digital games and learning: a study of preservice teachers' perceptions
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Edinburgh]On: 08 September 2013, At: 20:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of PlayPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijp20
Digital games and learning: a study ofpreservice teachers' perceptionsQing Li aa Department of Educational Technology and Literacies, College ofEducation , Towson University , Towson , USAPublished online: 01 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: International Journal of Play (2013): Digital games and learning: a study ofpreservice teachers' perceptions, International Journal of Play, DOI: 10.1080/21594937.2013.817105
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2013.817105
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Digital games and learning: a study of preservice teachers’ perceptions
Qing Li∗
Department of Educational Technology and Literacies, College of Education, Towson University,Towson, USA
(Received 28 January 2013; final version received 16 June 2013)
This study aims to enhance understanding of enactivism, an emergent theory, through theexploration of preservice teachers’ thinking about digital games. Focusing on two importantenactivist concepts, affordances and constraints, this study is guided by the followingresearch questions: What are preservice teachers’ perceived affordances of digital games,teacher designed digital games, and student designed digital games in classrooms? Whatconstraints are perceived by preservice teachers for adapting digital game design in schools?This research adopts a mixed method approach [Creswell, 1998. Qualitative inquiry andresearch design; Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage] to investigate preserviceteachers’ perceptions. A convenient sampling method is used with 73 preservice teachers.Data collected include open-ended surveys and teacher discussion notes. Results show that avast majority of preservice teachers have perceived that game design and building, either byteachers themselves or by learners, affords great educational potential. Additionalaffordances and constraints of digital games are also discussed in the article.
Keywords: game based learning; enactivism; preservice teachers; perceptions; affordances;constraints; learning by game design
Introduction
This study aims to enhance understanding of enactivism, an emergent theory, through the explora-tion of teachers’ thinking about digital games (hereafter games). Games, with doing as its corecharacteristic, have been claimed to be a perfect platform to realize enactivism in school practice(Li, Clark, & Winchester, 2010). This article, therefore, investigates preservice teachers’ beliefsabout games and game design in classrooms focusing on two important enactivist concepts: affor-dances and constraints.
Games, initially designed for the mass market with few educational connections, are increas-ingly attracting educators and researchers. According to Gee (2008), game-playing is a socialpractice through which players learn the mechanics of game play and ways to negotiate thecontext of play, the practices of game players, and developers’ design. The appeal of gaminghas become widespread, particularly as a defining feature of the younger generation of learners.nGeneral Insight is an organization that has conducted some survey studies in relation to technol-ogy and business. A 2008 nGeneral study indicated that over 30% of Canadian and close to 20%of the US net generation (between 12 and 32 years of age) played multiplayer games in the lastmonth, an average of two hours per week (as cited in Tapscott, 2009). Pew Research Center is athink tank organization in the USA who has conducted a series of large-scale surveys and reports(Wikipedia, 2012). One of the Pew Studies in 2008 surveyed 1102 teens in the USA and found
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
∗Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Play, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2013.817105
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
that almost all (i.e. 97%), that is 99% of boys and 94% of girls, aged 12–17 play digital games,and half of teens played the previous day (Lenhart et al., 2008).
Many researchers, most notably Gee (2008), argue that digital games have great educationalpotential because game-playing often requires complex problem solving, theory testing, criticalanalysis, and collaboration. The value of gaming includes providing authentic and engaginglearning in a safe environment (Becker, 2007; Dede, 2005; van Eck, 2006), games canenhance learning by increasing students’ interest in the subject matter and by more effectivelymeeting students’ needs and habits (Kiili, 2007; Prensky, 2001). They are also “immersive,require the player to make frequent, important decisions, have clear goals, adapt to each playerindividually, and involve a social network” (Oblinger, 2006, p. 2). Games allow high levels ofpositive emotional engagement (Rieber, Smith, & Noah, 1998), and, therefore improve partici-pation and achievement (Jayakanthan, 2002). Learners are motivated by challenges and are intri-gued by curiosity, beauty, fantasy, fun, and social recognition. Game-playing can support valuableskill development such as strategic thinking, planning, communication, application of numbers,negotiating skills, group decision-making, and data-handling (McFarlane, Sparrowhawk, &Heald, 2002). Some scholars (Kafai, 2006; Papert, 1993, 1998) claimed that although onlylimited studies were available, game designing and building offered potential for engaging chil-dren in learning. Such studies confirmed that children enjoyed making games for learning andenjoyed learning programming skills through designing interesting game worlds and characters.Earlier work (Kafai, 1995; Papert, 1993; Perkins, 1986) has shown that the creative investmentmade in the game-building process led directly to intellectual ownership of the game’s content.
