Category Archives: digital games

Metaverse education: Opportunities and challenges for immersive learning

The following content was adapted from one of my latest contributions on the Metaverse’s immersive technology.

(Credit: Onurdongel)

Suggested citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2023), “Metaverse applications in education: a systematic review and a cost-benefit analysis”, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-01-2023-0017

Online users are connecting to simulated virtual environments through various digital games like Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox, and World of Warcraft, among others. Very often, gamers are utilizing virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies to improve their gaming experiences. In many cases, they are engaging with other individuals in the cyberspace and participating in an extensive virtual economy. New users are expected to create electronic personas, called avatars (that represent their identity in these games). They are allowed to move their avatars around virtual spaces and to use them to engage with other users, when they are online. Therefore, interactive games are enhancing their users’ immersive experiences, particularly those that work with VR headsets.

Academic researchers as well as technology giants like Facebook (Meta), Google and Microsoft, among others, anticipate that the Metaverse will shortly change the way we experience the Internet. Whilst on the internet, online users are interacting with other individuals through websites, including games and social media networks (SNSs) in the Metaverse they engage with the digital representations of people (through their avatars), places, and things in a simulated universe. Hence, the Metaverse places its users in the middle of the action. In plain words, it can be described as a combination of multiple elements of interactive technologies, including VR and AR where users can experience a digital universe. Various industry practitioner including Meta (Facebook) argue that this immersive technology will reconfigure the online users’ sensory inputs, definitions of space, and points of access to information.

AR and VR devices can be used to improve the students’ experiences when they engage with serious games. Many commentators noted that these technologies encourage active learning approaches, as well as social interactions among students and/or between students and their teachers. Serious games can provide “gameful experiences”, if they share the immersive features that captivate them, like those relating to the entertaining games. If they do so, it is very likely that students would enjoy their game play (and game-based learning). Similarly, the Metaverse can be used to increase the students; motivations and learning outcomes.

For the time being, there is no universal definition that encapsulates the word “Metaverse”. The term has been used in a 1992 science fiction novel Snow Crash. Basically, it is a blend of two words, in which parts of them, namely “meta” and “universe” were combined to create the “Metaverse” notion. While meta means beyond, universe is a term that is typically used to describe an iteration of the internet that consists of persistent, immersive 3D virtual spaces that are intended to emulate physical interactions in perceived virtual worlds (like a universe).

Although, there are various academic contributions that have explored the utilization of online educational technologies, including AR and VR, in different contexts,  currently, just a few researchers who have evaluated of the latest literature on this contemporary topic, to reveal the benefits and costs of using this disruptive innovation in the context of education. Therefore, this contribution closes this gap in academic literature. The underlying objective of this research is to shed light on the opportunities and challenges of using this immersive technology with students.

Opportunities

    Immersive multi-sensory experiences in 3D environments

    The Metaverse could provide a smooth interaction between the real world and the virtual spaces. Its users can engage in activities that are very similar to what they do in reality. However, it could also provide opportunities for them to experience things that could be impossible for them to do in the real world. Sensory technologies enable users to use their five senses of sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell, to immerse themselves in a virtual 3D environment. VR tools are interactive, entertaining and provide captivating and enjoyable experiences to their users. In the past years, a number of educators and students have been using 3D learning applications (e.g. like Second Life) to visit virtual spaces that resemble video games. Many students are experienced gamers and are lured by their 3D graphics. They learn when they are actively involved. Therefore, the learning applications should be as meaningful, engaging, socially interactive and entertaining as possible.

    There is scope for educators and content developers to create digital domains like virtual schools, colleges and campuses, where students and teachers can socialize and engage in two-way communications. Students could visit the premises of their educational institutions in online tours, from virtually anywhere. A number of universities are replicating their physical campus with virtual ones. The design of the virtual campuses may result in improved student services, shared interactive content that could improve their learning outcomes, and could even reach wider audiences. Previous research confirms that it is more interesting and appealing for students to learn academic topics through the virtual world.

