Teacher Perceptions of Games in Singapore Schools

Abstract

With the proliferation of entertainment games, supported by heavy investment in the underlying technologies, educators are now examining the educational values of gaming and attempting to incorporate games into their teaching. In Singapore, the game sector is worth many million Singapore dollars (SGDs), and gaming is an engaging activity of the young. Using a survey, this study examined the use of games and simulations in schools. The study was designed to shed light on the use of gaming activities in learning, perception of adoption and use, and problems encountered in teachers’ attempts to adopt games. Factors related to teaching level, experience, and subject were also analyzed for possible influence on teachers’ perceptions of game-related learning.

Keywords

education games gaming IT adoption learning motivation perceptions pull factors push factors school Singapore survey teachers teaching

In Singapore, the game sector in 2008 was estimated to be worth 285 million SGDs (Luo, 2008). Young Singaporeans increasingly engage in gaming. Moreover, in December 2008, the Singapore government announced the building of a new 19-hectare media hub, Mediapolis, to encourage game design, development, and use.

With the proliferation of entertainment games, supported by massive investment in the underlying computer technologies, educators the world over have been absorbed by the educational values of gaming and incorporated games into teaching. Many benefits accrue from games in education, from stimulating students’ information assimilation and retention, to motivating students, to enhancing their motor coordination. Yet, games have not been adopted en masse in education. This could be because of the stigma of games being associated with play, as opposed to study or work, and gaming’s perceived association with violence, although research has found mixed evidence for such relations (Anderson, 2004; Barlett, Anderson, & Swing, 2009; Van Eck, 2006). Moreover, we have discovered no published empirical studies of game perceptions and use in Singapore schools.

To gain a better understanding of the use and perceptions of simulations and games in the Singapore education system, we conducted a survey targeting teachers in Singapore schools. The results provide insight into the use of simulations and games in Singaporean education. This in turn has implications for the development of the Mediapolis media hub.

The term game used in this context does not necessarily refer only to computerized games but also includes serious games, online games, off-the-shelf games, and board games. We use a broad-based definition of games to help us understand the current state of game adoption in Singapore schools. The research questions were as follows: What are teachers’ perceptions of game use in the classroom? What factors encourage or inhibit teachers’ use of game-based learning? Do factors of teaching level, experience, and subject influence teachers’ perceptions?

We begin with a literature review of games in education followed by a description of the research methodology. Then, we discuss the findings of the survey and analyze the results. Finally, we conclude with limitations and implications.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Games

Recent research has examined the educational benefits of games. Although fundamentally different from instruction, games have gained the attention of researchers and teachers around the world (Can & Cagiltay, 2006; Kumar & Lightner, 2007; Moizer, Lean, Towler, & Abbey, 2009; Moreno-Ger, Burgos, & Torrente, 2009; Sandford, Ulicsak, Facer, & Rudd, 2006). Research has shown that games promote cognitive and skill-based learning (Anderson & Lawton, 2009; Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Wilson et al., 2009). Games may stimulate information assimilation and retention, enhance motor coordination and the ability to think quickly and analyze a situation, and help with aspects of coordination and concentration on visual details. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) explains that when people play games, they are in a state of flow and are fully immersed in what they are doing in that optimized experience.

Research has also highlighted games as potent tools for social and emotional learning (Garris et al., 2002; Hromek & Roffey, 2009). Games enable teachers to observe students’ problem-solving strategies in action and assess their students’ performances. Gaming offers teachers resources that they can use to make their subject matter come alive, for example, in modeling scientific processes (Beedle & Wright, 2007; McFarlane, Sparrowhawk, & Heald, 2002). Although games are often perceived to be associated with violent behavior, research has found only partial evidence for this (Anderson, 2004; Barlett et al., 2009; Van Eck, 2006). However, disadvantages such as children being overstimulated by games cannot be ignored (Barlett et al., 2009; Thomas, Gentile, & Anderson, 2008). Games may also be irrelevant to the content of the subject taught or linked to excessive or addictive play (McFarlane et al., 2002; Prensky, 2001).