While researchers and students are increasingly interested in exploring game supported edu-cational practices, the adoption of digital game based learning in schools has been slow (Pivec &Pivec, 2009). Teachers play a key role in integrating digital games in learning and their percep-tions of digital games dictate the level of adoption. Yet, teachers often have limited experienceswith digital games (especially new games) as instructional tools (Schrader, Zheng, & Young,2006).
Researchers have argued that, because both enactivism and game focus on doing, explorationof game based learning through the lens of enactivism can shed new lights (Holton, 2010; Li et al.,2010). However, limited research has investigated this paradigm in the field of game based learn-ing owing largely to its recent emergence (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). This study,therefore, explores game based learning grounded in enactivism. In particular, this case studyinvestigates preservice teachers’ thinking about games in schools, teacher designed games, andlearning through game design and building. This empirical research can deepen our understand-ing of enactivism and shed light on the epistemological questions that are arising as the interest ingame based learning continues to grow. It may also add to the literature by providing useful infor-mation to develop guidelines to implement game based learning in schools that resonate withteacher beliefs.
This article starts with a discussion of the theoretical framework, enactivism. This is followedby a review of existing literature related to game based learning. Next, the article examines pre-service teachers’ beliefs about games in schools. Finally, the article concludes with a discussionand implications. In this article, I evaluate preservice teachers’ perceptions pertaining to gameintegration, focusing on game design and building for educational purposes.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this article is “enactivism” specifically applied to educational tech-nology (Li et al., 2010). Enactivism is rooted in two important views: the phenomenological workof Merleau-Ponty and the biological perspectives of Bateson. Consistent with the ontological
2 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
embodiment view that “the world which is given in perception. . .is the concrete, intersubjectivelyconstituted life-world of immediate experience” (Merleau-Ponty, 1964, p. xvi), enactivism arguesthat our body is not only a lived structure to experiences, but also the setting for cognition. Embo-diment is the “developing process” of our interaction with the real world beyond our beliefs orbehaviors. It is our way of living and experiencing our world that “involves our sensory andmotor processes, perceptions, and actions” (Johnson, 1989, pp. 362–363). Origins of enactivismcan also be traced to biological perspectives involving systems theory and cognitive theory(Michie, 2004). A central idea is co-emergence, or the notion that the change of both a livingsystem and its surrounding environment depends on the interaction between this system andthe environment. When a system and an environment interact, they are structurally coupledand they co-emerge.
Rejecting representational views of the mind and dualism, enactivism focuses on the impor-tance of embodiment and action to cognition (Thompson, 2006). Enactivists believe that ourmind, body, and the world are inseparable, and learning is through the learners’ acts. Learnersinteract with objects and events, and through these interactions they understand the featuresheld or offered by such objects or events (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008). Enactivism,compatible with elements of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s psychology as well as experientialism ofLakoff (Reid, 1995), is based on two important premises: cognition and environment are insepar-able, and “systems” enact with each other from which they “learn.”
Enactivism views that cognition is a complex co-evolving process of systems interacting andaffecting each other and their environments (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000). Rather thanconsidering the cognitive system as a processor of information, enactivism regards it as a produ-cer of meaning (Baerveldt & Verheggen, 1999).
A key element of enactivism is its focus on “knowing” instead of “knowledge.” A famousenactivist slogan is: “All doing is knowing and all knowing is doing.” This strong emphasis ondoing in relation to cognition sets enactivism apart from other theories like constructivism andbehaviorism. Coincidentally, doing is a core characteristic of gaming. According to Squire, ingames:
knowing is at its essence a kind of performance, as learners learn by doing, but within powerful con-straints instantiated through software and social systems. The focus is on experience that enables stu-dents to develop situated understandings, to learn through failure, and to develop identities as expertproblem solvers. (Squire, 2006, p. 26)
In a game environment, players interact, enact in and with this environment, coevolving withnot only the cyber world but also the real world. Game environments, designed as a multimodalspace, can reflect not only the complexity of the creation of cyber worlds but also the ramificationof the design of social relationships/identities in our modern world. This space, with situatedmeanings, allows players to solve problems through embodied experiences (Gee, 2003). Learningand game-playing, therefore, potentially provide a perfect platform to apply enactivism in learn-ing environments that use digital tools.