    Equitable and accessible space for all users

    Like other virtual technologies, the Metaverse could be accessed from remote locations. Educational institutions can use its infrastructure to deliver courses (free of charge or against tuition fees, as of now). Metaverse education may enable students from different locations to use its open-source software to pursue courses from anywhere, anytime. Hence, its democratized architecture could reduce geographic disparities among students, and increases their chances of continuing education through higher educational institutions in different parts of the world.

    In the future, students including individuals with different abilities, may use the Metaverse’s multisensory environment to immerse themselves in engaging lectures.

    Interactions with virtual representations of people and physical objects

    Currently, individual users can utilize the AR and VR applications to communicate with others and to exert their influence on the objects within the virtual world. They can organize virtual meetings with geographically distant users, attend conferences, et cetera. Various commentators argued that the Metaverse can be used in education, to learn academic subjects in real-time sessions in a VR setting and to interact with peers and course instructors. The students and their lecturers will probably use an avatar that will represent their identity in the virtual world. Many researchers noted that avatars facilitate interactive communications and are a good way to personalize the students’ learning experiences.

    Interoperability

    Unlike other VR applications, the Metaverse will enable its users to retain their identities as well as the ownership of their digital assets through different virtual worlds and platforms, including those related to the provision of education. This means that Metaverse users can communicate and interact with other individuals in a seamless manner through different devices or servers, across different platforms. They can use the Metaverse to share data and content in different virtual worlds that will be accessed through Web 3.0.

    Challenges

      Infrastructure, resources and capabilities

      The use of the Metaverse technology will necessitate a thorough investment in hardware to operate the university virtual spaces. The Metaverses requires intricate devices, including appropriate high-performance infrastructures to achieve accurate retina display and pixel density for realistic virtual immersions. These systems rely on fast internet connections with good bandwidths as well as computers with adequate processing capabilities, that are equipped with good graphic cards. For the time being, VR, MR and AR hardware may be considered as bulky, heavy, expensive and cost-prohibitive, in some contexts.

      The degree of freedom in a virtual world

      The Metaverse offers higher degrees of freedom than what is available through the worldwide web and web2.0 technologies. Its administrators cannot be in a position to anticipate the behaviors of all persons using their technologies. Therefore, Metaverse users can possibly be exposed to positive as well as to negative influences as other individuals can disguise themselves in the vast virtual environments, through anonymous avatars.

      Privacy and security of users’ personal data

      The users’ interactions with the Metaverse as well as their personal or sensitive information, can be tracked by the platform operators hosting this service, as they continuously record, process and store their virtual activities in real-time. Like its preceding worldwide web and Web 2.0 technologies, the Metaverse can possibly raise the users’ concerns about the security of their data and of their intellectual properties. They may be wary about data breaches, scams, et cetera. Public blockchains and other platforms can already trace the users’ sensitive data, so they are not anonymous to them.  Individuals may decide to use one or more avatars to explore the Metaverse’s worlds. They may risk exposing their personal information, particularly when they are porting from one Metaverse to another and/or when they share transactional details via NFTs. Some Metaverse systems do not require their users to share personal information when they create their avatar. However, they could capture relevant information from sensors that detect their users’ brain activity, monitor their facial features, eye motion and vocal qualities, along with other ambient data pertaining to the users’ homes or offices.

      They may have legitimate reasons to capture such information, in order to protect them against objectionable content and/or unlawful conduct of other users. In many cases, the users’ personal data may be collected for advertising and/or for communication purposes. Currently, different jurisdictions have not regulated their citizens’ behaviors within the Metaverse contexts. Works are still in progress, in this regard.

      Identity theft and hijacking of user accounts

      There may be malicious persons or groups who may try use certain technologies, to obtain the personal information and digital assets from Metaverse users. Recently, a deepfake artificial intelligence software has developed short audible content, that mimicked and impersonated a human voice.

