Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

Investigating the relationships between informal learn-ing and player involvement in digital games

Journal ArticleHow to cite:

Iacovides, Ioanna; Aczel, James; Scanlon, Eileen and Woods, Will (2012). Investigating the relation-ships between informal learning and player involvement in digital games. Learning, Media and Technologyonline first.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© 2012 Taylor Francis

Version: Proof

Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/17439884.2012.641568

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copy-right owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consultthe policies page.

oro.open.ac.uk

PROOF COVER SHEET

Author(s): Ionana Iacovides

Article Title: Investigating the relationships between informal learning and player involvement in digital

games

Article No: CJEM641568

Enclosures: 1) Query sheet

2) Article proofs

Dear Author,

1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to check

these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor & Francis cannot

be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if introduced during the production process. Once

your corrections have been added to the article, it will be considered ready for publication.

Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make insignificant

changes, improve prose style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. Making a

large number of small, non-essential corrections can lead to errors being introduced. We therefore

reserve the right not to make such corrections.

For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see

http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp.

2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are

structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This

check is to ensure that your name will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.

Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

1 Ionana Iacovides

2 James Aczel

3 Eileen Scanlon

4 Will Woods

Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs.

AUTHOR QUERIES

General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission from the

appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material in your

article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.) Please check that

any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this.

QUERY NO. QUERY DETAILS

AQ1 Please provide a short biography of the authors.

AQ2 The abstract for your article needs to be a stand-alone document for online publication

purposes. Please approve removal of all citations in the abstract or provide complete

publication information for the cited works to include in the abstract text.

AQ3 Please provide issue number details for journal references for which it is not provided.

AQ4 Please provide page range details in Habgood and Ainsworth 2011.

How to make corrections to your proofs using Adobe Acrobat Taylor & Francis now offer you a choice of options to help you make corrections to your proofs. Your PDF proof file has been enabled so that you can edit the proof directly using Adobe Acrobat. This is the simplest and best way for you to ensure that your corrections will be incorporated. If you wish to do this, please follow these instructions: 1. Save the file to your hard disk. 2. Check which version of Adobe Acrobat you have on your computer. You can do this by clicking on the “Help” tab, and then “About.” If Adobe Reader is not installed, you can get the latest version free from http://get.adobe.com/reader/.

If you have Adobe Reader 8 (or a later version), go to “Tools”/ “Comments & Markup”/ “Show Comments & Markup.”

If you have Acrobat Professional 7, go to “Tools”/ “Commenting”/ “Show Commenting

Toolbar.” 3. Click “Text Edits.” You can then select any text and delete it, replace it, or insert new text as you need to. If you need to include new sections of text, it is also possible to add a comment to the proofs. To do this, use the Sticky Note tool in the task bar. Please also see our FAQs here: http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/index.asp.

4. Make sure that you save the file when you close the document before uploading it to CATS using the “Upload File” button on the online correction form. A full list of the comments and edits you have made can be viewed by clicking on the “Comments” tab in the bottom left-hand corner of the PDF.

If you prefer, you can make your corrections using the CATS online correction form.

VIEWPOINT

Investigating the relationships between informal learning andplayer involvement in digital games

Ionana Iacovides∗, James Aczel, Eileen Scanlon and Will Woods

Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall,Milton Keynes, MK76AA UK

(Received 9 November 2011; accepted 14 November 2011)

In the last few years, digital games have become increasingly popular withboth ‘hardcore’ and ‘casual’ audiences (Juul 2010). At the same time, it hasbeen argued that games can be powerful learning environments, since theyare seen to encourage active and critical learning through participation in ‘affi-nity groups’ and ‘semiotic domains’ (Gee 2004), but there is a need for furtherempirical evidence to explore how this participation occurs and how prevalentit actually is. In addition, the effectiveness of games within education indi-cates mixed results, though it has been suggested that this ‘may indicatethat learning through immersive worlds involves a more complex understand-ing of learning, one that is not so easy to tie to specified learning outcomes’(De Freitas 2006, 18 Q2). It would seem the area would benefit from researchthat seeks to develop our understanding of how player involvement and learn-ing come together in this context. This paper presents the preliminary resultsof a survey carried out in order to explore these issues. The initial findingssuggest that how a player identifies as a gamer relates to what they thinkthey gain from their gaming experiences with respect to learning.

