A Literature Review: The Use of Mobile Games in Higher Education

byEric HoffmanEDD 8008

Principles of Instructional Technology

Nova Southeastern UniversityMay 13, 2013

2

A Literature Review: The Use of Mobile Games in Higher Education

“There is a disconnection between schools and student

needs” (Ghamrawi & Shal, 2012, p. 921). While this has probably

always been the case, the discrepancy is probably greater than at

any point in history, with global impacts. “(Learner use of

mobile) technology is growing very fast, in importance, in every

aspect of society; however, schools are not getting able to cope

with this augmentation” (Ghamrawi & Shal, 2012, p. 921). This

review examines the use of games in a mobile technology context,

to provide instruction to help students learn, using highly

ubiquitous mobile technology.

This review examines educational games in higher education

from three perspectives, 1) affordances and attributes of games

used in game-based learning (GBL), 2) teaching using game-based

learning, and 3) traditional college-age students (18-22)

learning with game-based learning. This will be followed by an

examination of the affordances and implications mobile game-based

learning.

Methodology

Topic Selection and Broad Scan of the Literature

3

The broad scan of the literature was done using chapters

from two separate handbooks, one from instructional technology

(Gredler, 2004), and another from the study of gaming and

simulations (Farmer, 2010). Further examination of the literature

was accomplished by this author’s earlier investigation into

games (Hoffman, 2011) and his experiences at professional

education conferences. This broad scan provided most of the

definitions that were used as search terms to refine results in

the narrow scan. Early in the process, a university reference

librarian was consulted for advice, resulting in locating and

procuring the e-book chapter (Farmer, 2010) used in the broad

scan.

Topic Focus and Narrow Scan of the Literature

The topic of gaming in education is rapidly evolving, and

many of the references in the broad scan may be outdated,

although their foci may be helpful to investigate the topic. More

recent comparable and complimentary studies were investigated, to

accurately assess current trends and reflect recent technological

developments and learner behaviors. This was done by

investigating citations of the original sources by Google Scholar

4

(Google, n.d.) and through searches in databases, including ERIC,

ProQuest, EBSCO Host, Gale, and others. Subsequent winnowing of

these updated sources limited results to scholarly results since

2011, using Boolean combination searches for such phrases as

“mobile gaming,” “education, “adult learning,” “engaging

students,” and others. To ensure that earlier landmark studies

were not overlooked, these updated sources were examined for

significant definitive studies that preceded them, and these were

added as deemed appropriate. Aside from the consideration of

recency, sources were evaluated based on significance to the

field, and examination of important but understudied areas, such

as teachers’ attitudes toward teaching with mobile devices.

Based on reading content from material in the narrow scan,

the topic was refined because of the increase in focus on the

role of games in education, combined with the strong increase of

casual mobile game playing with social media components by

learners, and the possibilities for expansion of educational

games to take advantage of this motivation.

These topics are worthy of investigation, as educators are

increasingly examining the application of games in education,

5

seeking to leverage mobile platforms, workplace gaming, and

constructivist instructional design in adult education (Farmer,

2010, p. 701). The application of games with in the first year

studies milieu is significant, as administrators attempt to

retain these first year students, to maximize their return on

admissions efforts.

Key Terms And Definitions

Activity Theory: A theory that posits a relationship between a subject (person) and an object, with mediational means (Farmer, 2010, p. 706).

Agency: The relationship between a gamer and the construction of personalized meanings through active experience of playing a game (Sicart, Alves, as cited in Kwah, 2012, p. 958)

Casual Games: Games used to relax, socialize, or achieve goals or challenges, and are seldom violent(Farmer, 2010, p. 692).

Digital Immigrant: A person born before 1981 (Prensky, 2001a).

Digital Native: A person born after 1980 (Prensky, 2001a).

E-games: Electronic games, using video, computer, console, etc. (Farmer, 2010, p. 706).

Educational Games: Games with outcomes specific to behavior change or knowledge change designed to outlivethe gaming experience (Chamberlin, Trespalacios, & Gallagher, 2012, p. 108).