Teachers’ Perceptions

McFarlane et al. (2002) found that games support the development of a wide range of skills essential to the autonomous learner. Other research provides evidence of gaming’s positive effects on student accuracy, speed of calculation, and self-esteem (Miller & Robertson, 2009). Teachers are generally interested in motivational and academic benefits when considering incorporating games in the classroom. We can distinguish three types of educators with regard to games:

those who understand the potential of games in teaching

those who prefer only a specific type of game and are reluctant to try other types of games

those who have not used games at all and who are not interested in them (Dondi & Moretti, 2007)

De Aguilera and Mendiz (2003) argue that teachers who denounce computer games across the board have no game-playing experience. Rylands (2007), a primary-school teacher and a strong believer in the importance of fun in learning, found dramatic improvement in his classes’ literacy assessments through game-playing.

Issues and Challenges

Previous research reviewed several issues in game adoption and use among teachers. A recent study by European Schoolnet (2009) surveyed 528 teachers from several European countries on their use of digital games in schools. They found that using digital games in education occurs widely; 70% of the teachers had used games in the classroom. The study found that the choice of games and their integration within the curriculum were difficult. However, this research was limited to digital games.

A study of the Singaporean context (Lim, 2008) examined the specific case of using the game QUEST ATLANTIS to teach global citizenship issues. Lim (2008) found that a lack of capacity and motivation on the part of schools and teachers, and the focus on standards, grades, and outcome measures, were all major barriers to designing environments that would engage students in their learning. Using games in immersive environments requires a mind-set that is independent of traditional beliefs, assumptions, and values about teaching and learning (Kafai, 2001).

In addition, implementation difficulties hinder the adoption of games for instructors and teachers. A significant issue is the availability of an environment where students can play games—the availability of the right equipment, its configuration, and technical support. Other issues such as professional training and licensing agreements further compound difficulties (Federation of American Scientists, 2006). Van Eck (2006) argues that, to enhance game-based learning, documentation, training, technical and financial infrastructure, and research and development support are all needed. Another challenge for teachers is the appropriate integration of gaming within the curriculum (Prensky, 2001). Government policies and support are required for this.

Research Methodology

The survey methodology was chosen as it can provide a wide cross-sectional view of respondents from a target population (Babbie, 1995), and it need not take too much of the busy respondents’ time. Twelve schools in Singapore were selected and 40 copies of a paper-based questionnaire were distributed to each school. The sample comprised five primary schools, five secondary schools, and two junior colleges. This provided a good spread to examine teachers’ perceptions of using games to enhance learning at primary, secondary, and higher levels.

School selection was based on convenience sampling; however, effort was taken to ensure diversity in the schools’ environment and context. For instance, in the secondary-schools sample, government, government-aided, and independent schools were selected.

The questionnaire was based on our literature review (Can & Cagiltay, 2006; McFarlane et al., 2002). The survey instrument included demographic information on teachers, the teachers’ perspectives on game use and its effectiveness, the teachers’ and schools’ game and IT use, the teachers’ training, and their view of the future use of gaming in education. Twenty-one questions were quantitative and 1 was open ended. After each question, teachers could add qualitative comments. Survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.” Four hundred eighty-two responses were collected between January and May 2009, and we filtered out three missing responses. Table 1 displays the survey demographics.

Table 1.

Survey Demographics

Survey respondents (N = 479)		%
Teaching level	Primary school	44
	Secondary school	39
	Junior college	17
Years of teaching experience	<1 year	11
	1-5 years	34
	>5 years	55
Teaching subject	English	36
	Mother tongue	19
	Mathematics	14
	Other subjects	32

Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Results

Overall Usage of Games for Education in Singapore Schools

In the survey, 58% of respondents said that they incorporated games in teaching; however, games were not used frequently. The most common genre of games played is simulation, related to the content being taught. Other genres include turn-based strategy and adventure games. To increase readability, all percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 2 shows the usage frequencies and types of games played.

