The Challenges to Diffusion of Educational Computer
Games
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
IT-University of Copenhagen, Denmark
sen@itu.dk
Abstract: This paper explores evidence from prior research already conducted in the field of game-based
learning supplemented by experiences from developers. The aim is to address why educational computer games
are not yet more integrated in formal education. The analysis is structured by drawing on the well-established
model by Rogers called Diffusion of Innovations. Based on the theory three examples of game-based learning
products are presented to examine how game-based learning products fit the diffusion of innovation theory. The
games analyzed are: Dimension M, Global Conflicts and Making History, which are all award-winning titles that
have been in the market place for several years. The conclusion is that many game titles ignore the basics
behind the theory diffusion of innovation, and that research provides amble evidence for the challenges gamebased learning faces. The lacking of game-based learning makes it hard to make real headway towards general
acceptance and everyday use in the educational system. Not because game-based learning doesn’’t work, but
rather because it is perceived, designed and positioned in a way that hinder broad adaption.
Keywords: business, diffusion, innovation, industry, educational, computer games
1. Introduction
The idea of using game-based learning is hardly new. Throughout the last at least 40 years we can
track a constant interest in the area, although with varying strength (Abt, 1970; Loftus & Loftus, 1983;
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007). Looking over the landscape today things look promising with many active
research project, conferences, initiatives and media coverage. However, one thing still cries to the sky
–– the lack of game-based learning as an integrated part of the formal education. Game-based
learning continues to be an exotic spice for many teachers, which is apparent from studies from
FutureLab and European Network of Schools that are mentioned later.
It would hardly be the first time that technologies have failed to deliver on its promises, and has turned
out to nothing more than a fad (Cuban, 2001). However, the continuous interest in game-based
learning (Ito, 2008; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007) and mounting evidence for its efficiency suggest that
there is a real potential. Many research overviews within the broad area of learning from video games
have appeared within the past 20 years (i.e. Cavallari et al., 1992; Dempsey et al., 1996; McGrenere,
1996). These serve as a viable starting point in combination with overviews that are more recent,
inclusive, and thorough (i.e. de Freitas, 2007; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Mitchell & Savill-Smith,
2004; Squire, 2002). In addition to the literature on learning from video games, there are a number of
useful overviews of learning from simulations. These have quite a different scope, with a focus more
on simulations than on video games (Bredemeier & Greenblat, 1981; Clegg, 1991; Dorn, 1989;
Leemkuil et al., 2000; Randel et al., 1992; Van Sickle, 1986; Wentworth & Lewis, 1973). Most of the
studies points at the weakness in the conducted studies, but are also overall positive towards gamebased learning if games are used in the right way.
From a more practical view there is also support for the area. Indeed, more than 50% of European
teachers responded, "I am interested in games in schools" in a study by European School Network
from 2009 (Wastiau, Kearney & Van den Berghe, 2009). A result that is confirmed by a FutureLab
survey (2009), which finds that 60% of all UK teachers would consider using computer games in the
future. So the question begs –– what are we doing wrong?
2. Aim
Through Diffusion of Innovation, a theory formulated by Everett M. Rogers (2003), this paper tries to
explain the lack of adaptation. Not by looking at the ‘‘objective’’ advantages of game-based learning,
but rather the traditional attributes that impend innovations. In many ways game-based learning is
often at the forefront of educational thinking trying to push the educational system into new praxis 1 .
However, this is not in any way a guarantee for short-term success. Rather it is the opposite, as
things that are too new in the ‘‘wrong’’ way will have a hard time being adapted (Rogers, 2003). The
adaptation of game-based learning is becoming easier every year due to objective improvement in
1
For example demonstrated by the Quest to Learn school in New York (http://q2l.org/).
63
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
schools like hardware and it-skills, but there are still a lot of things that can be done to better address
the nature of how innovations are adapted.
This paper aims to explore the existing evidence from research already conducted supplemented by
experiences from developers to address why game-based learning is not yet adapted more in formal
education.