Engagement: Complete concentration and focus, immersion, and emotional captivation in an activity(Whitton, 2010, p. 199).

Game: A competitive exercises in which the objective isto win and players must apply subject matter or other

6

relevant knowledge in an effort to advance in the exercise and win (Gredler, 2004, p. 571).

Game-Based Learning: a form of learner-centered learning that uses electronic games (e-games) for educational purposes (Tan, Johnston-Wilder, & Neill as cited in Tan, Neill, & Johnston-Wilder, 2012, p. 1).

Gamer: Devoted player of electronic games (Farmer, 2010, p. 706).

Gamification: The process of game-thinking and game mechanics to engage users and solve problems(Zichermann, as cited in Kim, 2012, p. 465).

Immersive Education: Education that involves all the senses within a total submersion within the learning environment (Farmer, 2010, p. 706).

Mobile Technology: Devices that are relatively inexpensive, offering ubiquitous computing, affording supporting collaborative and individualized independentlearning (Savill-Smith & Kent, as cited in Demirbilek, 2010, p. 237).

Mobile Learning (M-Learning): Learning that incorporates mobile devices such as cell phones and personal digital assistants (Farmer, 2010, p. 706).

Reflection: The process of learning from experience, either built into the learning experience, or through aprocess of instructor-led debriefing (Prensky, 2001b, p. 5)

Role-Playing Games (RPG): Games in which the participants assume the roles of characters (Farmer, 2010, p. 706).

Serious Games: Games designed for a primary purpose other than entertainment (Farmer, 2010, p. 706).

Simulations: an evolving case study of a particular social or physical reality in which the participants take on bona fide roles with well-defined responsibilities and constraints (Gredler, 2004, p. 571).

Social Media: A group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technical foundationsof Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of

7

user-generated content (Gredler, 2004, p. 571) Virtual Worlds: Computer-based simulated environments

where users interact via avatars (Kaplan & Haenlein, ascited in Ghamrawi & Shal, 2012, p. 922).

Affordances and Attributes of Games Used in Game-Based Learning

With its expectations of engagement outside the classroom

and interaction with others, the use of educational games can be

considered a high-impact practice (Kuh, Schneider, & Association

of American Colleges and Universities, 2008), and can cause

"gains in student interest, motivation, and retention," according

to Parise and Crosina (2012, n.p.). Parise and Crosina note the

benefit afforded by multiplayer games, "Working in teams within

social game environments also reflects the increasing emphasis on

virtual work structures in higher education and in organizations"

(n.p.). Although such promised gains may be attractive to

administrators and other stakeholders, they come with numerous

costs, in terms of organizational change, required support, and

philosophical adjustments toward such non-traditional endeavors.

Games offer certain advantages not typically found in

instruction, according to Parise and Crosina (2012, n.p.). One

such tool is cognitive disequilibrium: “Playing games is a

8

cyclical process of formulating hypothesis, testing, and revision

…. the process where the learner readjusts her expectations in

light of new information. Game feedback is instantaneous.” Kee,

Graham, Dunae, Lutz, Large, Blondeau, and Clare (2009) note Van

Eck’s statement, “Games thrive as teaching tools when they create

a continuous cycle of cognitive disequilibrium and resolution . .

. while also allowing the player to be successful” (p. 310).

Theoretical Bases

Koohang, Riley, Smith, and Schreurs (2009) describe game-

based learning as constructivist, and discuss and provide

examples of appropriate learning activities that support the use

of this model. Farmer (2010) notes gaming as a learning mechanism

is usually associated with activity theory, and may incorporate

Vygotsky's and Luria's concept of the Zone of Proximal

Development, Piaget's Social Constructivist Philosophy, Situated

Learning Theory espoused by Lave and Wenger, and Kolb's

Experiential Learning Theory. This is echoed by Rooney (2012),

who also provides “a triadic theoretical framework for serious

game design comprising play, pedagogy and fidelity” (p. 42).