Table 2.

Game Usage and Type

Game usage		Percentage
Frequency	Rarely	59
	Monthly	24
	Once a week	11
	>Once a week	6
Game type	Custom-written game	27
	Board games, card games, and word-hunt games	26
	Off the shelf	18
	Freeware games	17
	Other games	12

Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Games

The majority of teachers have a positive attitude toward the use of games in education. They believe that games can lead to better learning outcomes for students in terms of cognition, psychomotor skill, and affective learning (Table 3). Teachers also felt that students enjoy the games (M = 4.16). Computer games were seen as beneficial for transboundary interaction. Via the Internet, students are able to interact with other students from different countries and share their views and explain concepts (see Table 4). Teachers commented as follows:

Table 3.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Learning From Games

Statement	M	SD
Games help students achieve cognitive learning goals.	3.65	0.787
Games help students achieve psychomotor learning goals.	3.55	0.914
Games help students achieve affective learning goals.	3.34	0.932

Table 4.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Benefits From Games

Statement	M	SD
Interconnectivity of games via the Internet allows transboundary interaction: Students can share their views with students from other countries.	3.52	0.998
Animation and media better explain concepts: Unlike traditional static teaching materials in printed formats, students can understand concepts better through the use of movements, sounds, and videos.	3.93	0.870

Games can help . . . if objective learning outcomes are made clear. Most importantly, students are assessed and they receive feedback on their performance after playing the games [a secondary-school teacher]. Lads are very visual; having interactive visual effects makes them more interested and they show better understanding [a primary-school teacher].

Various barriers to adopting games were highlighted (see Table 5). The greatest obstacle was time, followed by limited resources, high costs, the relevance of games, parents’ reactions, and school support.

Table 5.

Barriers to Game Adoption

Statement	M	SD
There is insufficient time to involve games during curriculum time.	4.28	0.874
Limited resources restrict the use of games.	4.05	0.913
High costs are involved.	3.71	0.935
Games are only tangentially relevant and do not address topics directly.	3.54	0.922
Potential adverse reactions from parents deter schools from fully adopting into games.	3.25	0.939
Schools are not supportive in advocating the use of games in classrooms.	3.11	1.055

Demographic Factors, Game Use, and Attitude

We analyzed the data in terms of demographic factors—teaching level, years of teaching experience, and teaching subject. Using a one-way ANOVA at the .001 level of significance, we analyzed the results of the various demographic variables concerning teachers’ perceptions. The differences are elaborated in a later section. (The full set of statistical findings is obtainable from the first author.)

Discussion

Overall, teachers agreed that games are a very useful aid in education and can be used occasionally for various benefits. Despite this positive outlook, less than 1 out of every 10 teachers incorporates a game in the classroom regularly. Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis, we propose a framework for the adoption and use of games in the classroom (Figure 1). On one side are push factors. These consist of policies and curriculum and environmental support that serve to buttress game use by teachers. On the other side are pull factors. These are personal interest and the gaming mind-set that affect game adoption and use. Push factors refer to external forces that encourage an individual to incorporate games in education. Pull factors pertain to inner motivations of the individual for game adoption. Demographic factors—specifically teaching level, years of experience, and teaching subject—affect the extent to which teachers incorporate game-based learning in the classroom.

Figure 1.

Framework for the adoption and use of games in the classroom

Push Factors in Game Use

Policies and curriculum support

Policies and curriculum support are important factors that affect the adoption of games in education. Policies are guidelines that teachers receive from the educational authorities. Teachers highlighted the restrictiveness or absence of policies regarding game adoption by the Ministry of Education (MOE), the overall governing body for education in Singapore. This, according to a junior-college teacher, results in schools implementing games in a piecemeal manner, with inadequate training for teachers.

The lack of time to employ games during curriculum time received the highest mean score of 4.28 from the respondents. It was the highest rated reason for educational games not being prevalent.