3. Method
The paper structures the current research knowledge through the theory Diffusion of Innovations to
increase chances of adoption throughout the formal educational system. Although existing research
will be the foundation this will be guided and validated by industry leaders that has developed
numerous products over the years.
Therefore, five managers working at key educational developers were approached in 2008. All of the
developers were at that time among the most active in the game-based learning space and continue
to be so. The companies were located in Denmark, United Kingdoms and United States. They were
interviewed for around 1 hour about the current state of the industry, barriers to adaption and the
prospects for game-based learning in general.
4. Defining the educational games area
One of the major challenges facing researchers talking about use and development of education and
games is the fuzziness of the area. In this paper the focus is on the use of computer games in formal
K12 educational system with three different kinds of use (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2009):
ƒ
1. Learning through Games: Use computer games to teach a specific curriculum. These games
are typically developed specifically for educational purposes, although in rare instances games for
entertainment can be adapted (for example social studies in Global Conflicts-series, algebra in
BrainAge-series or World War 2 history in the Making History-series).
ƒ
2. Learning with Games: Use computer games as an example to teach existing relevant terms,
concepts and methods. These games are usually not developed for educational purposes but
adapted by teachers (for example genre analysis by looking at the adventure game Myst, source
criticism in history by examining the history of computer games or writing a essay based on
playing Counter Strike).
ƒ
3. Learning by making Games: Develop games and in that way learn about the contents your
game is about. These are typically authoring tools that may be more or less focused on
developing games. They do not need to be developed for educational use but most in K12 are (for
example make a game about Vikings in MissionMaker or a simple 2D game in GameMaker).
The above can both be games specifically developed for education or games developed for
entertainment, but fitted to the educational purpose. This distinction has crucial implications for the
adaption. The two last categories tend to be more driven by teacher adaption but also require more of
an effort from future teachers that want to adapt it. This makes it difficult for game-based learning in
category 2 and 3 to go beyond what Rogers (2003) define as innovators (2,5%) and early adaptors
(13,5%) that in total make up around 16% of the population.
Clearly there are many change agents and ambitious teachers trying out game-based learning in
different forms. However, in this paper I will focus on the first category ‘‘Learning through Games’’.
5. Diffusion of innovations
The theory behind diffusion of innovation is complex, and its full force goes beyond the scope of the
current paper, so the focus will be on the five important attributes outlined below. It is suggested that
49-87% of the adaption of an innovation can be explained by how much an innovation fits with the
below five attributes (Rogers, 2003):
ƒ
Relative advantage: How much is the innovation perceived as being better than what already
exists.
ƒ
Compatibility: How well does the innovation match existing norms, values, needs, expectations
and previous experiences?
ƒ
Complexity: How easy is the innovation to use and understand for users?
64
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
ƒ
Trialability: How easy is the innovation to try out and experiments with without going all in?
ƒ
Observability: How easy is it to observe the advantages achieved from adapting the innovation?
Overall the decision to adapt an innovation is a cost-benefit analysis, where you usually struggle with
the uncertainty related to anything new. If people find that the innovation outweighs the disadvantages
and uncertainty is outweighed by the advantages you go for it. Of course these attributes are not
enough to explain whether an innovation is adapted but it has been found that they are usually strong
predictors of successful adaption.
One of the challenges when looking at game-based learning is the status of IT in the educational
system. We still find that the infrastructure is severely lacking in many countries (European
Commission, 2006). A well-working IT infrastructure and IT competences are a prerequisite for gamebased learning to overcome a lot of banal barriers (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004). However, this paper will
not focus on these as they are shared with other online resources in general.
5.1 Relative advantage
The first important attribute of an innovation is the perceived relative advantage of the innovation. This
is probably the single most important of the five attributes according the Rogers (2003). Over the
years especially FutureLab in UK have tried to pinpoint what teacher see as the advantages related to
game-based learning. But, also the Games-in-Schools project has addressed the area and other
studies (i.e. Becker & Jacobsen, 2005).