Quick, Atkinson, and Lin (2012) created a taxonomy, and

9

investigated it with LeBlanc's Mechanics, Dynamics, and Affects

taxonomy as part of a survey for studying game preferences in

conjunction with game-playing habits and personality, to examine

design of educational games. While not yet well-validated, such

empirical tools can ultimately provide helpful insight into

educational games, and their variants.

Problem-Based Learning

Koohang et al. (2009) noted “The design of activities

normally begins with presenting a real-world situation,” (p. 95),

and Kee et al. (2009) note that games are “effective at

problematizing knowledge,” (p. 310). This problem-based learning

is a form of experiential learning, demanding a constructivist

approach. Rooney (2012) notes the importance of creating an

authentic learning environment, and that “many complex digital

games provide …. an authentic and engaging environment in which

to develop critical 21st century skills such as problem-solving,

decision-making, and collaborative/social skills” (p. 43). Royle

(2008) states that believability is more important than

authenticity for games; this concept could be extrapolated to

problem-based learning in general. He describes three main

10

features required of engaging games 1). structure of the story

2). the narrative and 3). believable characterization, and notes

them to be the same elements useful for designing problem-based

learning.

Because problem-based learning is inherently situated

learning, Rooney (2012) notes a major concern with problem-based

learning is one of learning transfer, whether a learner can

transfer knowledge from one problem-based learning scenario to a

different context. However, he notes different factors that can

affect transference. “Developing critical skills such as problem

solving, critical thinking, and decision making …. (as well as)

reflecting on the potential for transfer during the learning

process" (p. 44) can enhance the likelihood of transference.

Control over these factors are within the grasp of the

instructor, so long as it is designed as part of the instruction,

although assessment of reflection may not be part of an

instructor’s bailiwick, especially within a technical discipline.

Game Design

Learner reflection should be included in the instructional

design, hence the game design, if possible. Prensky (2001b)

11

states that a key area that has been lost by the Digital Natives

is the ability to reflect, requiring designers to "invent ways to

include reflection and critical thinking in the learning" (p. 5).

Kwah (2012) comments on the negative aspects incorporation of

commercial games without considering their contexts, with

violence, sexism, and stereotypes presented as part of the

background. She states that facilitation of students’ capacities

for critical reflection must be built into the

curriculum/syllabus/lesson plan, if such games will be used, or

else the games may actually have a negative impact on some

learners.

Extrinsic achievement systems are “not only a deeply rooted

piece of game design, but for many players have become vital,

valued goals" (Evans, Jennings, & Andreen, 2011, p. 21), in

addition to the terminal objective of a game, whether it is a

“win” for a casual game or successful learning, given an

educational game. They note “achievements are inextricably tied

to game mechanics, and the best of them both complement gameplay

and bolster the acquisition of skills, which makes them an ideal

system for assessment in educational games" (p. 22). Their series

12

of matrices compares game achievement types with motivation and

learning outcomes, as well as learning domains associated with

the types of achievements, a useful tool for any educational game

designer.

While a detailed examination of designing a game is beyond

the scope of this review, an important consideration is the

design of the learner locus of control. Squire (2006) notes that

good game design involves creating the parameters for the

experience, instead of the experience itself. Otherwise, the

“game” becomes less interactive, and just a story. Squire notes a

fellow experienced game designer warning the novice, "Our desire

to create traditional narrative and exercise authorial control

over the gaming world often inhibits the players' ability to

involve themselves in the game world" (p. 21), and should be

avoided.

Assessment

The constructivist nature of game-based learning may be

problematic in designing assessment. Kee et al. (2009) caution

that “Assessment of games must be approached cautiously, because

the ‘higher-order knowledge and skills [learned in games] are

13

typically not revealed by tests of facts, or standards of

learning-types of examinations …. the assessment is designed to

measure something other than what the game is designed to teach”

(p. 323).

The learner-centered e-learning model proposed by Koohang et

al. (2009) proposes three learning assessment elements 1). self-

assessment via reflection, 2). team assessment, and 3).

facilitator’s assessment, providing learners with three levels of

structured assessment, at intervals provided by the instructor,

with the option of providing additional feedback as desired.