In general, games as a learning platform have been promoted by the MOE. For instance, an initiative called Strategies for Effective Engagement and Development (SEED) encourages innovative teaching to engage students at the primary level (www.moe.edu.sg). Games are one such strategy. However, as noted by our survey respondents, no focused effort to promote game-based learning is being made by the MOE. Although broad policies encourage the use of games, no specific plan or active championing of game adoption is undertaken in schools.

With regard to curriculum, teachers generally encountered difficulty in finding relevant games to incorporate in their teaching. Teachers cited a lack of instructional game material for many subjects. This suggests a lack of support for the use of games to teach curriculum content. A secondary-school teacher was disappointed to note that the ministry has not been at the forefront to create curriculum materials for schools to use. Of the respondents, 82% wanted professional game makers commissioned to create fun games relevant to the curriculum content. The problem seems to be acute for subjects such as science and mathematics, where, compared with languages, less gaming software exists for educational use.

Environmental support

A teacher’s environment is also salient to game use. Environment support includes teacher training, lesson time, IT resources, and community support. An awareness of games is important for teachers’ use of games. The lack is clearly evident from the survey, as most respondents communicated poor knowledge and awareness about any form of games. Training is warranted. Many respondents desired training to be equipped to use games in their teaching. A junior-college teacher highlighted the significance of game-skills training in saying, “Teachers must be skillful in facilitating a gaming lesson, or else students can make it a chaotic lesson.”

Lesson time refers to the period in which teachers give a lesson. Teachers want clear and easy-to-read game documentation for the existing games in the market so that they can master a game without taking too much time (59% agreed with this). Teachers indicated that the time allocated to play a game in the classroom was limited, and they felt that if they played a game instead of teaching the content, less time would be available to cover the curriculum. For instance, a secondary teacher commented as follows:

There will never be enough time to cover the exam syllabus, as any extra time could be spent on revision. This is due to the assessment mode of the secondary-school system. To introduce gaming as a teaching tool, the game must be able to achieve the instructional-program objectives.

Many games are now IT based. IT resources in schools were cited by many as being inadequate to meet the demands of new and emerging interactive games. Limited resources restricted the use of games for 75% of respondents. A secondary-school teacher remarked that “our classrooms are not installed or equipped with desktops or laptops.” Another teacher commented on the slow computers in the computer laboratories.

The remaining environmental factor is community support. A teacher advocated the need for such support within the school: a school-wide culture. Similarly, other teachers suggested the sharing of resources among clusters. In Singapore, schools are divided into clusters based on geographic location; within each cluster, schools share resources and information, and organize community-level events. The survey showed that 71% of respondents were in favor of building interschool communities to share their knowledge and experience of game use. The interaction could spur further usage of games and create a buzz over game use, and lead to the effectiveness of the game-based learning approach.

Pull Factors in Game Use

Personal interest

An influential factor that will spur game adoption in schools is a teacher’s personal interest in using games. Intrinsic motivation is usually a preeminent reason for an individual’s actions. One teacher remarked,

If the teacher does not have the interest to create gaming as a tool for education, there is no point in spending so much time in acquiring the skills when they can put the time to better use such as improving delivery, . . . and showing concern for students.

External support from the MOE and the teaching community could be developed further, but the teacher must be willing to use games in the classroom. As seen from the survey, 12% of respondents were unconcerned about using games in education saying that “games are unproductive.” Although 46% disagreed with the statement, 27% were neutral. Other teachers were more willing to incorporate games, and 69% of respondents felt that gaming could stimulate curiosity about learning content. Their motivation was spurred by being able to improve students’ learning with the game. This can be a very powerful inner drive that leads to the adoption of games.