Keywords: digital games; informal learning; involvement

Games, learning and involvement

In the last few years, digital games have become increasingly popular with a widevariety of audiences comprising both ‘hardcore’ and ‘casual’ players (Juul 2010).At the same time, there has been a growing academic interest in games and howthey support learning. For instance, Gee (2004) provides an account of informallearning through games. He argues that, through interacting with multi-modaltexts and graphical representations during play, people are essentially developinga new literacy. Further, through involvement with games, players can also learnto participate in ‘semiotic domains’ made up of words, pictures, and anythingelse used to communicate meaning. These domains are associated with specific‘affinity groups’ of players whose knowledge, skills and tools contribute to form

CE:BH

QA:

Coll:

ISSN 1743-9884 print/ISSN 1743-9892 online# 2011 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2012.641568

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: i.iacovides@open.ac.uk

Learning, Media and TechnologyVol. 37, No. 3, September 2012, 1–6

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

CJEM641568 Techset Composition Ltd, Salisbury, U.K. 11/28/2011

complex systems of distributed parts. Players are thus able to gain (and contributeto) resources to help them to solve problems within, and outside of, the specificdomain. Gee also claims that ‘learning is a change not just in practice, but in iden-tity’ (p. 190) when he argues that players learn through the adoption of and exper-imentation with different identities, and from being able to reflect upon therelationships between these identities.

However, it has been argued that there is a need for further research to sub-stantiate Gee’s semiotic analysis (Iacovides et al. 2011). In particular, it is notclear whether everyone who plays games engages with them in the same sort ofway. For instance, Iacovides et al. (2011) suggest that how a player identifies asa gamer may influence participation within wider gaming communities. Inaddition, while there seems to be plenty of evidence suggesting that gameshave potential within formal educational contexts, ‘the empirical evidence foreffectiveness of games as learning environments is scant’ (O’Neil, Wainess,and Baker 2005, 468). Within the area of educational games, Habgood andAinsworth (2011) note that many products ‘have been widely recognized asfailing to effectively harness the engagement power of digital games’(p. 170) since designers do not always successfully integrate learning contentwithin the mechanics of the game. It has also been suggested that the mixed evi-dence regarding the effective use of games ‘may indicate that learning throughimmersive worlds involves a more complex understanding of learning, one thatis not so easy to tie to specified learning outcomes’ (De Freitas 2006, 18.). Itwould seem the area would benefit from research that seeks to develop ourunderstanding of learning within this context.

Methods

In order to explore different aspects of involvement and learning and how theyrelate to each other, a set of studies has been carried out as part of a the author’swider research project. This paper reports on the initial analyses of the final ques-tionnaire study, where the questionnaire was designed on the basis of previousfindings. The previous studies included an email interview study, which examinedhow adult players describe motivation, engagement and learning within the contextof games; and a series of eight multi-method case studies, which examined howlearning, micro involvement and macro involvement come together in practice.Calleja (2007) uses the term ‘macro involvement’ to refer to ‘motivational attrac-tors to games that influence sustained engagement through the long-term’ and theterm ‘micro involvement’ to refer to ‘the moment by moment involvement of thegame-play instance’ (p. 237). The distinction allows for a consideration of howinvolvement relates to learning at both a micro and macro level (Iacovides et al.2011). The research questions the questionnaire study aimed to address are:

(1) What evidence is there that players are learning anything other thanlearning how to play?

2 I. Iacovides et al.

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

(2) To what extent do players engage with different gaming-related commu-nities and resources?(a) Does player engagement with these communities and resources

relate to how they identify themselves as gamers? If so, how?

Participants were recruited via different university email lists and online plat-forms (at [institution names removed to protect anonymity]); though partici-pants were also asked to pass on the email to friends and family, as long asthey were over the age of 18. Particular care was taken within the invite toemphasise that the questionnaire could be filled in by both dedicated andmore casual players. In total, 232 people completed the questionnaire, 53.9%of whom were male and 45.7% female (0.4% who identified as other).Table 1 shows the different age categories.

Participants were asked to complete items on different Likert scales concern-ing what genres of game they were likely to play, the frequency of play on differ-ent platforms, how often they used and contributed to gaming-related resources,what they were likely to do when they got stuck and how far they agreed withstatements relating to what they got out of playing games. They were alsoasked to choose whether they would consider themselves a casual, moderate,or hardcore gamer (or whether they did not consider themselves to be any kindof gamer). Two open-ended items were included in order to provide the oppor-tunity to explain their choice of gamer category and to say more about whatthey thought they had learnt from their involvement with games.

This paper presents a limited selection from the data analysis in order to illus-trate why it is important to consider the relationships between involvement andlearning. Frequencies and cross-tabulations are used in order to indicate how theissue of player identity seems to relate to both learning and involvement.

Results

Out of 232 respondents 13% said they would not describe themselves as agamer, 22% described themselves as casual gamers, 51% as moderate gamersand 14% as hardcore gamers. Table 1 suggests there seems to be a relationship

Table 1. Age bands.

Age Percentage (%) Response count

18–25 29.7 6926–35 42.2 9836–45 19.8 4646–55 6.0 1456–65 1.7 4over 65 0.4 1

Learning, Media and Technology 3

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

between these categories and the amount of time reported playing games as thenumber of hours played per week increases from non-gamer to casual to mod-erate to hardcore. However, there appears to be some variability within eachcategory suggesting that the number of hours spent playing is not the onlyfactor which influences how players choose to identify themselves. A qualitat-ive analysis will be also carried out with respect to the open-ended data in orderto explore further themes that relate to player identity (Table 2).