According to Clark (1999), an essential organizing concept for enactivism is affordance,defined as “possibilities for use, intervention and action which the physical world offers agiven agent and are determined by the “fit” between the agent’s physical structure capacitiesand skills and the action-related properties of the environment itself” (Clark, 1999, p. 347).The concept of affordance is originally propose by Gibson (Gibson, 1979). Exploration of affor-dances, however, is incomplete without the examination of constraints (Greeno, 1994). From anenactivist standpoint, in any system, conditions like norms, efforts, and relations exist that limitgreater possibilities of the system. These conditions are considered as “constraints.”
International Journal of Play 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Enactivism argues that deep understanding of both the affordances and constraints is necess-ary in order to apprehend a system. Therefore, this investigation of teacher beliefs about gamesand its use in schools, through the lens of enactivism, can enhance our understanding of gamebased learning. Furthermore, the affordances and the constraints identified can help us gaininsights into the needs teachers naturally have and the types of solutions they deem appropriateto identified problems. Since this study explores enactivism through teacher beliefs, the followingreview of game based learning with a concentration on preservice or practicing teachers’ percep-tions provides appropriate background information.
Review of literature
Existing literature related to preservice or practicing teachers’ perceptions regarding game designscould be categorized in two groups: 1) teacher perceptions of digital games and 2) teacherimplementation of game design.
Teacher perceptions of digital games
Many research studies have explored factors contribute to teachers’ adaption of existing games,including commercial off the shelf (COTS) games or educational games. Teacher perceptions andattitudes toward games were identified as important factors in determining whether games wouldbe used in classrooms (Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011). For example, whether or not games weredirectly linked to the curriculum contributed to teachers’ decisions about using the tool. Somechallenging issues teachers needed to consider included their limited knowledge of digitalgame based learning, as well as availability of technology and time (Ertzberger, 2009a, 2009b).
Previous research shows that teacher attitudes and perceptions about digital games have adirect impact on their behavior (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2010; Schrader et al., 2006). Some(Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2010) found that the confidence required for preservice teachers touse games for instructional purposes demanded more than personal experiences. Others (Schraderet al., 2006) revealed that most teachers often treat games as rewards but failed to realize the edu-cational value of online gaming, gaming communities, or games as a communication tool. Suchperception was derived from their previous ‘experiences of using games in schools.
Some studies (Brandyberry & Pardue, 2001) have explored the effect of using games in pre-service teacher education. For example, Tuysuz (2009) investigated the impact of computergames on preservice teachers’ achievement in a chemistry course, their attitude toward chemistry,and their motivation. Using an experimental research design, he worked with 176 preservice tea-chers in Turkey. The analysis of the data demonstrated that preservice teachers who used digitalgames had significantly higher achievement gain in chemistry knowledge than the control group.A majority of the preservice teachers in the treatment group also stated that the experience motiv-ated them to learn chemistry.
According to Schrader et al. (2006), while teachers are often open to new technology andrealize the importance of games, they neither fully understand the pedagogical uses of games,nor are they aware of their educational potential. Researchers, therefore, advocated for teachereducation programs to include gaming experiences (Schrader et al., 2006; Wright, 2009).
Several research studies (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006; Pivec & Pivec, 2009) found that whilemany teachers were enthusiastic about digital games, the main barrier that discouraged themfrom adapting games in classrooms was their lack of knowledge of games and of their pedago-gical uses.
Sardone and colleagues (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2010) explored 25 preservice teachers’reactions to digital gaming in the classroom to identify motivating factors, and which twenty-first
4 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
century skills are embedded in digital games. These skills included critical thinking, problemsolving, creativity, innovation, communication, and collaboration skills. The preservice teachersplayed selected games alone, evaluated those games, and later used them to teach middle schoolstudents. They found that preservice teachers gained new knowledge about game based learningthrough this experience and believed that certain games could enhance students’ learning ofcontent and the twenty-first century skills. Motivation, peer modeling, and response of their stu-dents were identified as the most important factors in determining whether preservice teacherswould integrate games in their teaching practice.