Gaming mind-set

A gaming mind-set refers to the teacher’s experience and attitude toward games. As noted, teachers generally perceived gaming as a good form of learning for students. However, many teachers felt that a balance is needed, as students can easily become addicted to games. Forty-five percent of the respondents agreed to the following statement: “Too much gaming will lead to addiction; current usage of gaming is enough.” Teachers seemed wary of students’ lack of self-discipline when it came to playing games, especially computer games; they cautioned the need for teacher facilitation in game play. They also highlighted the need to teach students game responsibility. This attitude led us to deliberate on the gaming mind-set of teachers and it highlighted the stigma attached to games, be they for education or pure entertainment. It seems that game playing is akin to doing something wrong. Teachers do not wish to get into misunderstandings with parents, who may already perceive game playing as negative.

Nevertheless, 16% of the teachers had a positive gaming mind-set and firmly believed in the benefits of games. They disagreed with the statement that too much use of educational games will lead to addiction. A primary-school teacher elaborated: “Being addicted to learning a subject via gaming is hardly a bad thing. How many will complain about their child being addicted to news and educational programs or books?”

A positive gaming mind-set of teachers can also be seen from the responses to the survey question on the “most suitable age to start game use.” That students can start as young as possible to use games in learning was the view of 40% of respondents; only 4% preferred games to be used when students are at least 16 years old.

We believe that an open and positive gaming mind-set enhances a teacher’s willingness to use games in the classroom. Teachers’ gaming mind-set and personal interest are instrumental pull factors that encourage game adoption.

Demographic Factors

Overall, push and pull factors have influenced teachers’ adoption of games. We found that teaching level, experience, and subject taught also influence teachers’ perceptions. Table 6 reports differences and possible reasons for this.

Table 6.

Findings and Analysis According to Demographic Factors

Difference in game use and teachers’ perceptions	Means of teacher ratings	Analysis and discussion
Teaching Level:
Use of games in the classroom	PS = 1.87SS = 1.23JC = 1.41	These findings can be explained in terms of the availability, nature, and length of time to master the game. In the market, more games have been developed for the primary level compared with the other levels. Games at the primary level are less complicated, and it is therefore easier to assess their suitability for adoption. SS and JC teachers may find it harder and less accessible to implement games for the relatively more complex concepts they teach. Games for complex topics need more teacher time for understanding and integration of the game; JC and SS teachers are pressed for time to meet curriculum requirements due to students’ school-leaving exams. For JC and SS teachers, it is difficult to have one game to teach whole topics; teachers may find that games are less relevant.
Irrelevance of games	PS = 3.32SS = 3.68JC = 3.78
Age at which students should begin games	PS = 1.55SS = 2.35JC = 2.38	Teachers naturally view games as suitable for their students’ age groups.
High costs of games	PS = 2.70SS = 3.25JC = 3.05	SS and JC teachers perceived higher costs of games as compared with PS teachers as games are more complicated at higher levels and are therefore more expensive to develop.
Overall effectiveness of games	PS = 2.75SS = 3.68JC = 3.29	Students at PS level are less mature and easily digress to the entertainment part of the game, leaving the teacher to question the effectiveness of the game in their learning.
Teaching experience:
Frequency with which games are conducted in the classroom	Tnew = 2.00Tmid = 1.78Texp = 1.47	Less experienced teachers may be more willing to experiment with new pedagogies compared with more experienced teachers, who prefer tried and tested ways to engage their students.
Games help achieve affective learning goals	Tnew = 3.69Tmid = 3.45Texp = 3.21	A possible reason is that Texp and Tmid could have a stereotypical image of educational games, for example, quizzes that focus only on building cognitive and not emotional and social skills.
Teaching Subject:
Adoption of games	EN = 1.68MT = 1.88Maths = 1.53Otrs = 1.42	More language subjects use games more often. One reason is the push from the MOE on the use of games to engage students and help them enjoy and absorb the language (MOE, 2009a).
Age at which students should begin games	EN = 1.91MT = 1.64Maths = 2.06Otrs = 2.27	MT teachers strongly advocate a young age, possibly because language is easiest to learn when the student is young. Playing language games with younger students keeps them motivated and enables them to pick up the language easily. Other subject teachers (e.g., Maths) may find that using educational games at a younger age would be an ineffective way to teach basic concepts that may require considerable drill and practice.
Clear educational content	EN = 4.30MT = 4.02Maths = 4.28Otrs = 4.47	A possible reason for these findings is that for learning language, the ulterior motive is to practice the language. However, the explicit goal of most games, for example, collecting the most points, is not really a concern for the MT teacher.
Explicit objectives	EN = 4.13MT = 3.84Maths = 4.19Otrs = 4.32
Feedback from games to allow teachers to monitor students’ progress	EN = 4.33MT = 4.32Maths = 3.92Otrs = 4.30	For EN and MT, teachers may want students to practice and become confident in the language before giving feedback. It is easy to make mistakes in using a language, and teachers may not want to be constantly updated on a student’s every mistake. In the meantime, teachers can monitor student progress from the game feedback. For Otrs and Maths, the feedback from the game shows clearly what the students have not understood and is a direct way to enhance their learning, rather than just monitoring them.
Constant feedback on what the user has done wrong in terms of learning content	EN = 4.08MT = 3.69Maths = 4.19Otrs = 4.11
Games are more effective at the younger ages	EN = 2.75MT = 2.99Maths = 3.38Otrs = 3.25	Games for Maths and Otrs, which become more complex at the higher levels may be hard to design and utilize with older students. EN and MT teachers may have believed that games could be effective at all age levels, as such games could help build language skills at any stage.