Extrinsic measures of successful learning may be especially

useful for assessment, as well as motivational for learners,

through recognition and quantification of achievement.

Extrinsic Motivation: Achievement

Extrinsic motivation of learning can embody many types,

including financial rewards, praise, and the focus of this

section, recognition of achievement. While affective learning is

generally considered the most difficult domain to assess, Evans

et al. (2011) posit that learner achievement can be an

appropriate assessment tool, "particularly those elements that

14

make achievements successful to players' sense of competition and

recognition" (p. 27). It can also guide assessment of

psychomotor, and cognitive domain learning, which in turn can be

broken down further into declarative, procedural, and strategic

subdomains (p. 26).

Evans et al. (2011) provide a brief taxonomy of game

achievement types, and state that achievements must lead players

to the learning objectives, and provide feedback to players on

their progress. They present McClanahan’s 14 rules for design

game-based challenges, along with his guiding question for

assessing the design of achievements: “Why is this hard, and is

that reason fun?” (p. 25). The fact that "Achievement systems

have become a major selling point for (commercial) games" (p. 21)

should be significant to game designers, when considering the

competition their product faces from commercial games.

Intrinsic Motivation

Game play is intrinsically motivating (Demirbilek, 2010;

Squire, 2006), and intrinsic motivation is widely regarded as

more powerful than extrinsic motivation. Recognizing the

potential, Rooney (2012) observes, "the power of games to

15

motivate and engage players−combined with research linking

engagement and motivation to effective learning−has led many

educators to explore their potential for learning” (p. 49).

In their examination of intrinsic motivation in games, Evans

et al. (2011) used Malone and Lepper’s taxonomy of intrinsic

motivation as a means of relating these intrinsic motivations to

assessment within the context of game-based learning. This useful

tool, while still needing additional testing, can help guide game

designers to ensure quality intrinsic motivation is built into

the interactivity.

Royle (2008) describes intrinsic motivation from the

perspective of problem/challenge/achievement design. He states

that "Puzzles and problems need to emerge logically from the

narrative structure of the game … challenging enough to lead

users to seek out new knowledge" (n.p.) This guideline toward

creating intrinsically motivating challenges is similar to

McClanahan's guiding question, “Why is this hard, and is that

reason fun?” (Evans et al., 2011, p. 25).

Context

When presented within the context of competition from the

16

commercial game industry, creating engaging educational games can

be considered even more challenging. Without significant

resources, perhaps “the reversioned commercial game has the

greatest possibility for producing a truly gamelike learning

experience” (Royle, 2008, n.p.).

Not only do the educational game production interests suffer

from a lack of resources to compete with the commercial game

industry, Squire (2006) notes that “traditional educational

interests are much slower to respond and less well represented

within the serious games movement” (p. 20).

Further, partnerships between the commercial game companies

and educational institutions for research are very limited. As

Williams, Yee, and Caplan (2008) note, “Commercial game companies

have been largely closed to researchers due to time, legal,

resource and focus constraints” (p. 995), while Whitton (2010)

laments that “systematic and generalizable research has remained

elusive, largely due to the difficulties of securing access to

players within the walled gardens of for-profit companies” (p.

994). Nonetheless, there are some extant collaborations, and the

possibility for more, as the educational institutions seek to

17

implement innovative high-impact practices.

Collaboration in the Design Process

Because instructors are subject matter experts within their

own fields, and an initial approach to game design might be a

self-crafted game. This approach is sometimes recommended at

professional conferences, perhaps because of the low cost of

development. The playability of the game may suffer, because of

the lack of the instructor’s game design experience.

Since game design is not a common skillset among faculty or

instructional designers, the allure of arranging a partnership

with game designers may be tempting. However, Tan et al. (2012)

note game designers and instructional designers or teachers who

don't work together may have jaundiced views of the other, at the

expense of the learning experience. “To balance engagement and

attainment of learning objectives in game playing, the game

experts should collaborate with subject matter experts in

producing games for game-based learning practice” (Tan et al.,

2012, p. 2).

