology development program. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science 16(2 3), 405 423. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems 12(4), 436 445. Grant, J., & Davis, L. (1997). Focus on quantitative methods : Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Heal th 20, 269 274. Greenberg, B., Sherry, J., Lachlan, K., Lucas, K., & Holmstrom, A. (20 10 ). Orientations to video games among gender and age groups. Simulations & Gaming, 41(2), 238 259. Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T., Thompson, D., & Tomes, R. (2011 ). Using computer games for instruction: The student experience. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 45 56.

PAGE 156

156 Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103 265 2 75. Hainey T., Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., & Boyle, E. (2011). The differences in motivations of online game players and offline game players: A combined analysis of three studies at higher education level. Computers & Education, 57(2011), 2197 2211. Halverson, R. (2005). What can K 12 school leaders learn from video games and gaming? Innovate 1(6). Retrieved February 26, 2009 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=ar ticle&id=81 Hamlen, K. (2010). Re examining gender differences in video game play: Time spent and feelings of success. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3), 293 308. Jackson, J. (2009). Game based teaching: What educators can learn from vide ogames. Teaching Education, 20(3), 291 304. Jensen., J., & De Castell S. (2010). Gender, simulation, and gaming: Research review and redirections. Simulation Gaming, 41(1), 51 71. Johanson, G., & Brooks, G. (2010). Initial scale development: Sample siz e for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement 70(3), 394 400 Joiner, R., Iacovides, J., Owen, M., Gavin, C., Clibbery, S., Darling, J., & Drew, B. (2011). Digital games, gender and learning in engineering: Do females benefit as much as m ales? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 178 185. Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995). Consensus methods for medical and health services research. B ritish M edical J ournal 311, 376 80. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psch ometrika, 39 31 36. Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: engaged learning from gameplay? Computers & Education 51(4), 1609 1620. Ke, F., & Grabowski, B. (2007). Gameplaying for maths learning: cooperative or not? British Journal of Educational Technology 38(2), 249 259. games: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(2), 256 270.

PAGE 157

157 Kebritchi, M. & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the p edagogical foundations of modern educational computer games to inform research and practice. Computers & Education 51(4), 1729 1743. Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of video games in the classroom. Journal of Interactive Learni ng Research 22(2), 259 276. Kenny, R., & assessments of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 197 21 3. Kerlinger, F. (1974). Foundations of behavioural research Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York Kiili, K. (2005). Educational game design: experiential gaming model revised. Tampere University of Technology. Pori, Research report 4, 1 12. Retrieved 22 May 2009 at http://amc.pori.tut.fi/publications/EducationalGameDesign.pdf King, A. (1993). From Sage on the S tage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching 41 ( 1 ), 30 35. King, K. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education 39(3), 283 297. Koh, E., Kin, Y., Wadhwa, B., & Lim, J. (2011). Teacher Perceptions of Games in Singapore Schools. Retrieved on July 1, 2011 from http://sag.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/04/28/1046878111401839 Kotrlik, J., & in instruc tion in seven career and technical education programs. Career and Technical Education Research 34(1), 47 77. Lee., J., & Hoadley, C. (2007). Leveraging identity to make learning fun: Possible selves and experiential learning in massively multiplayer onl ine games (MMOGs). Innovate, 3(6), 1 7. Lim, C. (2008). Global citizenship education, school curriculum, and games: Learning mathematics English and science as a global citizen. Computers & Education, 51(2008), 1073 1093. Lim, C., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology 37(2), 211 231. Lowrie, T., & playing. Comput ers & Education, 57(2011), 2244 2248.

PAGE 158

158 Mann, C. (1994). New technologies and gifted education. Roeper Review 16(3), 172 176. Niederhauser D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and T eacher Education, 17 (1), 15 31. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill, New York. Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2004(8), 1 18. Padilla Walker, L., Nelson, L ., Carroll, J., & Jensen, A. (2010). More than just a game: Video game and internet use during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39, 103 110. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game based learning in high school computer science educatio n: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education 52(2009), 1 12. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game Based Learning McGraw Hill, New York. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nu trition Society 63, 655 660. Randel, J., Morris, B., Wetzel, C. D., and Whitehill, B. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: a review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming 23(3), 261 276. Redmann, D., & Kotrlik, J. (2009). Famil technology in secondary classrooms. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education 27(1), 29 45. Reese, D. (2007). First steps and beyond: serious games as preparation for future learning. Journal of Educa tional Multimedia and Hypermedia 16(3), 283 300. Rice, J. (2007). New media resistance: barriers to implementation of computer video games in the classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 16(3), 249 261. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriousl y considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development 44(2), 43 58