In-service teachers (Ertzberger, 2009b) were mostly concerned whether games linked to thecurriculum to be covered, availability and reliability of the technology, and sufficient trainingin effective use of games. Lack of time to create games, expenses associated with the games,failing to identify relevant curriculum, and the shortage of needed technology were among thelargest deterrents for game integration into classrooms.
Teacher implementation of game design
Learning-through-game-building/designing is not a new idea. This approach focuses on provid-ing learners the opportunities to construct new relationships with knowledge in the process ofdesigning and building their own games (Kafai, 2006; Papert, 1993, 1998). Papert was one ofthe pioneers who implemented this idea through Logo where students learned subject matterby designing their Logo games. Some scholars (Kafai, 2006; Lenhart et al., 2010; Papert,1993, 1998) claimed that although only limited studies were available, learning-by-game-build-ing offered potential for engaging children in learning. Such studies confirmed that childrenenjoyed making games for learning and enjoyed learning programming skills through designinginteresting game worlds and characters. Earlier work (Kafai, 1995; Papert, 1993; Perkins, 1986)has shown that the creative investment one made in the game-building process led directly tointellectual ownership of the game’s content.
With all the benefits demonstrated through various research studies, limited work existed inthe literature focusing on the idea of teachers as designers of educational games. In fact, therewas only one study identified that explored teachers, in this case, preservice teachers’ experienceof designing digital games for mathematics teaching and learning. Kafai and colleagues (Kafai,Franke, Shih, & Ching, 1998) explored 16 preservice teachers’ experience of designing gamesfor mathematics learning. Proposing game design as a learning environment for students and tea-chers to build on and challenge their existing perceptions of mathematics, they found that thegame design activities transformed these preservice teachers from extrinsic game design (i.e.game idea and math contents separated) to intrinsic game designs (i.e. game idea and math con-tents integrated). Preservice teachers working as designers had to think about designing andplaying concurrently; the designer must at both times be a teacher and a learner. Further, thesepreservice teachers’ understanding of students’ thinking provided the foundations for theirgame design. During the game design process, these teachers continually played both the designerand player roles, considering designing and playing concurrently. They created common ground,where each brought their own knowledge and everyone’s ideas were valued and built on, to solveinterconnected problems. The process fostered communication, collaboration, and developedunderstanding. Reflections on finished game designs provided opportunities for the teachers toquestion and revise their pedagogical decisions.
In a nutshell, there is little evidence in published literature relating to preservice teacher per-ceptions of game design. As indicated in this literature review, research has been conducted in thearea of preservice teacher as well as in-service teacher perceptions of commercial game use in theclassroom. Research supports immersion of preservice teachers in learning environments targeted
International Journal of Play 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
toward technology. Immersion teachers in specific technologies will increase their willingness touse them in classrooms. Few studies have also investigated implementation of game design withpreservice teachers (Kafai et al., 1998). However, teacher perceptions focused specifically ongame design by learners or teachers remain unanswered. This study, with a focus on preserviceteachers’ perceptions about game design instead of just commercial game use in classrooms,not only addresses a gap in the literature, and most importantly explores the less-known paradigm(enactivism) in relation to game based learning.
Research questions
With an eye toward extending the enactivism, the study explores the affordances and constraintsof game based learning perceived by preservice teachers. Here, affordance refers to the possibi-lities for applying, manipulating, and doing that are readily perceived by preservice teachers. Con-straints are explored by examining the challenges perceived by preservice teachers. Specifically,the following research questions guide this study.
. What are preservice teachers’ perceived affordances of games, teacher designed games, andstudents’ game design in classrooms?
. What are constrains perceived by preservice teachers for adapting game design in schools?