Kee et al. (2009) recognize the key issues with either

approach:

18

theories of good gaming, are typically of the boring drill-and-response type. As researchers, werun the risk of ruining what makes a good game if we do not consult with professional game designers. At the same time, gamers are Games thathave been designed by academics, with little grounding in good at figuring out what makes a game ‘fun’ but will not make games that are pedagogically sound if they do not engage with experts in teaching and learning. (p. 306).

While Rooney (2012) reports "difficulties have led many to

conclude that serious game design is an art as opposed to a

science" (p. 55), the approaches toward a structured, team-based

approach (Chamberlin et al., 2012; Kee et al., 2009) provide

evidence to support a scientific approach to implementation.

Game Implementation

An educational game development model using a diverse team

of game developers and content experts was developed at New

Mexico State University beginning in 1993, based on Gunter,

Kenny, & Vick's RETAIN (The Relevance Engagement Translation

Assimilation Immersion Naturalization) model (Chamberlin et al.,

2012). While their Learning Games Design model has been

successful, the team approach is expensive, and Chamberlin et al.

note the need for further testing of their model, "Research on

19

game development … is still new territory" (p. 89).

Current students are heavy consumers of games and mobile

technology. Ghamrawi and Shal (2012) state, “Instead of wasting

energy fighting students’ preferred delivery system, it is worth

working to ensure that students extract maximum understanding”

(p. 926), so mobile game development might be the most

appropriate platform for educational institutions.

Squire, DeVane, and Durga (2008) propose “Centers of

Expertise” for schools to foster and develop learning through

games, yet they note “the chief barriers for schools will be

whether they can support the underlying models of learning that

include students developing and following unique learning

interests” (p. 250). Supporting this conclusion, (Royle, 2008)

states:

“Games are fundamentally incompatible with the school environment .... integrating games into theschool culture dilutes the experience of game playing. From the teacher's point of view, games are too long, too immersive, and focused on the wrong outcomes, motivating students to achieve defined win states rather than to seek knowledge. (n.p.)

Careful design to address these teacher concerns, as

20

well as appropriate levels of staff support and

training would need to be implemented to ensure

successful implementation of such centers.

While the treatise of Squire et al. (2008) addresses

implementation at the K-12 level, it could be similarly applied

on a large scale through a distributed interactive gaming higher

education, through a consortium approach. This could be of great

assistance to researchers, where the flow of data across

institutions is easy, numeric data about use is generated,

learners construct and distribute evidence of their learning.

Teaching with Game-Based Learning

The teachers who use, or are expected to use game-based

learning, especially in a mobile environment, are understudied,

according to Demirbilek (2010). Yet, he states "it is critical to

measure the attitudes and perceptions of adult educators ... in

establishing appropriate interpositions that help integrate these

technologies into their education) (pp. 244-245).

Prensky (2001a) placed the onus of education squarely on

teachers to reach learners with different experiences and

communication styles. Later, Prensky (2001b) states, "the single

21

biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital

Immigrant instructors ... are struggling to teach a population

that speaks an entirely new language" (p. 3), and that “learning

via digital games is one good way to reach Digital Natives in

their native language" (p. 1). This position is supported by a

less-sanguine Ghamrawi and Shal (2012), “teachers are more likely

to have achieved in their lives through logical step-by-step

approaches to learning” (p. 921), rather than a innovative

environment conducive to use of modern technology. While these

trends indicate general differences between generations, they are

not absolute, nor are they especially damning. Helsper and Eynon

(2010) state, “we often erroneously presume a gap between

educators and students and that if such a gap does exist, it is

definitely possible to close it” (p. 503).

The author of this review believes with the introduction of

innovation in technology and techniques such as the “flipped

classroom,” the traditional role of teachers will change. With

respect to educational games, Koohang et al. (2009) declare the

new role of the teacher to be transformed into “the role of a

coach, mentor, and/or guide to provide feedback to learners” (p.

22

96). The acceptance of this role may be vitally important to the

near-term proliferation of game-based learning (Tan et al.,

2012).