Note: PS = primary school; SS = secondary school; JC = junior college; Tnew = teachers with less than 1 year of experience; Tmid = 1 to 5 years of experience; Texp = more than 5 years of experience; EN = teachers who primarily teach English; MT = mother tongue; Maths = mathematics; Otrs = other subjects; MOE = Ministry of Education. Bold values indicate the highest mean values.

Implications, Limitations, and Conclusions

Gaming has many potential benefits for teaching and learning. If used in tandem with the curriculum, and in moderation, gaming benefits outweigh their negative aspects. Based on our data and analysis, two push factors (policies and curriculum, and environmental support) and two pull factors (personal interest and gaming mind-set) were identified. Teaching level, years of experience, and teaching subject affected the degree to which teachers adopt games. These factors have implications for stakeholders in the education system. We elaborate on challenges for policy makers, principals, and teachers.

For policy makers and educational directors, we need to enhance guidelines regarding game-based learning. Such policies should be more explicit and highlight more examples of how gaming can be incorporated in the curriculum. The findings of our research are similar to those of the European Schoolnet study (2009), in which, time and the difficulty of curriculum integration were seen as the principal obstacles. One suggestion is to incorporate games in the curriculum at the junior-college and secondary-school levels especially, as it seems harder to integrate games in more advanced curricula. This was achieved at the tertiary level by incorporating a simulation game in a decision-making course (Yeo, 1999).

This calls for mind-set and attitude changes in curriculum planning. It requires investment in game development relevant to the curriculum. Another recommendation is compulsory training for teachers using game-based learning (see, for example, Crookall, 2010). They should be trained to teach with methods considered earlier as merely play and for subjects such as mathematics that are less likely to use games. This could be done in preservice training; from the survey, teachers with less than a year of experience were more willing to incorporate games.

Schools and principals can encourage game adoption. Moizer and Lean (2010) suggest internal and external support mechanisms. Schools could provide more opportunities for training in game-based learning to equip teachers with the needed skills. Schools’ budgets should allocate adequate funds for IT infrastructure, which would have ripple effects additional to the benefits of computer-based educational games. Schools could give teachers more exposure to games by supporting participation in gaming seminars, workshops, and conferences. They could organize educational, game-based competitions among clusters to build an educational-gaming community.

