The Impact of Technology Integration on Student-Designed Games by Mauro Henrique André A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama May 5, 2013 Keywords: Student-designed games, technology integration, participatory action research Copyright 2013 by Mauro Henrique André Approved by Peter Hastie, Chair, Wayne T. Smith Distinguished Professor of Kinesiology Alice Buchanan, Associate Professor of Kinesiology Jared Russell, Associate Professor of Kinesiology Jung Won Hur, Professor of Education Foundation, Leadership and Technology Abstract Student-designed games (SDG) is the process in which students create, organize, practice and refine their own games within certain limits established by the teacher (Hastie, 2010). Recent research has proposed different methodologies to teach SDG, and among these, technology integration (TI) was proposed by Hastie, Casey and Tarter (2010) and by Casey, Hastie and Rovegno (2011) when using a wiki for game design. In spite of becoming an innovative methodology for teaching SDG, it is not clear how TI may improve or diminish students’ experience and learning. The present research analyzed how TI has an impact on a SDG teaching unit, and it addressed five research questions: (1) How technology integration has an impact on a teacher’s pedagogy? (2) How technology integration has an impact on students’ physical activity engagement? (3) How technology integration has an impact on students’ enjoyment/ engagement? (4) How technology integration has an impact on students’ communication? (5) How technology integration has an impact on students’ game characteristics/ architecture? The researcher taught two SDG units in a Junior High School, one with TI and another without TI. Within a participatory action research methodology, these questions were answered following analysis of data collected with six different methods: observations (field notes), Edmodo discussions, interviews, survey, lesson plans and pedometer count. The executive answers to the five key questions were: (1) the TI group was taught with more autonomy, whereas the non-technology group needed more support to complete their tasks; ii (2) the non-technology group reported a higher physical activity engagement than the TI group; (3) the non-technology group reported higher levels of enjoyment when comparing to the TI group; (4) group members from the non-technology group were able to communicate better, while inter-group communication was better in the TI group; (5) boys reported to focus on designing strategic games whereas girls focused on designing ludic games. In conclusion, TI was considered a harder teaching methodology that required more experience with SDG and with TI. Moreover, there was also a higher appreciation for SDG among the students that were taught without TI. Nevertheless, TI provided more equality among students as they were given more opportunity to share their ideas in online discussions. Future research may consider a hybrid model that focuses on the major benefits that can be derived from each teaching condition. iii Acknowledgments My years in Auburn will be unforgettable. In the following paragraphs, I will try to express my gratitude for the many people that have been part of this experience. I must first acknowledge that I will fail, since words are not enough to express my true gratitude to “y’all”. First and foremost, I would like to thank my adviser Dr. Peter Hastie, for all his constant support, attention and guidance. Within just a few years, he not only taught me about how to conduct research (which would be more than enough given his unbelievable knowledge), but he also taught me about his positive relationship with his students and collaborators. I will always look up to him as my mentor and of course my dear friend. I would also like to thank all the professors in which I had the opportunity to work in different courses and occasions: Dr. Brock, Dr. Love, Dr. Pascoe, Dr. Ross and Dr. Wadsworth. Special thanks to the professors in my committee who have helped me during the process of my dissertation: Dr. Russell and Dr. Buchanan. Special thanks to Dr. Hur who have changed my perception of technology integration. Special thanks to Dr. Shannon who have helped me learn about statistics and understand its usefulness in research (not an easy task!). Special thanks to Dr. Rudisill for all her support and kindness. I would like to thank all students from the school where I have conducted my research and the physical education teachers Coach Spencer and Coach Carter for all their support. A very special thanks to my lovely wife, Aline for all her love, patience and contagious happiness. I would like to thank ALL my family (in spite of the distance we are never far apart). iv My parents, João and Elizabeth for all their love and constant support. My brothers, Carlos and Fernando for all the long talks over the internet (and few videogame matches). My in laws, José Carlos and Ana Luísa for all their support and laughs over the phone. I would like to thank all the friends I have made here in Auburn. Between soccer games, barbeques, and chats between classes, they made my life here a little easier. I would like to thank all my students from different courses that I have taught in Auburn. I believe that I have learned a lot about the teaching practice and they have contributed in this learning. Last but not least, I would like to thank Auburn University and all the faculty and staff members for allowing me the opportunity to continue my studies. v Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1 - Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2 - Literature Review .........................................................................................................6 Chapter 3 - Study Design and Methodology .................................................................................45 Chapter 4 - Results ........................................................................................................................58 Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................99 References ...................................................................................................................................117 Appendix A - Interview Guide ................................................................................................... 126 Appendix B - Survey .................................................................................................................. 130 Appendix C - Poster - Leading Questions for the Non-Technology Group ............................... 133 Appendix D - Playbook Portfolio - Leading Questions for the Non-Technology Group ............137 Appendix E - Leading Questions and Playbook Portfolio for the TI Group ...............................142 Appendix F - IRB Forms and Letters ..........................................................................................149 vi List of Tables Table 4.1. Game Summaries from Students of the Non-Technology Group.....................................58 Table 4.2. Game Summaries from Students of the TI Group ............................................................60 Table 4.3. Physical Activity Engagement Means by Group, Gender and Time ................................71 Table 4.4. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Time ................................72 Table 4.5. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Gender .............................73 Table 4.6. Comparison of Students Overall Experience by Group, Gender and Group X Gender ...75 Table 4.7. Comparison of Students Overall Experience in Each Group and Each Gender ...............75 Table 4.8. TI Students’ Technology Usage and Interest ....................................................................76 Table 4.9. TI Students’ Internet Access in Their Houses ..................................................................76 Table 4.10. Non-Technology and TI Single-Sex Groups’ Response to Game Design......................98 vii List of Figures Figure 3.1. Lewin’s Cycle Model ..................................................................................................46 Figure 2.2. Study Design Five Stages Using Lewin’s Cycle Model .............................................47 Figure 4.1. Teacher’s Pedagogy Themes and Sub-Themes ...........................................................62 Figure 4.2. SDG Stages in Each Class ...........................................................................................63 Figure 4.3. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Time ...........................73 Figure 4.4. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by