Popular commercial video games may be attractive vehicles

for inclusion of game-based learning, significant issues exist,

as teachers may struggle with the technology, the new mentor

role, new pedagogies, and the discomfort that many of their

students are more technically sophisticated. Although Kwah (2012)

acknowledges students generally live with mobile and connected

technology, they may not be equipped to critically reflect on the

meanings implicit with depictions of gender, race, class,

nationality, science, and technology. While their teacher/guides

may not yet be equipped to help direct them, professional

organizations offer various levels guidance, as well as

guidebooks (Whitton, 2010) to help them choose the appropriate

games and strategies, and how to avoid many of the pitfalls

associated with them.

Student Learning with Game-Based Learning

Attributes of Learners

Prensky (2001a) states that today’s students have “spent

23

their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames,

digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other

toys and tools of the digital age" (p. 1). He purports that

through neuroplasticity and malleability, Digital Natives think

differently than others, and crave rapid feedback, easily

delivered through games.

Although in general agreement with Prensky (2001a), Helsper

and Eynon (2010) state, “generation is only one of the predictors

of advanced interaction with the Internet, and breadth of use,

experience, gender and educational levels are also important,

indeed in some cases more important than generational

differences, in explaining the extent to which people can be

defined as a digital native” (p. 503). They use the term “Digital

Native” to describe people with behavior patterns and access to

technology, rather than ascribing the term based on a birthdate.

The results of a survey by Quick et al. (2012) revealed

numerous preferences for game types and game habits, compared to

personality. Further, Whitton (2010) presents a rare census of

online game play in a virtual world, and the results might be

extrapolated for educational purposes. "The paper presented here

24

explicates players’ demographics, their playing patterns as

related to those demographics, and their motivations for play.

Many of the results defy both stereotype and theoretical

predictions" (p. 994). These findings reinforce the need to

consider multiple preferred learning styles, and to avoid the

homogenization of learners when planning game-based learning.

Gender Attributes

A glimpse at gender attributes by Farmer (2010) reveals

popular stereotypes, "males may have an unfair advantage (over

females) since they are more likely to have practiced with

(games) outside of school" (p. 688). She quotes Miller that "Even

though egames may be considered a male’s bastion, the learning

principles behind egaming speak to females’ ways of learning:

interactivity, contextualized meaning, incorporation of

relationships, emotional engagement, and communication" (p. 689).

She further states “females are less likely to persist in

figuring out control or navigation tools; if the manipulation

effort does not result in significant content learning, females

are apt to walk away from the simulation” (p. 695). Additionally,

she finds:

25

“boys use computers mainly for entertainment, while girls tend to use computers more for education and communication. In addition, girls tend to dislike RPGs because of the violence that often occurs in them. Also, girls prefer open-ended computer venues, such as instant messaging (IM) and authoring tools.” (p. 688)

Kwah (2012) observes the inappropriate content in many

video games, that may interfere with learning by

females.

The data studied by (Williams et al., 2008) in 2004 states

“that 38% of players are female, and that women are the driving

force behind the majority of online game play. Even without

recent data or mobile device data, this information demonstrates

the importance of considering gender issues in game-based

learning.

Affordances and Implications of Mobile Game-Based Learning

Applying game-based learning in a mobile learning

environment is still game-based learning, with some significant

considerations. The affordability, flexibility, and ubiquity of

mobile technology permit new ways to teach and learn. While the

ramifications of this won’t be known for many years, the impact

of this technology might have surprisingly powerful implications

26

for education and society, analogous to the impact of mobile

technology on the recent Arab Spring movement.

Social Interaction

When an educational institution or system begins to adopt

social networking into curricula, unexpected interaction can

occur, as learners become empowered. Ghamrawi and Shal (2012)

provide a list of four “benefits of the adoption of social

networking into curricula:”

1. Offers a less restrictive emulation of the traditional training experience.

2. Provides a familiar platform for many learners to operate within.

3. Supplies a support structure independent of authority.4. Allows for exchange of media to accommodate all learner

types. (p. 923)

While these technologies may disrupt conventional education, they

can enable higher order learning by empowering groups and

individuals to creatively provide evidence of their

accomplishments.