      Other bots may easily copy the human beings’ verbal, vocal and visual data including their personality traits. They could duplicate the avatars’ identities, to commit fraudulent activities including unauthorized transactions and purchases, or other crimes with their disguised identities. Roblox users reported that they experienced avatar scams in the past. In many cases, criminals could try to avail themselves of the digital identities of vulnerable users, including children and senior citizens, among others, to access their funds or cryptocurrencies (as they may be linked to the Metaverse profiles). As a result, Metaverse users may become victims of identity theft. Evolving security protocols and digital ledger technologies like the blockchain will be increasing the transparency and cybersecurity of digital assets. However, users still have to remain vigilant about their digital footprint, to continue protecting their personal information.

      As the use of the virtual environment is expected to increase in the foreseeable future, particularly with the emergence of the Metaverse, it is imperative that new ways are developed to protect all users including students. Individuals ought to be informed about the risks to their privacy. Various validation procedures including authentication, such as face scans, retina scans, and speech recognition may be integrated in such systems to prevent identity theft and hijacking of Metaverse accounts.

      Borderless environment raises ethical and regulatory concerns

      For the time being, a number of policy makers as well as academics are raising their questions on the content that can be presented in the Metaverse’s virtual worlds, as well as to the conduct and behaviors of the Metaverse users. Arguably, it may prove difficult for the regulators of different jurisdictions to enforce their legislation in the Metaverse’s borderless environment. For example, European citizens are well acquainted with the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation. Other countries have their own legal frameworks and/or principles that are intended to safeguard the rights of data subjects as well as those of content creators. For example, the United States governments has been slower that the EU to introduce its privacy by design policies. Recently, the South Korean Government announced a set of laudable, non-binding ethical guidelines for the provision and consumption of metaverse services. However, there aren’t a set of formal rules that can apply to all Metaverse users.

      Users’ addictions and mental health issues

      Although many AR and VR technologies have already been tried and tested in the past few years, the Metaverse is still getting started. For the time being, it is difficult to determine what are the effects of the Metaverse on the users’ health and well-being. Many commentators anticipate that an unnecessary exposure to Metaverse’s immersive technologies may result in negative side-effects for the psychological and physical health of human beings.  They are suggesting that individuals may easily become addicted to a virtual environment, where the limits of reality are their own imagination. They are lured to it “for all the things they can do” and will be willing to stay “for all the things they can be” (i.e. excerpts from Ready Player One Movie).

      Past research confirms that spending excessive time on internet, social media or playing video games can increase the chances of mental health problems like attention deficit disorders, eating conditions, as well as anxiety, stress or depression, among others. Individuals play video games to achieve their goals, to advance to the next level. Their gameplay releases dopamine. Similarly, their dopamine levels can increase when they are followed through social media, or when they receive likes, comment or other forms of online engagements.          

      Individuals can easily develop an addiction with this immersive technology, as they seek stimulating and temporary pleasurable experiences in its virtual spaces. As a result, they may become dependent to it. Their interpersonal communications via social media networks are not as authentic or satisfying as real-life relationships, as they are not interacting in-person, with other human beings. In the case of the Metaverse, their engagement experiences may appear to be real. Yet again, in the Metaverse, its users are located in a virtual environment, they not physically present near other individuals. Human beings need to build an honest and trustworthy relationship with one another. The users of the Metaverse can create avatars that could easily conceal their identity.

      Read further! The full paper can be accessed and downloaded from:

      The University of Malta: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/110459

      Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371275481_Metaverse_applications_in_education_A_systematic_review_and_a_cost-benefit_analysis

      Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/102800696/Metaverse_applications_in_education_A_systematic_review_and_a_cost_benefit_analysis

      SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4490787

      1 Comment

      Filed under digital games, Digital Learning Resources, digital media, Education, education technology, Metaverse

      Key Terms in Education Technology Literature

      This is an excerpt from one of my latest contributions, entitled: “The Use of Mobile Learning Technologies in Primary Education”.

      edtech(The Image has been adapted from Buzzle.com)

       

