The paper intends to develop a student-centered and school-based method to incorporate computer game play (GP) and game design (GD) activities into school by discovering students’ views about why and how to incorporate. The paper first critiques the current GP and GD activities, which are designer-centric on a touch-and-go basis, falling short of making student-centered pedagogy a long-term version of usage. Activity theory is adopted as a framework to formulate and conceptualize our research questions, specifically, what are students’ perceived significance and projected ways of integrating GP–GD activity into school? The report here discloses the qualitative data of four focused groups with 20 students, extracted from a larger 3-year project. Students are exposed to either the GP or GD activity, are interviewed about their perceived outcomes, and project the purposes of their next participation if they are given free choices. The findings identify that the significance is complementary but the purposes are in synergy with teachers’ didactical approaches. On the basis of the findings, the future pedagogical implications of incorporating GP and GD activities into school contexts similar to the Singaporean context are suggested.
Keywords: Computer game Learning Activity theory Sociocultural theory SingaporeAkkerman, S., Admiraal, W., & Huizenga, J. (2009). Storification in History education: A mobile game in and about medieval Amsterdam. Computers & Education, 52, 449–459.
Chee, Y. S. (2007). Embodiment, embeddedness, and experience: Game-based learning and the construction of identity. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 3–30.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education, 46(3), 249–264.
Druin, A. (1999). Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children. http://hcil.cs.umd.edu/trs/99-14/99-14.html.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Retrieved from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23–38.
Hsu, C.-Y., Tsai, C–. C., & Wang, H.-Y. (2012). Facilitating third graders’ acquisition of scientific concepts through digital game-based learning: The effects of self-explanation principles. The Asia-Pacific Education Researchers, 21(1), 71–82.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Luan, W. S., & Teo, T. (2009). Investigating the technology acceptance among student teachers in Malaysia: An application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 261–272.
Massey, O. T. (2011). A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 21–28.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.
Mwanza, D., & Engestrom, Y. (2003, November 7–11). Pedagogical adeptness in the design of elearning environments: Experiences from Lab@Future project. Paper presented at the E-Learn 2003 International Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Phoenix, AR.
O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474.
Race, K., Hotch, D., & Parker, T. (1994). Rehabilitation program evaluation: Use of focus groups to empower clients. Evaluation Review, 18(6), 730–740.
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1998). Kids as informants: Telling us what we didn’t know or confirming what we new already? In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 51–72). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Sharritt, M. J. (2008). Forms of learning in collaborative video game play. Enhanced Learn, 3(2), 97–138.
Teo, T., & van Schaik, P. (2009). Understanding technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(1), 47–66.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wibek, V., Abrandt, M., & Gren, D. (2007). Learning in focus groups: An analytical dimension for enhancing focus group research. Qualitative Research, 7(2), 249–267.
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–12). Norwood: Ablex.