When we look over the landscape there is one easily identified common advantage that is perceived
by many teachers –– namely that games are more motivating and engaging. In the studies by
FutureLab (Williamson, 2009) and European School Network teachers (Wastiau, Kearney, & Van den
Berghe, 2009) motivation comes in as the high-scorer. They both arrive at around 25% of all teachers
recognizing the motivational strength of games. As concluded by European School Network (2009:
75): ““The central argument is to use games as a way to attract pupils’’ attention for particular subjects
and motivate them to learn.”” The strength of the European School Network study is that the findings
are based on open-ended questions, whereas FutureLab starts off from fixed categories. This gives
the findings from European School Network study a more bottom-up result. It is worth noting that
while motivation is the high-scorer there are a lot of other factors mentioned by minorities of teachers.
Game-based learning have been out there for more than 30 years, and that only 25% of all teachers
have a shared understanding of relative advantage is a challenge. Even if upwards of 60% of teacher
in the two studies want to use games there is large variations in the perceived advantage. This makes
it difficult for innovations to spread as the communication becomes muddy. It is noteworthy that there
is actually not a big consensus on what the perceived advantage of game-based learning is, which is
probably related to the broad-reaching scope of game-based leaning laid out earlier in this paper.
Future studies should be more precise in their approach to what type of game-based learning they are
examining, so the relative advantage from different types of game-based learning becomes more
precise than ‘‘increased motivation’’.
5.2 Compatibility
Indeed schools don’’t have the best image for adapting change. This is also clearly shown in the
interviews conducted with developers. Teachers are labeled as lacking the necessary skills to use
games, but also the ability to differentiate good from bad game-based learning. This is obviously a
huge problem, because like any area there will be good and bad products. If teachers are not aware
of the difference they may conclude from a less optimal learning experience that game-based learning
in general is not working (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004; Becker & Jacobson, 2005; Becker, 2008).
The perceived compatibility of innovations relate to three subareas that are all a challenge when
considering game-based learning in educational system. Rogers (2003) find that compatibility is
usually a smaller predictor than the perceived relative advantage. However, this may be different in
the educational system, which is an organization that usually changes quite slow and is not perceived
as very flexible. Hence, compatibility may be very important to consider. The three overall areas
related to compatibility are discussed below.
65
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
5.2.1 Values and beliefs
Throughout the years there have been much discussion of computer games with negative conations
that have undoubtedly influenced teachers values and beliefs about computer games in general, and
the studies cited earlier in this paper by FutureLab and European School Network also have
reminiscences of this. In reviews from the beginning of the century the issue of violence of games is
usually tackled, but the last years it seems to be becoming less of an issue. In general games have
become more socially acceptable, which have also impacted teachers values and perception that are
becoming less of a barrier for game-based learning in education. Teacher increasingly value
computer games as relevant tool for education. Nevertheless, it seems that there may still be a
difference in how you frame game-based learning –– an interactive tool, a simulation or game seem to
influence teacher and student perceptions (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007).
However, another widespread fear that has also crept into the use of game-based learning, is the
transformation of the teacher’’s role which is challenged when using computer games. Teachers’’
perceive that they may need to change their praxis from classroom teaching into for example a more
student-centered learning form. Some teacher believes this may not be the best way for them to
continue. In relation to computer games this is aggravated by many teachers perceiving themselves
as lacking in knowledge of computer games. So, even if teachers are increasingly accepting computer
games as valuable for education it may often not match their own beliefs and values in relation to
teaching. Furthermore, they may not feel competent in taking it on. Indeed, there are still teachers that
outright reject them (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007; Hanghøj & Magnussen, in press; Williamson, 2009;
Colby & Colby, 2008; Whelchel, 2007).