      • The ‘Constructivist-Based learning’ is a learning theory claiming that individuals construct their knowledge and understandings through experiencing things.
      • The ‘Digital Learning Resources’ include digitally formatted, educational materials like; graphics, images or photos, audio and video, simulations and animation technologies, that are used to support students to achieve their learning outcomes.
      • The ‘Digital Games-Based Learning’ (DGBL) involves the use of educational video games that can be accessed through computer-based applications. DGBL are usually aimed to improve the students’ learning outcomes by balancing educational content and gameplay.
      • The ‘Discovery-Based Learning’ is a constructivist-based approach to education as students seek to learn through continuous inquiry and experience.
      • The ‘Learning Outcomes’ are assessment tools that measure the students’ achievement at the end of a course or program.
      • ‘Mobile Learning’ (M-Learning) is a term that describes how individuals learn through mobile, portable devices, including smart phones, laptops and/or tablets.
      • The ‘Serious Games’ refer to games that are used in industries like; education, health care, engineering, urban planning, politics and defence, among other areas. Such games are usually designed for training purpose other than pure entertainment.
      • The ‘Ubiquitous Technology’ involves the use of wireless sensor networks that disseminate information in real time, from virtually everywhere.

       

      ADDITIONAL READING

      1. Bakker, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2015). Effects of playing mathematics computer games on primary school students’ multiplicative reasoning ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology40, 55-71.
      2. Blatchford, P., Baines, E., & Pellegrini, A. (2003). The social context of school playground games: Sex and ethnic differences, and changes over time after entry to junior school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology21(4), 481-505.
      3. Bottino, R. M., Ferlino, L., Ott, M., & Tavella, M. (2007). Developing strategic and reasoning abilities with computer games at primary school level. Computers & Education49(4), 1272-1286.
      4. Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A. (2017). The Students’ Perceptions of Digital Game-Based Learning. In Pivec, M. & Grundler, J. (Ed.)11th European Conference on Games Based Learning (October). Proceedings, pp. 52-62, H JOANNEUM University of Applied Science, Graz, Austria, pp 56-62. http://toc.proceedings.com/36738webtoc.pdf https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3087801
      5. Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games. In Shun-Wing N.G., Fun, T.S. & Shi, Y. (Eds.) 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT 2019). Seoul, South Korea (May, 2019). International Economics Development and Research Center (IEDRC). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339158
      6. Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students’ Perceived Use, Ease of Use and Enjoyment of Educational Games at Home and at School. 13th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain (March 2019). International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339163
      7. Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2019). Student-Centred Learning through Serious Games. 13th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain (March 2019). International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339166
      8. De Aguilera, M., & Mendiz, A. (2003). Video games and education:(Education in the Face of a “Parallel School”). Computers in Entertainment (CIE)1(1), 1-14.
      9. Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Computers & Education102, 202-223.
      10. Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Promoting Social and Emotional Learning With Games: “It’s Fun and We Learn Things”. Simulation & Gaming40(5), 626-644.
      11. Lim, C. P. (2008). Global citizenship education, school curriculum and games: Learning Mathematics, English and Science as a global citizen. Computers & Education51(3), 1073-1093.
      12. McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. TEEM (Teachers evaluating educational multimedia), Teem, Cambridge, UK. pp.1-26. http://consilr.info.uaic.ro/uploads_lt4el/resources/pdfengReport%20on%20the%20educational%20use%20of%20games.pdf
      13. Miller, D. J., & Robertson, D. P. (2010). Using a games console in the primary classroom: Effects of ‘Brain Training’programme on computation and self‐British Journal of Educational Technology41(2), 242-255.
      14. Pellegrini, A. D., Blatchford, P., Kato, K., & Baines, E. (2004). A short‐term longitudinal study of children’s playground games in primary school: Implications for adjustment to school and social adjustment in the USA and the UK. Social Development13(1), 107-123.
      15. Tüzün, H., Yılmaz-Soylu, M., Karakuş, T., İnal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education52(1), 68-77.