PAGE 159

159 Ritzhaupt, A., Gunter, G., & Jones, G. (2010). Survey of commercial off the shelf video games: benefits and barriers in formal educational settings. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance L earning 7, 45 55. Roberts, D., & Foehr, U. (2008). Trends in media use. The Future of Children, 18(1), 11 37. Robertson, J. (20 12). Making games in the classro om: Benefits and gender concerns. Computers & Education, 59(2012), 385 398. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5 th edition Free Press, New York. Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marian ov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., Grau, V., Lagos, F., Lopez, X., Lopez, V., Rodriguez, P., & Salinas, M. (2003). Be y ond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education 40(2003), 71 94. Royle, K., & Colfer, S. (2010). Computer games and learning W here next? The b readth and scope of the use of computer games in e ducation CeDARE: University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK Russell, C., & Shepherd, J. (2010). Online role play environments for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(6) 992 1002. Sabin, P. (2011). The benefits and limits of computerization in conflict simulation. Literary and Linguistic Computing Advance Access. Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M., Facer, K., & Rudd, T. (2006). Teaching with g ames: Using commercial off the shelf computer games in formal education Bristol, UK: Futurelab. Schrader, P., Zheng, D., & MMO Gs and the future of preservice teacher education. Innovate, 2(3), 1 6. Schrum, L., Burbank, M., Engle, J., Chambers, J., & Glassett, K. (2005). Post approach to enhancing teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education 8(4), 279 289. Shafer, K., & Lohse, B. (20 06 ). How to conduct a cognitive interview: A nutrition education example. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from http://www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/food/pdfs/cog_interview.pdf Shaffer, D. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate 1(6). Retrieved February 18, 2009 from http:www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=79

PAGE 160

160 Shaffer, D. (2006). How Computer Games Help Children Learn New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Shaffer, D., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. (20 05). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan 87(2), 104 111. Simpson, E., & Stansberry, S. (2008). Video games and teacher development: bridging the gap in the classroom. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Informat ion Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 5326 5331). Chesapeake, VA: AACE Sliney & Murphy, D. (2009). Do the benefits of educational games and virtual patient finally outweigh the drawbacks? Eurographics Ir eland 2009 Retrieved on July 1, 2011 from http://gv2.cs.tcd.ie/egirl09/papers/05.pdf Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 37(1) 65 82. Squire, K. 2005. Changing the game: what happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovative: Journal of Online Education Retrieved 14 July 2009 at http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=82 Squire, K. 2006. From content to context: videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher 35(8), 19 29. Straub, E. (2009). Understanding technology adopt ion: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), 625 649. Simulation & Gaming 35(2), 208 241. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up Digital: The Rise of t he Net Generation. McGraw Hill, New York. Taylor, T. (2008). Video game play and receptivity to using virtual worlds for language learning ( Thesis George Mason University ) Torrente, J., D el Blanco, A., Marchiori, E., Moreno Ger, P., & Fernandez Manjon, B. (2010). Introducing education games in the learning process. IEEE Educon Education Engineering 2010, April 14 16, 2010, Madrid, Spain Torrente, J., Moreno Ger, P., Martinez Ortiz, I., & Fernandez Manjon, B. (2009). Integration and deployment of educa tional games in e learning environments: the learning object model meets educational gaming. Educational Technology & Society 12(4), 359 371.

PAGE 161

161 Van Someren, M., Barnard, Y., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cog nitive Processes London: Academic Press Villalata, M., Gajardo, I., Nussbaum, M., Andreu, J., Echeverria, A., & Plass, J. (2011). Design guidelines for classroom multiplayer presential games. Computers & Education 57(3), 2039 2053. Virvou, M., Katsioni s, G., & Manos, K. (2005). Combining software games with education: evaluation of its educational effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society 8(2), 54 65. Vogt, D. S., King, D. W., & King, L. A. (2004). Focus groups in psychological assessment: Enhan cing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment 16(3), 231 243. Vos, L., & Brennan, R. (2010). Marketing simulation games: student and lecturer perspectives. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28(7), 882 897 Wexler, S., Aldrich, C., Johannigman, J., Oehlert, M., Quinn, C., & V an B arneveld, A. (2007). Immersive l e arning simulations: The demand for, and demands of, simulations, scenarios, and serious g ames. The eLearning Guild Retrieved from http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=121&action=view only Wilson, B. (2006). Gender differences in types of assignments preferred: Implications for compu ter science instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 245 255. Winberg, T., & Hedman, L. (2008). Student attitudes toward learning, level of pre knowledge and instruction type in a computer simulation: Effects on flow experiences and perceived learning outcomes. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning Sciences 36(4), 269 87. Yip, F., & Kwan, A. (2006). Online vocabulary games as a tool for teaching and learning English vocabulary. Educational Media International 43(3), 233 249.

PAGE 162

162 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lenora Jean (Jeannie) Justice obtained her B.S. and M.S. in b iology from Georgia Southern University She also obtained a M.S. in w ildlife e cology and c onservation from the University of Florida. Jeannie taught pu blic high school science for almost seven year s before beginning a career in Adult E ducation, teaching adult high school and ABE/GED classes. Since the beginning of her career in education, she has also held an adjunct faculty position, teaching science a t the college level. Although she has never given up her love of the environment, at conferences, meetings, and symposiums she speaks passionately to educators about using games and simulations in education.