5.2.2 Previous ideas
Often compatibility is also related to what have come before the new innovation, and how well it fits
with these. Here the different types of game-based learning make a difference. Some forms of gamebased learning are aligned with well-known learning theories, educational praxis and didactics,
whereas other are more experiential. It has been pointed out that games fall in very different
categories (Mcfarlane & Kirrimuir, 2002; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007), and that they have the potential to
transform the school from the inside (Gee, 2003).
Game-based learning will probably benefit from not trying to take on too many new ideas that are
incompatible with previous ideas that are well established in the educational system. This may partly
explain why we still see that the more successful game-based learning titles are in many ways quite
simple (often referred to as edutainment).
5.2.3 Actual needs
For many developers of game-based learning the focus is on providing a revolutionary new learning
experience that makes learning much more efficient. However, it is often a big question to what extent
game-based learning is really solving the top-priority problems in the educational system.
For example schools are increasingly struggling to cope with the increasing demand for teaching
students with special needs and finding time in a busy schedule to actually teach. Today, most gamebased learning put new demands on teachers’’ time rather than addressing that challenge. Ignoring
the lack of time makes game-based learning incompatible with the realities in the educational system.
5.3 Complexity
This is how complex a given innovation is to harness the potential from. The complexity is not as
important as the relative advantage or the compatibility, but can still be important in some areas
according to Rogers (2003). It is highly likely that complexity is also an important element in the
educational system, because there is a constant time pressure and anything you do have to work at
9.00 o’’clock with 28 students. Therefore, any complexity will be a turnoff. Even if we don’’t consider
the challenges around installation, setting up and using IT in general game-based learning are seen
as complex by teachers.
Even though many game-based learning titles try to avoid being complex they never seem to really
come close to the simplicity involved in opening a textbook. In the studies by FutureLab and
European School Network licensing issues, lack of IT-support, and problems accessing equipment
66
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
are all seen as barriers by more than 50% of teachers. These are largely related to IT issues, but the
more game specific barriers ‘‘Teachers’’ lack of knowledge about the game’’ is seen as a barrier by
56% of teachers. So teachers are definitely not viewing game-based learning as an easy thing.
5.4 Trialability
Rogers (2003) in his theory points out that this is positively related to the adaptation of an innovation.
It is important that the teachers and the educational system broadly speaking think of game-based
learning as easy to try out. Historically it has been difficult to try out game-based learning with CDRoms. However, this is changing with online games services, which work as subscription services
where it’’s easy to give full temporary access for a limited time. Unfortunately, educational system has
not been very used to the subscription approach, which there is anecdotal evidence against as a
model schools particular like. However, nevertheless the trying out game-based learning is getting
easier, and developments are going towards making it easier.
However, even if developers make it easier for teachers there is a constant time pressure in the
educational system, which makes many schools reluctant to try out new things and adapt things that
are not tried and tested thoroughly. So, if a trial fails you are wasting the time of 28 students for
several hours in a tight syllabus.
This is also the case for many other new innovations in the educational system, but as game-based
learning is potentially more disruptive in relation to teaching praxis. The trialability becomes more
demanding than for example a new textbook, using an online resource or including a new link
collection. Here the format is very well known, and you are more trying out the contents that the actual
format.
5.5 Observability
The Diffusion of Innovation theory points out that it is important that other people can see and observe
the use and benefits other people are having. The obvious example is the adaption of mobile phones,
where it is really easy to see and observe how it makes a difference as people walk around with them
and you are able to get a hold of them, while they are on the road. In relation to game-based learning
you are faced with a number of challenges that you inherit from the way the educational system is
constructed. Basically, many teachers work in a vacuum, where other teachers don’’t see what they
do.
In previous innovation studies (Rogers, 2003) it has been found that, where the beneficial
consequences are further away adaptation suffers. In this regard the educational system face a
challenge, as the consequences of choosing a better or worse educational strategy on an overall level
tend to drown in the educational system. The consequences doesn’’t really become clear before 15
years later when students are all the way through the system, and so many intervening variables can
occur along the road. This is probably the reason for the general perception of the educational system
as a slow adaptor of necessary change and innovations.