       

      Leave a comment

      Filed under digital games, Digital Learning Resources, digital media, education technology, Higher Education, Mobile, mobile learning, online

      The Students Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games

      An Excerpt from one of my latest papers, entitled; “The Students’ Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games”.

      How to Cite: Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games. In Shun-Wing N.G., Fun, T.S. & Shi, Y. (Eds.) 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT 2019). Seoul, South Korea (May, 2019).


      This contribution has explored the primary school’s grade three  students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations toward the use of educational games. It relied on the technology acceptance model to investigate the students’ perceived usefulness and ease of use of the  schools’ games ([7], [8], [15]). Moreover, the researchers have also  included the measuring items that explored the students’ perceived  enjoyment ([12], [13], [20]) as they investigated whether they  experienced normative pressures to play the educational games ([14], [22], [23]). The findings from the Wilcoxon test reported that the students played the school games at home, more than they did at school. They indicated that the school’s games were easy to play.

      This study reported that the students recognized that the school’s games were useful and relevant as they were learning from them. Moreover, they indicated that the school’s educational games held their attention since they found them enjoyable and fun. The vast majority of the children played the educational games, both at home and at school. The findings in this study are consistent with the argument that digital natives are increasingly immersing
      themselves in digital technologies ([2]), including educational games ([1], [4], [10], [11], [28]). However, the results have shown that there was no significant relationship between the perceived ease of the gameplay and the children’s enjoyment in them.

      Furthermore, the stepwise regression analysis revealed that there was no significant relationship between the normative expectations and the children’s engagement with the educational games; although it was evident (from the descriptive statistics) that the parents were encouraging their children to play the games at home and at school.

      This research relied on previously tried and tested measures that were drawn from the educational technology literature in order to explore the hypothesized relationships. There is common tendency  in academic literature to treat the validity and reliability of quantitative measures from highly cited empirical papers as given. In this case, the survey items in this study were designed and adapted for the primary school children who were in grade 3, in a
      small European state. Future studies may use different sampling frames, research designs and methodologies to explore this topic. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other empirical study that has validated the technology acceptance model within a primary school setting. Further work is needed to replicate the findings of  this research in a similar context.

      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
      We thank the department of education, the school’s principal and her members of staff who have provided their invaluable support during the data gathering process.

      REFERENCES
      [1] Ge, X., and Ifenthaler, D. 2018. Designing engaging
      educational games and assessing engagement in game-based
      learning” In Gamification in Education: Breakthroughs in
      Research and Practice, IGI Global, Hershey, USA, 1-19,

      [2] Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., and Schellens, T.
      2010, Students’ perceptions about the use of educational
      games in the classroom. Comp. & Educ. 54, 4, 1145-1156.

      [3] Hwang, G.J., and Wu, P.H. 2012. Advancements and trends
      in digital game‐based learning research: a review of
      publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. Brit. J.
      of Educ. Tech. 43, 1, E6-E10.

      [4] Carvalho, M.B., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A.,
      Sedano, C.I., Hauge, H.B., Hu, J., and Rauterberg, M. 2015.
      An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis
      and conceptual design. Comp. & Educ. 87, 166-181.

      [5] Connolly, T.M., Boyle, E.A., MacArthur, E. Hainey, T., and
      Boyle, J.M. 2012. A systematic literature review of empirical
      evidence on computer games and serious games. Comp. &
      Educ. 59, 2, 661-686.

      [6] Burguillo, J.C. 2010. Using game theory and competitionbased
      learning to stimulate student motivation and
      performance. Comp. & Educ. 55, 2, 566-575.

      [7] Dickey, M.D. 2011. Murder on Grimm Isle: The impact of
      game narrative design in an educational game‐based learning
      environment. Brit. J. of Educ. Tech, 42, 3, 456-469.

      [8] Huang, W.H., Huang, W.Y., and Tschopp, J. 2010.
      Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The
      relationship between motivational processing and outcome
      processing. Comp. & Educ. 55, 2, 789-97.

      [9] Harris, J. Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. 2009. Teachers’
      technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning
      activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
      reframed. J. of Res. on Tech. in Educ. 41, 4, 393-416.