In terms of macro level involvement, participants were asked about theirdifferent gaming-related activities. Figure 1 indicates that while numerousrespondents report watching game trailers, reading reviews, and visitingforums/blogs/websites, fewer than 50% contribute to different resources (andeven fewer create content in the form of game modifications and game-relatedfan fiction). Part of the main analysis will consider whether the frequency of

Figure 1. Frequency of gaming-related activities across all participants.

Table 2. Hours spent playing digital games per week.

All(232) %

Non gamers(31) %

Casualgamers(50) %

Moderategamers (118) %

Hardcoregamers (33)

None 4.3 29 2 0 0%5 hours or less 32.8 58.1 60 20.3 12.2%6–14 hours 36.7 9.7 46.7 52.5 18.2% (6)15 hours or

more26.3 3.2 10 27.1 69.7% (23)

4 I. Iacovides et al.

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

participation in these activities differs depending on how the participants identifythemselves.

The questionnaire also involved a set of attitudinal scales. Based on the pre-vious studies, this included items which asked whether the respondent devel-oped transferable skills such as problem solving and collaboration, gainedgeneral knowledge, felt part of a wider gaming community, felt games hadaffected who they are as a person, etc. The initial analysis indicated thatresponses differed in terms of the various player categories. For instance,Table 3 shows the responses to: ‘All I have ever learnt from games is how toplay them’. While there is general disagreement with the statement (indicatingmost respondents do think they learn more than this), it seems that 60.6% ofhardcore gamers strongly disagree, compared with just 6.5% of non-gamers.

The preliminary analysis does suggest that there are potentially importantdifferences to take into account when considering how involvement mightrelate to learning. Further analysis is planned in order to examine whetherthese differences are statistically significant, and to consider other questionnaireitems that may influence how players choose to identify themselves, e.g., age,time spent playing online, genre preferences, how frequently they interact withthe wider gaming communities, etc.

Discussion

This paper sought to address the issue of why the relationships between learningand involvement matters within the context of digital games. Some of the rel-evant literature was reviewed in order to illustrate how the connection betweenthe two processes has not been addressed on both a micro and macro level. Aquestionnaire, based on the findings of previous work, was developed toexamine what players learn and how player identity relates to involvementand learning. The initial analysis suggests that while time spent playing is animportant factor to consider in terms of how players define themselves, it isunlikely to be the only one. Further, while it seems that the kind of participationwithin affinity groups and semiotic domains that Gee (2004) discusses doesoccur, it appears more common for players to use, rather than contribute to,

Table 3. All I have ever learnt from games is how to play them.

Stronglydisagree (%)

Disagree(%)

Neither(%)

Agree(%)

Stronglyagree (%)

All gamers (232) 31.0 38.4 13.8 13.4 2.6Non-gamers (31) 6.5 38.7 25.8 22.6 3.2Casual (50) 12.0 46.0 12.0 24.0 6.0Moderate (118) 37.3 39.0 12.7 9.3 0.8Hardcore (33) 60.6 24.2 9.1 3.0 3.0

Learning, Media and Technology 5

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

resources or create their own. While Gee (2004) does stress the importance ofidentity with respect to learning, it is worth noting this is mostly in relation tohow players identify with their avatars rather than in terms of how they identifyas gamers. The preliminary results suggest that this latter identity is an impor-tant one to consider since it seems to relate not only to how long players spendon game-play and related activities, but also to how much they feel they gainfrom their involvement in gaming. Additional analyses is planned in order tofurther investigate these effects.

In terms of the implications for education, the research reported heresuggests that learning within this context can encompass anything from learn-ing how to play to learning in terms of personal development. Further, it seemsthat player identity does influence involvement and learning, with more dedi-cated players suggesting they benefit more from their game-play experiences.With respect to educational games, it can be argued that in order to ensurethat a game is as effective as possible, designers and practitioners not onlyneed to consider exactly what kind of learning they want to support but alsowhat kind of players their students are.

Notes on contributors Q1

References

Calleja, G. 2007. Digital game involvement: A conceptual model. Games and Culture2: 236–60. Q3

De Freitas, S. 2006. Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning.London: Joint Information Systems Committee. Retrieved April 11th, 2008 fromhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf.

Gee, J.P. 2004. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Habgood, M.P.J., and S.E. Ainsworth. 2011. Motivating children to learn effectively:Exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. Journal of theLearning Sciences 20, no. 2. Q4

Iacovides, I., J.C. Aczel, E. Scanlon, J. Taylor, and W.I.S. Woods. 2011. Motivation,engagement and learning through digital games. Journal of Virtual and PersonalLearning Environments 2, no. 2: 1–16.

Juul, J. 2010. A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

O’neil, H.F., R. Wainess, and E.L. Baker. 2005. Classification of learning outcomes:Evidence from the computer games literature. Curriculum Journal 16, no. 4:455–474.

6 I. Iacovides et al.

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260