So, a focus on game-based learning as having the advantage of improving learning is potentially a
very long-term project that is also quite difficult to observe. Game-based learning could adapt an
approach where you focus on games solving more short-terms problems for example motivating
challenged students or catering for children with special needs. This is a place where you can apply
games and see a more direct advantage. You could also argue that showing an increase in spelling or
math would be an easier sell as you can more quickly assess and show the beneficial consequences.
6. Case study of struggling game-based learning
In the following I discuss the attributes of diffusion of innovation as related to three partly successful
game-based learning titles: Global Conflicts-series, Making History-series and Dimension M. There
are a number of common denominators for these. They have all received several prestigious awards,
been on the market for several years, have good trials for teachers, and a decent level of graphics 2 .
Although, Global Conflicts-series doesn’’t feature multiplayer this doesn’’t seem to be a deciding factor.
These similarities make it possible to assume that these are decent products that have been
recognized by the market, and that teachers can try out. So we can assume that other factors than
2
This information is available from the product’’s respective web-sites.
67
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
whether it’’s a working game are at play in regard to being adapted or not. Of course marketing and
price point can also influence. However, the Diffusion of Innovation argue (Rogers, 2003) that while
channels and price can influence the adaptation speed it doesn’’t change the underlying attributes that
are crucial for whether an innovation will finally be adapted or not. Indeed, the diffusion of innovation
doesn’’t really ‘‘care’’ whether it’’s a good product whatever that might be.
Based on interviews and research on each company it is clear that all companies are still struggling to
find a working approach for delivering game-based learning to schools. They have all received
positive feedback but currently it seems that Making History is being reshaped away from schools in
favor of a private market focus. Global Conflicts-series have been released online, and have +1.000
trials account but with a limited conversion yet online 3 . It seems that currently Dimension X is the one
moving fastest with several schools piloting the game, although the conversion rate is currently not
available. They currently boast more than 1 mio. games played by students, which may of course not
be the best indicators if the game sessions are a few minutes each.
Although it may be premature to make a final verdict it seems that Dimension M is doing a lot of
things right. Dimension M is characterized by offering a much broader focus on a core curriculum that
is tightly aligned with state standards. Another, crucial difference is that the Global Conflicts falls
within the role-playing genre and Making History within the strategy-genre, which are both
increasingly niche genres in the commercial entertainment games space (ESA, 2004). In contrast
Dimension M relates more closely to the action genre that is one of the best selling genres currently .
Finally, Dimension M targets topics that are unchanged over time, and benefit from repetition and
training (math and literacy), which is very different didactically from social studies and history teaching
that are addressed by the two other games.
If we go through the above from the five variables it becomes obvious that Dimension M have made a
number of choices that provides them with a lot of advantages.
Relative Advantage: Although all three games have the basic attribute of using games that are
motivational Dimension M is one step ahead. Teacher perceive Dimension M as an action games that
is closer related to the students everyday life, which teachers sees as the main motivational force of
computer games according to both studies by FutureLab and Games-in-Schools mentioned earlier.
Overall, the three games may have a relative advantage as more motivational compared to other
teaching but Dimension M is more convincing as it plays to the most well-known video game formats.
Compatibility: The three games share the same challenges related to values and belief, but
Dimension M clearly puts more weight on several things that make it more compatible than the other
two. The alignment with state standards is very strict and constantly communicated. Furthermore,
Dimension M is closer to the classic textbook that offers to cover the breadth of the curriculum rather
than Global Conflicts and Making History that focus on a narrow thematic part of the curriculum.
Although, a narrower focus is not unheard of it is less a part of everyday praxis in the educational
system, and especially the way you prioritize and buy educational resources. So, Dimension M falls
more squarely into what teachers know and understand, namely the textbook format, where you cover
major parts of curriculum by progressing through the application. In contrast the two other games are
much more open, experimental in their didactic approach.