      [10] Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., and
      Van Der Spek, E.D. 2013. A meta-analysis of the cognitive
      and motivational effects of serious games. J. of Educ. Psych.
      105, 2, 249-266.

      [11] Camilleri, M.A., and Camilleri, A. 2017. The Students’
      Perceptions of Digital Game-Based Learning, In Pivec, M.
      and Grundler, J. 11th European Conference on Games Based
      Learning Proceedings (London, UK, October 04-05, 2017),
      University of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria, 56-62.

      [12] Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
      use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
      Quart. 319-340.

      [13] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. 1989. User
      acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two
      theoretical models. Mgt. Science, 35, 8, 982-1003.

      [14] Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav.
      and Human Dec. Proc. 50, 2, 179-211.

      [15] Lee, M. K., Cheung, C. M., and Chen, Z. 2005. Acceptance
      of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and
      intrinsic motivation. Inf. & Mgt. 42, 8, 1095-1104.

      [16] Chen, K. C. and Jang, S. J. 2010. Motivation in online
      learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory.
      Comp. in Human Behav. 26, 4, 741-752.

      [17] Dunne, Á., Lawlor, M. A., and Rowley, J. 2010. Young
      people’s use of online social networking sites–a uses and
      gratifications perspective. Journal of Res. in Int. Mktg. 4, 1,
      46-58.

      [18] Li, H., Liu, Y., Xu, X., Heikkilä, J., and Van Der Heijden, H.
      2015. Modeling hedonic is continuance through the uses and
      gratifications theory: An empirical study in online games.
      Comp. in Human Behav. 48, 261-272.

      [19] Teo, T., Beng Lee, C., Sing Chai, C., and Wong, S.L. 2009.
      Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service
      teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance
      analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
      Comp. & Educ. 53, 3, 1000-1009.

      [20] Camilleri, M.A., and Camilleri, A.C. 2017. Digital learning
      resources and ubiquitous technologies in education, Tech.,
      Knowl. and Learng. 22, 1, 65-82.

      [21] Park, S.Y. 2009. An analysis of the technology acceptance
      model in understanding university students’ behavioral
      intention to use e-learning, Educ. Tech. & Soc. 12, 3, 150-
      162.

      [22] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D.
      2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
      unified view. MIS Quart. 425-478.

      [23] Venkatesh, V., Thong, Y.T.L., and Xu, X. 2012.Consumer
      acceptance and use of information technology: extending the
      unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
      Quart. 157-178.

      [24] Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic
      motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
      Contemp. Educ. Psych. 25, 1, 54-67.

      [25] Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M. and Song, J. 2012. An
      investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher
      education based on the theory of planned behavior. Comp. &
      Educ. 59, 3, 1054-1064.

      [26] Chang, C.T., Hajiyev, J., and Su, C.R. 2017. Examining the
      students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in
      Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance
      model for e-learning approach. Comp. & Educ. 111, 128-
      143.

      [27] Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., and Cha, S. B. 2012. University
      students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning:
      Evaluating the technology acceptance model. Brit. Journal of
      Educ. Tech. 43, 4, 592-605.

      [28] Camilleri, M.A. and Camilleri, A.C. 2017. The Technology
      Acceptance of Mobile Applications in Education. In
      Sánchez, I.A. and Isaias, P. (Eds) 13th
      International Conference on Mobile Learning (London, UK,
      10-11 April 2018). International Association for
      Development of the Information Society Budapest, Hungary,
      41-48.

      Presentation is available at: https://www.slideshare.net/markanthonycamilleri/the-students-intrinsic-and-extrinsic-motivations-148006875

       

       

      Leave a comment

      Filed under digital games, Digital Learning Resources, digital media, Education, internet technologies, internet technologies and society

      The Students’ Perceived Use, Ease of Use and Enjoyment of Educational Games

      This is an excerpt from one of my latest empirical papers.