Communities of teachers and schools could collaborate to build a nationwide resource library about games to support learning. Knowledge-based support of a library such as Simulation and Gaming Exchange (SGX) (Lin, Chow, & Yeo, 2008), developed over time, could benefit teachers through providing selection guidelines for appropriate games as well as building expertise in using specific games. A community-wide platform could be set up for idea exchanges for resource-library users. Knowledge engineering could extend the knowledge base to include answers to queries such as what works?, what type of lesson is applicable?, and how do we customize commercial off-the-shelf games? This engineering should be specific, and relevant to all three educational levels and the various subjects.

Teachers as key educators play a vital role. As highlighted in this study, personal interest and a gaming mind-set are internal pull factors. Teachers should keep an open mind-set about gaming. An interest in games can be cultivated by learning more about educational games and participating in game-based learning activities. For instance, Nonis (2006) recommends practical ways in which teachers can introduce games into the classroom. By gaining more experience through playing these games and learning about them, teachers may be more interested and have a more positive mind-set about them.

A possible limitation of the study is its broad concept of games. We included all forms of games such as serious, online, off-the-shelf, and board games. The interpretation of different types and genres of games was left to respondents. Because of media publicity about digital-game addiction, many were unable to disassociate digital games from physical games. It may have been clearer to separate the two types of games.

Another weakness may be inconsistency in the conduct of the survey; various administrative methods were utilized by schools to complete the survey. This may have widened the variance in the data. Finally, demographic data such as the teachers’ gender were not collected. This factor may provide other interesting findings, as suggested by conference participants at International Simulation and Gaming Association 2009.

The research is the first large-scale study of game adoption in Singapore schools. Although the majority of teachers hardly incorporate games in their classrooms, the future of gaming looks bright. The MOE (2009b) outlined its vision to adopt innovations to enrich and transform students’ learning environments. Five schools have been selected to demonstrate innovations that include simulations and games. Another trend that will increase gaming adoption is the proliferation of digital games. With students and teachers becoming more comfortable with them for recreation, it will be less of a challenge for teachers to use digital educational games. More and more teachers will be digital gamers themselves; this will shape the gaming mind-set positively. Even nongaming teachers may become inclined to employ games.

Incorporating games into teaching has potential for enhancing learning in Singapore’s schools. Facilitating policies, curriculum and environmental support, increased teacher interest, and changed gaming mind-sets across the various levels, experience, and subjects may increase game use. Games are a pedagogic strategy to engage students and enhance their learning, and we hope that this can be incorporated more in the Singapore education landscape.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank guest editors Jonnie Hill and Mercedes T. Rodrigo, anonymous reviewers, and the participants at the International Simulation and Gaming Association 2009 for their assistance. We thank and acknowledge the Planning Division, Ministry of Education Singapore for helping us to conduct the survey.

This article is a substantially augmented rewrite of a article titled Games in Teaching in Singapore Schools (Koh, E., Yeo, G.-K., & Wadhwa, B., 2009), presented at the 40th conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association, organized by Society of Simulation and Gaming of Singapore, Yeo Gee Kin (National University of Singapore), and Cai Yiyu (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore), from June 29 to July 3, 2009.

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and (or) publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and (or) authorship of this article.

References

Anderson

C. A.

(2004). An update on the effects of violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122.

Anderson

P. H.

Lawton

(2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning: Developments, desires, and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 193-216.

Babbie

E. R.

(1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barlett

C. P.

Anderson

C. A.

Swing

E. L.

(2009). Video game effects—Confirmed, suspected, and speculative: A review of the evidence. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 377-403.

Beedle

J. B.

Wright

V. H.

(2007). Perspectives from multiplayer video gamers. In Gibson

Aldrich

Prensky

(Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks (pp. 150-174). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Can

Cagiltay

(2006). Turkish prospective teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of computer games with educational features. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 308-321.

Crookall

(2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 898-920. doi:10.1177/104687811039078410.1177/1046878110390784

Csikszentmihalyi

(1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

De Aguilera

Mendiz

(2003, October). Video games and education: Education in the face of a “parallel school.” Computers in Entertainment, 1(1). Retrieved from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/950566.950583

10.