Methods
Using a mixed method approach (Creswell, 1998), this case study focused on capturing and inter-preting teachers’ thinking about digital games in schools. In particular, this research investigatedteachers’ perceptions of games in classrooms, and their beliefs about teacher designed and learnerdesigned games for educational purposes. Since a case study aims to “establish collaborative andnon-exploitative relationships, to place the research within the study so as to avoid objectifica-tion” (Creswell, 1998, p. 83), it fits well with the enactivist viewpoint because enactivism believesthat we and the environment are inseparable. Although the findings may not be generalizable, casestudies allow researchers to hypothesize and theorize relationships that may otherwise remaincovert (Hartley, 1994; Yin, 1989).
From the enactivist perspective, reality is perceiver-dependent, indicating that one cannot sep-arate him/herself from perceptions (Varela, 1999). This implies that multiple perspectives need tobe taken (e.g. multiple researchers investigating the same data, multiple ways to collect data) withdetailed discussions (Coles, 2007). Accordingly, this study used multiple data collection pro-cedures to provide descriptions, and individual student cases were synthesized into holisticinterpretations (Merriam, 1998). Similarly, data were analyzed and examined by differentresearchers to reveal different interpretations of the data.
Participants
A convenience sample of 73 students, enrolled in the first of year of their two-year post degreepreservice program in a Canadian university, participated in this study. Participation was volun-tary and student selection was based on their availability. There were a total of 50 female studentsand 23 male students. Amongst them, 50 of them were in two introductory educational coursesand another 23 were in a curriculum course focused on mathematics. The age range was from21 to 45, although a majority of them were in their twenties. These students had a diverse back-ground: some enrolled in the elementary route and others would like to teach in secondary
6 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
schools. They also reflected a wide spectrum of background, ranging from generalists to math tea-chers, to physical education teachers.
Context
Bounded in time, this study spanned one year. Participants in the study enrolled in one of the fol-lowing two courses: 1) an introductory educational seminar course and 2) a curriculum inquirecourse focusing on secondary mathematics. Both of the courses were offered as a part of ateacher preparation program that was learner focused, inquiry based, and field oriented. In thefirst course, preservice teachers focused on examining, articulating, and theorizing their experi-ence of becoming a teacher. The goal of the second course was to help preservice teachers todevelop ways of thinking about mathematics to better facilitate inquire classrooms in teachinghigh school mathematics.
In both of the courses, preservice teachers explored various topics related to teaching, learn-ing, and assessments. During the first week of the semester, the preservice teachers took a surveyabout their beliefs concerning game based learning. At the middle of the semester, an in class“Game Based Learning” activity explained below was conducted. Other than these two activities,neither of the courses contained any game related contents. There was no instruction or practicerelated to games in general, or game-based learning in particular.
The game based learning activity was a one-hour activity where preservice teachers worked ingroups of three to consider, one at a time, five aspects of digital game based learning. These fiveaspects included 1) motivation, 2) assessment, 3) equity, 4) ethics, and 5) learning-through-gamedesign. Based on their personal experiences, preservice teachers considered and recorded bothpositive and negative perspectives of each aspect. Preservice teachers discussed digital gamebased learning in general without limitations in terms of specific type of games or gameengines, or for particular content areas.
Data
Two types of data were collected: survey and discussion notes. The survey questions containedtwo parts: the first part collected participants’ demographic information and their prior experiencewith games and digital content creation. A sample question in part one is: “Have you createddigital artifacts and shared them online? If yes, describe.” The second part contained open-ended questions concerning participants’ beliefs about games in relation to education. Theopen ended survey contained the following questions: 1) what do you think about digitalgames in classrooms? Do you think they can be beneficial? If yes, how? If no, why not? 2)What do you think about student attitudes toward using digital games for learning? 3) What doyou think about the idea of students learning through building their own digital games? 4)When adapting digital game based learning in classrooms, what difficulties do you foresee? 5)What do you think about designing/building your own games for students (e.g. benefits,disadvantages)?
Preservice teachers’ answers to the first part of the survey showed that amongst the partici-pants, close to 65% had played digital games, including console games and computer games,before. Only 32% of them had experience of creating digital contents, such as web pages,blogs, or music videos.
The second set of data was discussion notes developed as part of the in class game basedlearning activity. These notes were collected and tabulated, along with the survey, to identifyemergent themes.