      How to Cite: Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students’ Perceived Use, Ease of Use and Enjoyment of Educational Games at Home and at School. 13th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain (10-13 March, 2019). International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339163


      gamesThis contribution has explored the primary school’s grade three students’ attitudes toward educational games. It relied on the technology acceptance model to investigate the students’ perceived usefulness and ease of use of the schools’ games ([10], [12], [44]). Moreover, the researchers have also included the measuring items that explored the students’ perceived enjoyment ([19]) as they investigated whether they experienced normative pressures to play the educational games ([10], [14], [20]). The findings from the Wilcoxon test reported that the students played the school games at home, more than they did at school. They indicated that the school’s games were easy to play. This study reported that the students recognized that the school’s games were useful and relevant as they were learning from them. Moreover, they indicated that the school’s educational games held their attention since they found them enjoyable and fun.

      The vast majority of the children played the educational games, both at home and at school. The findings in this study are consistent with the argument that digital natives are increasingly immersing themselves in digital technologies ([45]), including educational games ([1], [3]). However, the results have shown that there was no significant relationship between the perceived ease of the gameplay and the children’s enjoyment in them. Furthermore, the stepwise regression analysis revealed that there was no significant relationship between the normative expectations and the children’s engagement with the educational games; although it was evident (from the descriptive statistics) that the parents were encouraging their children to play the games at home and at school.

      This research relied on previously tried and tested measures that were drawn from the educational technology literature in order to explore the hypothesized relationships. There is common tendency in academic literature to treat the validity and reliability of quantitative measures from highly cited empirical papers as given. In this case, the survey items in this study were designed and adapted for the primary school children who were in grade 3, in a small European state. Future studies may use different sampling frames, research designs and methodologies to explore this topic. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other empirical study that has validated the technology acceptance model within a primary school setting. Further work is needed to replicate the findings of this research in a similar context.

      REFERENCES (this is a full list of references that appeared in the bibliography section of the paper)

       
      [1] J. Bourgonjon, M. Valcke, R. Soetaert, and T. Schellens, “Students’ perceptions about the use of educational games in the classroom,” Computers & Education, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1145-1156, 2010.

      [2] S. Bennett, K. Maton, and L. Kervin, “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 775-786, 2008.

      [3] M. Prensky, “Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1,” On the horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6, 2001.

      [4] W. Nadeem, D. Andreini, J. Salo, and T. Laukkanen, “Engaging consumers online through websites and social media: A gender study of Italian Generation Y clothing consumers.” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 432- 442, 2015.

      [5] H.J. So, H. Choi, W.Y. Lim, and Y. Xiong, “Little experience with ICT: Are they really the Net Generation student-teachers?”, Computers & Education, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1234- 1245, 2012.

      [6] J.M. Twenge, “The evidence for generation me and against generation we.” Emerging Adulthood 1, no. 1, pp. 11-16, 2013.

      [7] D. Oblinger, and J. Oblinger, “Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the net generation,” Educating the Net Generation, 2(1-2), 20, 2015.

      [8] N. Howe, and W. Strauss, “Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new generation on campus,” American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), 2003.

      [9] K. Gregor, T. Judd, B. Dalgarno, and J. Waycott, “Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 5, pp.332-343, 2010.

      [10] T. Teo, “Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers,” Computers & Education 52, no. 2 (2009): 302-312, 2009.

      [11] M. Fishbein, and I. Ajzen, “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research,” 1975.

      [12] F.D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 319-340, 1989.

      [13] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw, “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models,” Management Science, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 982- 1003, 1989.

      [14] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179-211, 1991.

      [15] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, and F.D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 425-478, 2003.

      [16] V. Venkatesh, J.Y.L. Thong, and X. Xu, “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 157-178, 2012.

      [17] S.Y. Park. “An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 150-162, 2009.

      [18] P. Legris, J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model,” Information & Management, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 191-204, 2003.

      [19] H. Nysveen, P.E. Pedersen, and H. Thorbjørnsen, “Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents and cross-service comparisons,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 330-346, 2005.

