Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
in learning. According to Whitton, when people
who play computer games as recreational activities
were compared with those who use the games as
instructional devices, no relationship exists in their
learning outcome “(X 2 =6.482,df=4,p=0.166)” (p.
1066). Whitton concludes that:
Whitton (2007) argue that computer game is per-
ceived as a “hot topic in education” (p. 163). The
justification for using computer games as learning
tools is based on the assumption that such games
will provide intrinsic motivation for individuals
to learn (McFarlane et al (2002), Becker, (2001)
and Alessi and Trollip (2001). Available scientific
evidence which supports the use of computer
games to motivate learning is inconclusive to say
the least. Disproportionate amount of the existing
literature suggests that computer games may not
necessarily motivate students to learn. Linderoth,
Jones, Lantz-Anderson and Berner-Lindstrom
(2002) have summed up the argument for and
against the use of computer game as learning
device thus: “many have strong beliefs that the
use of computer games can contribute to different
aspects of children's development. On the other
hand, there is an even stronger anxiety that com-
puter games have negative social and cognitive
effects on children” (p. 1).
Whitton observes that games may be moti-
vational but may not possess effective learning
strategy. Whitton has also criticized advocates of
games as learning strategies because they do not
consider those people who do not view computer
games as motivational and that players' choices of
games may not be homogenous. Knowles (1998)
argues that motivation derived from games may
be considered incidental and as a result may not
sustain learning. Whitton interviewed 12 partici-
pants; six are computer game players and six do
not play computer games. Whitton found that the
dominant reasons of those who play game are for
mental and physical challenge as well as for the
purpose of social experience. Among the non-
game players, the dominant reasons for playing
computer games are to combat boredom and for
social interactions. None of these two groups con-
sider computer games as motivation for engaging
the findings indicate that a large proportion of the
students who took part in the study do not find
games motivational at all, and that there is no
evidence of a relationship between an individual's
motivation to play games recreationally and his or
her motivation to use games for learning. These
findings indicate that employing games for their
motivational benefits alone is not justification for
their use. (p. 1).
Fortugn and Zimmerman (2005) believe that
the use of computer games as learning tools is
problematic. The argument is that using computer
games for learning requires substantial computer
game playing experience; unfortunately, pro-
fessional educators and scholars have limited
knowledge about the design and development
of computer games. Fortugn and Zimmerman
maintain that educators fail to recognize that
game making is a difficulty activity. Kordaki
(2004) warns that even those educators with high
technical expertise and familiarity with software
design, it is difficult to evaluate game software
for appropriateness and suitability for educational
use. Choi, Kim and Kim (1999) observe that it
is a problem distinguishing what makes a game
to be a fun activity between game developers
and game players. This is important because the
fundamental value of any game is to provide fun
to players. If players do not enjoy a game, its
educational goal becomes questionable because
they will not play it. The first condition any game
must satisfy is to induce fun among players before
its educational value can be evaluated. Repenning
and Ioannidou (2005) argue that the engineering
methodologies derived from software engineering
are not suitable for teaching and learning in K-12
Search Nedrilad ::

Custom Search