International Journal of Play 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Analysis
Data analysis started with open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) by the researcher and tworesearch assistants, working independently to identify recurring and salient themes. Thecoding, as much as possible, was grounded in participants’ own words to ensure an appropriateinterpretation. This technique was used frequently to characterize students’ written work relatedto technology (Blumberg, Rosenthal, & Randall, 2008; Clayton, Blumbery, & Auld, 2010). Theinitial themes were discussed and refined until consensus was reached. The coded information oneach participant was summarized in matrices and then compared to cluster cases. The codingscheme developed was based mainly on the responses of the participants supported by the rel-evant literature. During this iterative process, a constant comparative approach was adopted tocreate, refine, and recreate themes and codes. For example, “customization of games” and“control of game environment” were initially identified as two subthemes under the categories“teacher design games” related to affordances. Further interaction with the data revealed that“control of game environment” was part of “customization of games” hence the merge of thetwo subthemes.
After the themes were finalized, each theme was tallied to uncover the patterns using a three-step process. First, coded survey results and class discussion notes of each participant wereentered into a large matrix. This matrix was grouped by the identified subthemes. Forexample, with respect to affordances, data were grouped into three final themes: “game inclass beneficial,” “teacher design beneficial,” “student design beneficial.” Under the “studentdesign beneficial” theme, “deep learning,” “ownership of learning,” and “creativity” werethree subthemes.
Next, the number of participants was tallied for each theme to calculate the percentage of par-ticipants with positive responses. Finally, any theme with less than 15% participants whoresponded positively was further scrutinized. Unless it was a salient theme, it was eliminateddue to its low occurrence. Table 1 provides sample coding with related data to demonstrate theprocess.
Verification procedures included triangulation with the various data sources, cross-checks bythe research team, and elimination of initial themes based on disconfirming evidence. Two inde-pendent researchers coded all the data and achieve an inter-rater reliability of 87.8%. This articlefocuses only on the findings pertaining to the two research questions discussed above. Table 2summarizes the results.
Results
Perceived affordances
The affordances of games were emerged in three main aspects: using existing games in class-rooms, teacher design games for instructional purposes, and students learn through gamedesign and building. The following discussion is organized around these three aspects.
Digital games
The first set of questions asked preservice teachers to share their thoughts about digitalgames in general for educational purposes. Preservice teachers, in answering these ques-tions, mainly considered commercial of the shelf games or existing educational games.Only 36% of them believed that using existing digital games in classrooms could be ben-eficial. They thought games could mainly be used to reward students, and to provide funand engaging experiences.
8 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
. Good way to engage kids who might not otherwise buy in [Survey, St. #1].
. A well designed game, though it often takes a great deal of creativity, originality, and time,can be very educational, a lot of fun, and draw people together [Survey, St. #12].
. Games provide an amazing tool for creative ways of engaging students. Rather than learn-ing passively, games offer student an opportunity to actively experience new concepts andknowledge and be able to visualize and relate those concepts to something that is real andexperiential. Games also provide opportunities for learning through interactive decisionmaking, developing creative problem solving skill and paying attention to detail [Discus-sion note, St. #21].
. Games span many different genres and that variety can accommodate different learningstyles and individual interests [Discussion note, St. #3].
Table 1. Sample coding.
Affordances Subthemes Sample data
Use games inclassroom
Motivation "Good way to engage kids who might not otherwise buy in"
"It is the craze for students so they would enjoy it. They would behighly interested in using it for learning purposes"
Teacher designgames
Customization "Teacher designed games can specifically tailored fordemographic and learning outcomes"
"You can customize it best for your own students and for you.Premade games may not be exactly how you would want themto be"
"More control over game environment, content, and methodsused" (initially coded under “Control of game environment”but later moved under “customization”)
Students learn bydesign
Deep learning "I think it would lead to a deeper understanding of the materialand a meaningful construction of that understanding in theirown way"
“I think [students making a game] means that they would reallyneed to understand the content"
Ownership "I think that this would also let them feel some responsibility fortheir own learning. Kind of like you are giving them a bit offreedom to decide what they learn from their game"
Creativity “Students are challenged to be creative and responsible forobtaining the knowledge required to create their game”
“Faced with the challenge of designing a game, students arechallenged to be creative and responsible for obtainingknowledge required to create their game"
Constraints Time constraints "I feel like it would be really time consuming as it takes a lot ofwork so you would have to dedicate a lot of lessons to it”(Survey)
"I don’t agree with this idea [of student designing games]. It takestoo long to do” (Discussion note)
Teacherpreparedness
"Need to be taught by someone with a lot of experience" (Survey)
"The teacher must first be provided with adequate training on the“how to” aspect of game-designing, as well as the appropriateuses for these games" (Discussion note)
"[Students] would probably be more knowledgeable than me and Icouldn’t help them properly" (Survey)
Irrelevantoutcome
-"Kids may goof off" (Discussion note)
International Journal of Play 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Another perceived positive aspect of games in classrooms related to connect learning with stu-dents’ life. The preservice teachers considered how digital games could provide more contextua-lized learning for students than the traditional context-removed approaches, as the followingcomment illuminated:
. Traditional schools are so foreign from a child’s everyday life, and games can be a learningstyle that a child can connect with [Survey, St. #70].
