A Comparison of the Online Learning Activities and Learning Style Preferences of Young Adult Video Game Players and Nonplayers (original) (raw)

Abstract

A study is presented that compared the online learning activities and learning style preferences of video game players and nonplayers. A total of 1,258 students across seven postsecondary institutions near Seoul, South Korea, rated their experiences with video game play alongside their online learning activities and preferences toward learning styles that share characteristics with many of today's games. Utilizing a causal-comparative approach, descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to quantitatively examine the groups. At first glance, the findings revealed that the players were more involved in online learning activities than the nonplayers. Namely, the players (a) took more online courses and/or training per year; (b) shared ideas, documents, information, and/or knowledge online; (c) read and/or contributed to blogs; (d) used the Internet to complete school assignments; and (e) used email, instant message, chat (or other means) to communicate with instructors and peers. However, further examination revealed that the nonplayers held a stronger preference than the players for most of the learning styles examined. That is, the nonplayers preferred online courses and/or training that (a) presented graphics before text; (b) provided opportunities to multitask; (c) offered the ability to selectively access different parts of courseware, rather than linearly stepping through; and (d) were play-rather than work-centric. Although exceptions were found, on the whole, these findings suggest that arguments about today's youth and their different learning preferences, as a result of exposure to and experience with technology, to include video games, may be premature and much more in-depth empirically supported research is needed before definitive conclusions can be safely drawn.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (35)

  1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA Online. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.57.12.1060
  2. Anderson, N. (2009). US 20th in broadband penetration, trails S. Korea, Estonia. ARS Technica. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/us-20th-in-broadband-penetration-trails-s-korea-estonia.ar s
  3. Chou, C., & Meng-Jung, T. (2007). Gender differences in Taiwan high school students' computer game playing. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 812-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.011
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Nasah, A. (2011). Millennials are digital natives? An investigation into digital propensity and age. In S. P. Ferris (Ed.), Teaching, learning, and the Net Generation: Concepts and tools for reaching digital learners (pp. 90-106). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  6. DaCosta, B., Nasah, A., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2011). Digital propensity: An investigation of video game and information and communication technology practices. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 1148-1173). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch052
  7. DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., & Shook, J. J. (2012). Violent video games, delinquency, and youth violence: New evidence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(2), 132-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204012460874
  8. Elson, M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Twenty-five years of research on violence in digital games and aggression empirical evidence, perspectives, and a debate gone astray. European Psychologist, 19(1), 33-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch052
  9. Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. F., & Pearce, C. (2007). The hegemony of play. In Proceedings of DiGRA: Situated play (pp. 24-28). Tokyo, Japan: Digital Games Research Association.
  10. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave.
  11. Griffiths, M. D., Davies, M. N. O., & Chappell, D. (2003). Breaking the stereotype: The case of online gaming. Cyber Pyschology & Behavior, 6, 81-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493103321167992
  12. Guillén-Nieto, V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. (2012). Serious games and learning effectiveness: The case of It's a Deal! Computers and Education, 58, 435-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.015
  13. Information Solutions Group. (2011). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from http://www.infosolutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2012.pdf
  14. Information Solutions Group. (2013). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from http://www.infosolutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2013.pdf
  15. Ivory, J. D. (2006). Still a man's game: Gender representation in online reviews of video games. Mass Communication & Society, 9(1), 103-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0901\_6
  16. Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217-1218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
  17. Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1729-1743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.004
  18. Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Report 8: Literature review in gaming and learning. Future Lab. Retrieved from http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/04/53/PDF/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf
  19. Leonard, D. J. (2006). Not a hater, just keepin' it real: The importance of race-and gender-based game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 83-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281910
  20. Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students' expectations for technology in college classrooms. Innovate, 3. Retrieved from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=431&action =article
  21. Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2010). The digital literacy debate: An investigation of digital propensity and information and communication technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 531-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9151-8
  22. Norman, D. K. (2008). Predicting the performance of interpreting instruction based on digital propensity index score in text and graphic formats (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
  23. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Science, Education, Theory and Practice, 15(5), 625-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
  24. Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
  25. Özyurt, O., Özyurt, H., & Baki, A. (2013). Design and development of an innovative individualized adaptive intelligent e-learning system for learning of probability unit: Details of UZWEBMAT. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 2914-2940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.008
  26. Prensky, M. (1998). Twitch speed: Keeping up with young workers. Retrieved from http://www.twitchspeed. com/site/article.html#twitch
  27. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp
  28. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9, 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp
  29. Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/950566.950596
  30. Prensky, M. (2006). Don't bother me Mom -I'm learning: How computer and video games are preparing your kids for twenty-first century success -and how you can help! New York, NY: Paragon House Publishers.
  31. Ritterfeld, U., & Weber, R. (2006). Video games for entertainment and education. In P. Vorderer, & B. Jennings (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 399-413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  32. Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native -Myth and reality. Paper presented at the CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) London seminar series. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530 910973776
  33. Seok, S., & DaCosta, B. (2012). The world's most intense online gaming culture: Addiction and high-engagement prevalence rates among South Korean adolescents and young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2143-2151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.019
  34. Seok, S., & DaCosta, B. (2014). Distinguishing addiction from high engagement: An investigation into the social lives of adolescent and young adult massively multiplayer online game players. Games and Culture, 9(4), 227-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412014538811
  35. Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.