Parise and Crosina (2012) considered social gaming, and note

the impacts on education, "Social gaming dynamics can increase

students' motivation and desire to learn, help them develop

stronger relationships with their team members and classmates,

27

and ultimately aid them in the knowledge-discovery process"

(n.p.). Similarly, and more simply, Ghamrawi and Shal (2012)

describe the process, “social interaction facilitates learning.

That’s why schools have been founded” (p. 922). Royle (2008)

states the social interactions “are as important as the game

itself because such performance stories, ideas about strategy,

and exchanged knowledge constitute forms of learning in their own

right” (n.p.). Because social interaction involves exchanges of

inquiry, information, strategy, and advice combined with content,

they should inherently embody higher-order learning.

Effects of Mobile Technology and Learning

Demirbilek (2010) notes five unique educational advantages

of mobile devices identified by Klopfer, Squire, and Jenkins:

1. portability (location independent)2. social interactivity (can exchange data and collaborate

with others3. individuality (can provide scaffolding for individual

paths of investigation)4. connectivity (can connect handheld devices to other

devices to create a shared environment)5. context sensitivity (can gather data ‘just-in-time and

place’) (p. 237)

The combination of these advantages enable a synergistic effect

when applied in an educational gaming context, as each attribute

28

can be considered as a tool by the designer, instructor, or the

learner. Demirbilek reports the special affordances of relatively

low cost and portability to lifelong learning and informal

learning environments, and re-engage learners who may have become

disillusioned by traditional education methods. He notes that

“courses must be developed, presented, and distributed in a

manner that allow both mobile and non-mobile distance learners to

participate in the same course, using the same course materials

that can be accessed from standard and mobile technologies (p.

238).

Ghamrawi and Shal recognize that mobile devices are “hotbeds

of feature innovation—the major features being voice, short

messaging service (SMS), graphics, user-controlled operating

systems, downloadable, browsers, camera functions (still and

video), and geopositioning” (p. 924). Even in developing

countries, mobile technology can be highly ubiquitous and

powerful, and are used to provide low-bandwidth services where

other communication doesn’t exist. " Ghamrawi and Shal (2012)

further recognize that mobile devices “can access versions of the

same kinds of tools and teaching programs available on personal

29

computers, and, given that the phones are communications devices,

use the tools for collaboration in new and interesting ways” (p.

924). This power provides the capacity of a portable productivity

device with high fidelity and interoperability of content with

other users with equivalent devices. This high fidelity adds the

unique capability of the mobile technology to well designed

mobile instruction to create new levels of interactivity,

encouraging multiple modes of interaction, with "teachers talking

to students, students challenging one another, and an entire

class discussing the causes and effects of a game scenario

(Parise & Crosina, 2012, n.p.), during the activity, in disparate

and distributed environments.

Summary

The application of mobile technology for educational use is

continually under revision, as the technology and its

applications are constantly being improved, with new features,

capabilities, and external services available. As the number of

global users grow, the economy of scale should encourage further

development in educational applications.

Game based learning is just one of the innovations awaiting

30

academic acceptance, along with electronic portfolios, peer

instruction, flipped classrooms, etc. The great potential of

these innovations is held in check by tradition, lack of funding

for large-scale experimentation, and perhaps the vision of the

“Digital Immigrants” in charge. Although educational institutions

are resistant to change, external pressures from the business

world (including for-profit schools) may cause greater acceptance

of such innovations by all levels of education in the near

future.

Perhaps the greatest implication for the future of learning

with mobile games, is the possibility to ride the wave of

globalization, as these devices become increasingly available to

large segments of the global population without access to quality

education.