Finally, it seems that Dimension M may be addressing a real concern in most modern people working
life including teachers. The lack of time. Teachers are constantly fighting to find time to all the tasks
they have. Dimension M is not only easier to approach it also delivers more for the initial investment
as it promises to cover a much broader curriculum that the two other games, which gives the teacher
a quicker return on their investment. Finally, Dimension M position itself as a continuous part of the
educational praxis over a school year, which makes it easier to encompass for teachers. The two
other games differ by being suitable as a one-time experience for a school class over a school year.
Complexity: All of the three games are quite similar in complexity with the demands on the hardware
that requires that the system administrator install the software. The games pretty much also have the
same technical specifications. However, in contrast to the other two games Dimension M offers an
experience that teachers can more easily overview. In the strategy game Making History you will have
to play for hours to fully comprehend it, and in the role-playing game Global Conflicts you need to
3
In total the Global Conflicts-series have been sold to +300 schools including sales prior to going online.
68
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
complete the game to get the full picture. This makes it way more complex to get started with. Finally,
the topics covered by Dimension M are also less complex than the topics tackled in the two other
games.
Trialability: The three games are all very focused on allowing the teachers to try out the games, and
do not really seem to differ in this regard. They share the common problems with diffusion of
innovation in schools, and especially with IT in schools.
Observability: The final attribute of an innovation relates to how easy it is to observe that people are
using a new innovation and gaining advantages from it. Again, Dimension M is ahead of the
competition with a tournament feature that showcases what schools are using it. Furthermore, the
topics chosen by Dimension M makes it easier to document change. Assessment of your ability in
different areas of algebra are quite a different thing than for example measuring progress in ethical
thinking related to conflicts. In this regard Making History is placed in the middle, as factual history is
also pretty easy to measure. However, Making History is to a large extent not really focusing on
history as facts, but rather learning students about the underlying historical dynamics.
7. Conclusion
By applying Rogers’’ Diffusion of Innovations model it becomes evident that game-based learning is
potentially facing a lot of challenges. Almost all of the attributes for game-based learning are not
aligned very well with the attributes characteristic for diffusion of innovations. Although, a number of
the challenges are shared with any innovation trying to make it into schools that is not the entire truth.
Game-based learning is in many ways currently a bad fit with the educational system from an
adaptation point of view –– also more than many other potential innovations.
The relative advantage from game-based learning referred to, as ‘‘more motivating’’ is somewhat
diffuse. It is not very compatible with the existing teaching praxis and the physical make-up of the
educational system. Game-based learning is also perceived as a complex thing to use. It is also
difficult to observe the results. In regard to trialability the picture is muddier, but games-based learning
is not off worse than other innovations in schools. It has become easier with online solutions, but it is
still a costly and difficult investment for teachers.
Overall, one may argue that game-based learning is in many ways ahead of it days. As the IT
infrastructure becomes better some of the challenges will vaporize. We also see that a lot of the
issues related to compatibility are being addressed as a general flaw in the educational system, and
that the educational system needs to adopt new didactics. Time is slowly working for game-based
learning but thinking more intelligently about how to position game-based learning in relation to
Rogers work on innovation will probably speed up things.
In the analysis of three different game-based learning products it becomes obvious that Dimension M
has a number of advantages that suggests it should be more easily adapted by the educational
system. Of course only time will tell, but the arrow points in that direction. This is definitely not to say
that Dimension M is a better educational experience (there are numerous problematic elements in the
game), which I doubt is the case, and which is not really the point with this paper. The important point
from the Diffusion of Innovation perspective is that the successful adaptation of game-based learning
is more about perception than proof. The research community from that perspective have quite a
different agenda that the developers in the field.
Future studies of stakeholders in the educational system could focus on defining a survey scale that
examines how the educational systems perceive key questions related to the different attributes
associated with game-based learning. Such a scale could be quite generic, and in that way support
future vendors in their development of game-based learning. Overall, such data can be used to steer
future developments and investments in game-based learning, so it is more closely working together
with the educational system rather than haphazardly. We need to remember that it is not so important
what we are trying to ‘‘sell’’ games as, but what teachers more intuitively perceive as the advantages
related to game-based learning. In my opinion we still don’’t really know this, and I believe many
teacher (and developers and researchers) are still largely uneducated and guessing towards what
games can really be used for. This means that we have to focus on identifying clear relative
advantages, increase compatibility, reduce complexity, support trialability and showcase successful
application of game-based learning.