      [20] L.M. Maruping, B. Hillol, V. Venkatesh, and S.A. Brown, “Going beyond intention Integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 623-637, 2017.

      [21] V. Venkatesh, and M.G. Morris, “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior.” MIS Quarterly, pp. 115-139, 2000.

      [22] M.A. Camilleri and A. Camilleri, “The Students’ Perceptions of Digital Game-Based Learning,” In M. Pivec and J. Grundler, 11th European Conference on Games Based Learning (October). Proceedings, University of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria, pp 56- 62, 2017.

      [23] T. Teo, and M. Zhou, “Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 124-142, 2014.

      [24] T. Doleck, P. Bazelais, and D.J. Lemay, “Examining the antecedents of social networking sites use among CEGEP students,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2103-2123, 2017.

      [25] B. Wu, and X. Chen, “Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 67, pp. 221-232, 2017.

      [26] C.T. Chang, J. Hajiyev, and C.R. Su, “Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for elearning approach,” Computers & Education, vol. 111, pp. 128-143, 2017.

      [27] I. Arpaci, K. Kilicer, and S. Bardakci, “Effects of security and privacy concerns on educational use of cloud services,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 45, pp. 93-98,
      2015.

      [28] A.F. Agudo-Peregrina, Á. Hernández-García, and F.J. Pascual-Miguel, “Behavioral intention, use behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: Differences between higher education and lifelong learning,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 34,
      pp. 301-314, 2014.

      [29] F. Paraskeva, H. Bouta, and A. Papagianni. “Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice,” Computers & Education, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1084-1091, 2008.

      [30] D.R. Compeau, and C.A. Higgins, “Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 189-211, 1995.

      [31] S.A. Nikou, and A.A. Economides, “The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students’ science motivation and achievement,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 55, pp. 1241-1248, 2016.

      [32] L.A. Annetta, J. Minogue, S.Y. Holmes, and M.T. Cheng, “Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics,” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 74-85, 2009.

      [33] E.W.T. Ngai, J. K. L. Poon, and Y.H.C. Chan, “Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM,” Computers & Education, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 250-267, 2007.

      [34] T.Teo, and C. Beng Lee, “Explaining the intention to use technology among student teachers: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),” Campus-Wide Information Systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 60-67, 2010.

      [35] T. Teo, and C. Beng Lee, C. Sing Chai, and S.L. Wong, “Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1000-1009, 2009.

      [36] J.Y.L. Thong, W. Hong, and K.Y. Tam, “Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences?” International journal of human-computer studies, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 215-242, 2002.

      [37] M.A. Camilleri, and A.C. Camilleri, “Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education,” Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 65- 82, 2017.

      [38] D.Y. Lee, and M.R. Lehto, “User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model.” Computers & Education, vol. 61, pp. 193-208, 2013.

      [39] T. Teo, and P. Van Schalk, “Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modeling approach,” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 47-66, 2009.

      [40] C. Smarkola, “Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 65-82, 2007.

      [41] M.A. Camilleri, and A.C. Camilleri, “Measuring The Educators’ Behavioural Intention, Perceived Use And Ease Of Use Of Mobile Technologies,” In Wood, G. (Ed) Reconnecting management research with the disciplines: Shaping the research agenda for the social sciences (University of Warwick, September). British Academy of Management, UK, 2017.

      [42] M. Turner, B. Kitchenham, P. Brereton, S. Charters, and D. Budgen, “Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 463-479, 2010.

      [43] R.P. Bagozzi, and Y. Youjae, “On the evaluation of structural equation models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.74-94, 1988.

      [44] M.A. Camilleri, and A.C. Camilleri, “The Technology Acceptance of Mobile Applications in Education,” In Sánchez, I.A. and Isaias, P. (Eds) 13th International Conference on Mobile Learning (Budapest, 11th April). pp41-48. International Association for Development of the Information Society, 2017.

      [45] A. Colbert, N. Yee, and G. George, “The digital workforce and the workplace of the future,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 731-739, 2016.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under digital games, digital media, Education