Recommendation for further study

While Ghamrawi and Shal (2012) recognize the “disconnect

between schools and student needs” (p. 921), they focus on

possibilities integrate social networking and mobile devices into

a ”distributed, controlled, and managed learning

environment….instead of wasting energy fighting students’

31

preferred delivery system” (p. 926). This preference of delivery

system may be influential in the dedication of students’ elective

time and energy to academics. Access to “learning time,

materials, and collaboration—the big 3” (Simonson, Schlosser, &

Orellana, 2011), might be best enabled though careful and

intentional facilitation of mobile devices, and the convenience

and accessibility afforded by their defining portability and

ubiquity of service. Investigation into the impact of the

preference and practical availability of the learning system

might provide insights into learner choices that affect academic

persistence, retention, and educational outcomes.

Additional investigation using constructionalism theory

could examine further motivation of mobile learners in contexts

designed to support more complex learning objectives.

This review began with an investigation of the methodology

used, investigation of game-based learning, issues with teaching

using game-based learning, issues with learning via game-based

learning, and an investigation of the affordances specific to

mobile technology in a game-based learning environment.

32

References:

Chamberlin, B., Trespalacios, J., & Gallagher, R. (2012). The Learning Games Design Model. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(3), 87-110. doi: 10.4018/ijgbl.2012070106

Demirbilek, M. (2010). Investigating Attitudes of Adult Educatorstowards Educational Mobile Media and Games in Eight EuropeanCountries. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 13.

Evans, M., Jennings, E., & Andreen, M. (2011). Assessment throughAchievement Systems. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(3), 16-29. doi: 10.4018/ijgbl.2011070102

Farmer, L. S. J. (Ed.). (2010). Gaming in Adult Education (Vol. 1). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Ghamrawi, N., & Shal, T. (2012). Let us teach them the way they learn: A vision on using social networking and mobiles in teaching and learning. [Article]. Educational Research (2141-5161), 3(12), 921-926.

Google, I. (n.d.). Google Scholar, from http://scholar.google.comGredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their

relationships to learning. In D. Johannsen (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on educational communications and technology (2 ed., pp. 571-581). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is theevidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. doi: 10.1080/01411920902989227

Hoffman, E. (2011). Learning in (Cyber) Space: Inclusion of Older Adults in VirtualLearning Environments. Unpublished Manuscript. Instructional Technology / Distance Education. Nova Southeastern University. Davie, FL.

Kee, K., Graham, S., Dunae, P., Lutz, J., Large, A., Blondeau, M., & Clare, M. (2009). Towards a theory of good history through gaming. Canadian Historical Review, 90(2), 303-326.

Kim, B. (2012). Harnessing the power of game dynamics Why, how to, and how not to gamify the library experience. College & Research Libraries News, 73(8), 465-469.

Koohang, A., Riley, L., Smith, T., & Schreurs, J. (2009). E-learning and constructivism: from theory to application. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 19.

Kuh, G. D., Schneider, C. G., & Association of American Colleges

33

and Universities. (2008). High-impact Educational Practices: What TheyAre, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Kwah, H. (2012). How commercial and “violent” video games can promote culturally sensitive science learning: some questions and challenges. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4), 955-961.

Parise, S., & Crosina, E. (2012). How a Mobile Social Media Game Can Enhance the Educational Experience. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3).

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part I. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9.

Quick, J. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Lin, L. (2012). Empirical Taxonomies of Gameplay Enjoyment. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(3), 11-31. doi: 10.4018/ijgbl.2012070102

Rooney, P. (2012). A Theoretical Framework for Serious Game Design: Exploring Pedagogy, Play and Fidelity and their Implications for the Design Process. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 2(4), 41-60.

Royle, K. (2008). Game-based Learning: A Different Perspective. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(4).

Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Orellana, A. (2011). Distance education research: A review of the literature. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 124-142.

Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational researcher, 35(8), 19-29.

Squire, K., DeVane, B., & Durga, S. (2008). Designing centers of expertise for academic learning through video games. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 240-251.

Tan, W. H., Neill, S., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2012). How do Professionals’ Attitudes Differ between what Game-Based Learning could Ideally Achieve and what is Usually Achieved.International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(1), 1-15. doi: 10.4018/ijgbl.2012010101

Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education: Routledge.

Williams, D., Yee, N., & Caplan, S. E. (2008). Who plays, how

34

much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4), 993-1018. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00428.x

35