69
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
References
Abt, C. (1970). Serious games. New York: Viking Press.
Becker, K. & Jacobsen, M. (2005). Games for Learning: Are Schools Ready for What’’s To Come? Proceedings
of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views –– Worlds in Play.
Becker, K. (2008). The Invention of Good Games: Understand Learning DEsign in Commercial Video Games.
Thesis. Calgary, Alberta.
Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games: A synthesis of
findings. Simulation & Games, 12(3), 307-331.
Cavallari, J., Hedberg, J., & Harper, B. (1992). Adventure games in education: A review. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 8(2), 172-184.
Clegg, A. A. (1991). Games and simulations in social studies education. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of
research on social studies teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Overused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
de Freitas, S. (2007) Learning in Immersive Worlds. Joint Information Systems Committee.
Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996). The Instructional Gaming Literature: Implications and 99
Sources. University of South Alabama.
Dorn, D. S. (1989). Simulation Games: One More Tool On the Pedagogical Shelf. Teaching Sociology, 17(1), 118.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2004). Practical barriers in using educational computer games. On the Horizon.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Digital Kompetanse
3, v1, 184––213.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). The Educational Potential of Computer Games. New York: Continuum Press.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007. Third Generation Educational Use of Computer Games. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia. v16,3.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2009). Hvordan underviser man med computerspil? Designværkstedet. EMU.
ESA, "Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry: 2004 Sales, Demographics, and Usage,"
vol. 2005: The Entertainment Software Association, 2004, latest data on Video game industry, Retrieved
from: http://www.theesa.com/files/EFBrochure.pdf, accessed: April 10 2005
European Commission (2006). Benchmarking Access and Use of ICT in European Schools 2006. Final Report
from Head Teacher and Classroom Teacher Surveys in 27 European Countries. Bruxelles: European
Commission.
FutureLab (2009). NFER Teacher Voice Omnibus February 2009 Survey. Using computer games in the
classroom. Bristol: Futurelab.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hanghøj, T: & Magnussen, R. (in press). The role of the teacher in facilitating educational games: Outlining a
game pedagogy.
Ito, M. (2008). Education vs. Entertainment: A Cultural History of Children’’s Software. In: Salen, K (2008). The
Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 89––116.
Leemkuil, H., Jong, T. d., & Ootes, S. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulations. Twente:
University of Twente.
Loftus, G R. & Loftus, E: Mind at Play, Basic Books: New York 1983
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. Teachers
Evaluating Educational Multimedia. Cambridge.
McGrenere, J. L. (1996). Design of Educational Electronic Multi-player Games: A literature Review. Vancouver:
Department of Computer Science.
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the
literature. London: Ultralab: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational
Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261-276.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational
Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261-276.
Rogers, E. M (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M. & Facer, K. and Rudd, T. Teaching with Games: Using commercial off-the-shelf
computer games in formal education. Bristol: Futurelab.
Squire, K. (2002). Cultural Framing of Computer/Video. Game studies, 1(1).
Van Sickle, R. (1986). A Quantitative Review of Research on Instructional Simulation Gaming: A Twenty-Year
Perspective. Theory Research in Social Education, 14(3), 245-264.
Wastiau, P., Kearney, C. & Van den Berghe, W. (2009). How are digital games used in schools? Final report.
Bruxelles: European School Network.
Wentworth, D. R., & Lewis, D. R. (1973). A review of research on instructional games and simulations in social
studies education. Social Education, 37, 432-440.
Williamson, B. (2009). Computer games, schools, and young people. A report for educators on using games for
learning. Bristol: Futurelab.
70