Dondi

Moretti

(2007). A methodological proposal for learning games selection and quality assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 502-512.

11.

European Schoolnet. (2009). Games in schools. Final Report available from http://games.eun.org/upload/gis-full_report_en.pdf. Synthesis report available at http://games.eun.org/uploade/gis-synthesis_report_en.pdf

12.

Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Findings and recommendations, report of summit on educational games. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/gamesummit/

13.

Garris

Ahlers

Driskell

J. E.

(2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441-467.

14.

Hromek

Roffey

(2009). Promoting social and emotional learning with games: “It’s fun and we learn things.” Simulation & Gaming, 40, 626-644.

15.

Kafai

Y. B.

(2001). The educational potential of electronic games (University of Chicago). Retrieved from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/kafai.html

16.

Kumar

Lightner

(2007). Games as an interactive classroom technique: Perceptions of corporate trainers, college instructors and students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19, 53-63.

17.

Lim

C.-P.

(2008). Global citizenship education, school curriculum, and games: Learning mathematics, English and science as a global citizen. Computers & Education, 51, 1073-1093.

18.

Lin

Chow

N.-C.

Yeo

G.-K.

(2008, July). Towards an ontologically-supported collaborative SGX. Paper presented at ISAGA2008, Kaunas, Lithuania.

19.

Luo

(2008, September 22). Wanted: Talent in games industry. The Straits Times, Sep 19, p. B3.

20.

McFarlane

Sparrowhawk

Heald

(2002). Report on the educational use of games. TEEM (Teachers Evaluating Educational Multimedia). Retrieved from http://www.teem.org.uk/resources/teem_gamesined_full.pdf

21.

Miller

D. M.

Robertson

D. P.

(2009). Using a games console in the primary classroom: Effects of “brain training” programme on computation and self-esteem. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2),242 -255.

22.

Ministry of Education. (2009a). The new Chinese language curriculum for primary schools. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/primary/files/changes-to-pri-chinese-curriculum-english-brochure.pdf

23.

Ministry of Education. (2009b). Third masterplan for ICT in education. Retrieved from http://ictconnection.edumall.sg/cos/o.x?c=/ictconnection/pagetree&func=view&rid=665

24.

Moizer

Lean

(2010). Toward endemic deployment of educational simulation games: A review of progress and future recommendations. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 116-131.

25.

Moizer

Lean

Towler

Abbey

(2009). Simulations and games: Overcoming the barriers to their use in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10, 207-224.

26.

Moreno-Ger

Burgos

Torrente

(2009). Digital games in eLearning environments. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 669-687.

27.

Nonis

(2006). Digital games in education (Educational Technology Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore). Retrieved from http://iresearch.edumall.sg/iresearch/slot/fm3_posts/ah01/74fedb633_u5891.pdf

28.

Prensky

(2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

29.

QUEST ATLANTIS. (2005). [ Barab

Thomas

Dodge

Carteaux

Tuzun

] Making learning fun: QUEST ATLANTIS, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 86-107.

30.

Rylands

(2007). ICT to Inspire. Retrieved from http://www.timrylands.com/

31.

Sandford

Ulicsak

Facer

Rudd

(2006). Teaching with games—Using commercial off-the-shelf computer games in formal education. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/teaching-with-games

32.

Thomas

Gentile

D. A.

Anderson

C. A.

(2008). Violent video game effects on brain activation of high and low aggressive game players. Paper presented at the Conference on Violence and Aggression, Ames, IA. Retrieved from http://www.drdouglas.org/drdpdfs/CSV_Brain.pdf

33.

Van Eck

(2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16-30. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume41/DigitalGameBasedLearningItsNot/158041

34.

Wilson

K. A.

Bedwell

W. L.

Lazzara

E. H.

Salas

Burke

C. S.

Estock

J. L.

. . .Conkey

(2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 217-266.

35.

Yeo

G. K.

(1999). Magnetized by MAGNUS. Simulation & Gaming, 30, 385-392.