The role teachers' expectations and value assessments of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms

Video games have become an essential part of the way people play and learn. While an increasing number of people are using games to learn in informal environments, their acceptance in the classroom as an instructional activity has been mixed. Successes in informal learning have caused supporters to falsely believe that implementing them into the classroom would be a relatively easy transition and have the potential to revolutionise the entire educational system. In spite of all the hype, many are puzzled as to why more teachers have not yet incorporated them into their teaching. The literature is littered with reports that point to a variety of reasons. One of the reasons, we believe, is that very little has been done to convince teachers that the effort to change their curriculum to integrate video games and other forms of technology is worthy of the effort. Not until policy makers realise the importance of professional British Journal of Educational Technology (2009) doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01007.x   The authors have hypothesised that the major impediments to useful technology integration include the general lack of institutional infrastructure, poor teacher training, and overly-complicated technologies. Overcoming these obstacles requires both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. This paper presents the results of a pilot study with a group of preservice teachers to determine whether our hypotheses regarding potential negativity surrounding video games was valid and whether a wider scale study is warranted. The results of this study are discussed along with suggestions for further research and potential changes in teacher training programmes.  Over the past 40 years, video games have become an increasingly popular way to play and learn. Those who play regularly often note that the major attraction is their ability to become quickly engaged and immersed in gameplay (Lenhart & Kayne, 2008). Many have taken notice of video games’ apparent effectiveness in teaching social interaction and critical thinking in informal learning environments. Beliefs about the effectiveness of video games in informal learning situations have been hyped to the extent that they are often described as the ‘holy grail’ that will revolutionise our entire educational system (Gee, 2003; Kirkley & Kirkley, 2004; Prensky, 2001; Sawyer, 2002). In spite of all the hype and promotion, many educators express puzzlement and disappointment that only a modest number of teachers have incorporated video games into their teaching (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2004; Pivec & Pivec, 2008). These results seem to mirror those reported on a general lack of successful integration on the part of teachers and educators of new technologies and media in general. The reasons reported in that research point to a varied and complex issue that involves dispelling preconceived notions, prejudices, and concerns (Kati, 2008; Kim & Baylor, 2008). It is our position that very little has been done to date to overcome these objections. We agree with Magliaro and Ezeife (2007) who posited that teachers can and do greatly influence the successes or failures of classroom interventions. Expenditures on media and technology alone do not guarantee their successful or productive use in the classroom. Policy makers need to realise that professional development and training is the most significant use of funds that will positively affect teaching styles and that will allow technology to reach its potential to change education. But as Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) noted, the practices of policy makers and administrators to increase the effective use of technologies in the classroom more often than not conflict with implementation. In their qualitative study of two Silicon Valley high schools, the authors found that despite ready access to computer technologies, 2 British Journal of Educational Technology   only a handful of teachers actually changed their teaching practices (ie, moved from teacher-centered to student-centered pedagogies). Furthermore, the authors identified several barriers to technological innovation in the classroom, including most notably: a lack of preparation time, poor technical support, outdated technologies, and the inability to sustain interest in the particular lessons and a lack of opportunities for collaboration due to the rigid structure and short time periods allocated to instruction. The authors concluded by suggesting that the path for integrating technology would eventually flourish, but that it initially would be riddled with problems caused by impediments placed upon its success by a lack of institutional infrastructure, poor training, and overly-complicated technologies. We agree with those who suggest that any proposed classroom intervention correlates directly to the expectations and perceived value/benefit on the part of the integrating teachers, who largely control what and how their students learn (Hanusheck, Kain & Rivkin, 1998). Faced with these significant obstacles, it should not be surprising that video games, like other technologies, have been less than successful in transforming the classroom. We further suggest that overcoming these obstacles requires both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. Policy makers carry the burden of correcting the infrastructural issues both for practical reasons as well as for creating optimism on the part of teachers to believe that their administrators actually support their decisions. On the other hand, anyone associated with educational systems for any length of time will agree that a top-down only approach is destined for failure. The successful adoption of any new classroom intervention is based, in larger part, on teachers’ investing in the belief that the experience is worth the effort. If a teacher sees little or no value in an intervention, or is unfamiliar with its use, then the chances that it will be properly implemented are minimised. In other words, a teacher’s adoption of any instructional strategy is directly correlated with his or her views, ideas, and expectations about what is possible, feasible, and useful. In their studies into the game playing habits of various college students, Shaffer, Squire and Gee (2005) alluded to the fact that of those that they interviewed, future teachers indicated that they did not play video games as often as those enrolled in other majors. Our review of these comments generated several additional research questions that we believe deserve further investigation. We began to hypothesise that if it were true that teachers, as a group, do not in fact play video games on a regular basis, it should not be surprising that they would have difficulty integrating games into their curriculum. They would not have sufficient basis to integrate the rules of gameplay with their instructional strategies, nor would they be able to make proper assessments as to which games might be the most effective. We understand that one does not have to actually like something or be good at something to appreciate its value. For example, one does not necessarily have to be a fan of rap music or have a knack for performing it to understand that it could be a useful teaching tool. But, on the other hand, we wondered whether the attitudes towards video games on the part of teachers were not merely neutral, but in fact actually negative, which would further undermine any attempts at successfully introducing games into their classrooms. Expectancy-value 3   This paper presents the results of a pilot study we conducted that utilised a group of preservice teachers to determine whether our hypothesis regarding potential negativity surrounding video games was valid and whether a wider scale study is warranted. In this examination, we utilised a preference survey to ask participants to reveal their impressions and expectancies about video games in general, their playing habits, and their personal assessments as to the potential role games might play in their future teaching strategies. We believe that the results we found are useful in determining ramifications for some potential changes in teacher preparation and professional development programmes. They provide more background on the kinds of learning that can take place, as described by Prensky (2001), Gee (2003) and others, they consider how to evaluate supposed educational games that exist in the market, and they suggest successful integration strategies. Just as no one can assume that digital kids already have expertise in participatory learning simply because they are exposed to these experiences in their informal, outside of school activities, those responsible for teacher training cannot assume that just because up-and-coming teachers have been brought up in the digital age, they are automatically familiar with, disposed to using, and have positive ideas about how games can be integrated into their curriculum. As a case in point, we found that there exists a significant disconnect between teachers and their students regarding the value of gameplay, and whether one can efficiently and effectively learn from games. In this study, we also attempted to determine if there might be an interaction effect based on the type of console being used. We wanted to confirm Pearson and Bailey’s (2008) assertions that the Nintendo Wii (Nintendo Company, Ltd. 11-1 KamitobaHokodate-cho, Minami-ku, Kyoto 601-8501, Japan) consoles would not only promote improvements in physical move