While perceiving some positive aspects of digital games, most of these perceived benefits wereconditioned. In fact, of the 36% of the preservice teachers who discussed positive affordances ofgames, over three-fourth added conditional clauses in their survey answers or discussion notes.That is, these preservice teachers maintained that digital games could be beneficial only whenthe games were educational, could be linked to curriculum, and did not replace teaching.
. I think [games] may have a place, but not for use all the time. Only educational [Survey, St. #2]
. I think [games] can be beneficial but only in a computer class [Discussion note, St. #11].
. [benefit of game]: depending on the goal of the lesson and if the students actually takesomething away from the lesson [Discussion note, St. #33].
In short, only about one-third of the preservice teachers considered digital games in generalcould be useful in classrooms, with the condition that the games focused on education and used inlimited contexts.
Teacher design games
When the emphasis shifted from using existing games to teacher designing and building their owngames for instructional purposes, the pattern reversed. A majority, in fact 82% of the participatingteachers, stated that this would be a great idea. They believed that the experience would not onlybenefit their students, but also themselves. Perceived benefits for their students ranged from fun,engaging, different ways of learning, to customizing for learners. They further described how thegame design experience could deepen their own understanding of the content knowledge and thepedagogy, as exemplified by this student comment:
. I think the concept (teacher design games) is phenomenal. As a teacher it really would makeyou examine and gain a better knowledge of your subject area. Not only that but while
Table 2. Summary of results (N ¼ 73).
Themes Topics % of positive despondence
Affordances Game in class beneficial 36Teacher design beneficial 82Student design beneficial 75
Deep learning 45Ownership of learning 45Creativity 39
Constraints Time consuming 36Unable to plan well 31Unprepared teacher 25Irrelevant outcome 13Inappropriate pedagogy 7
10 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
developing the game you will be forced to consider how your game will be applicable to allsorts of different students and learning styles [Survey, St. #38].
Another advantage of teacher designed games was that would allow the games to fit into thelocal context because teachers had the best knowledge about their students, curriculum, and theirteaching style. The following preservice teachers’ comments demonstrated these ideas.
. You could create the game with your students’ strengths and weaknesses in mind. Youcould also create the games to fit in with your lesson plans [Survey, St. #63].
. [When designing my own games], I have more control over game environment, content,and methods used [Survey, St. #30].
. You can customize it best for your own students and for you. Premade games may not beexactly how you would want them to be [Discussion note, St. #33].
As a whole, preservice teachers were much more positive about the ideas of teacher designingtheir own games for instructional purposes than using digital games in general, whether COTSgames or existing educational games.
Learner design games
In a similar vein, when considering students learning by creating their own games, a majority ofthe preservice teachers, over 75% of them, believed that this approach could provide valuableexperiences. Various ideas were discussed about the advantages of learning through gamedesign and building, ranging from promoting deep learning to creativity.
Many (i.e. 45%) preservice teachers stated that game design and building could be helpful experi-ences for students by engaging them in deep learning. They believed that in order for students todesign and build their own games, the students would first have a thorough understanding of thecontent and the underpinning theories. The process would also require students to understandcomplex connectivity of different branches of a discipline and across different subjects. Deep knowl-edge of technology and programming would further enhance students’ learning of contents such asmathematics. The following excerpts from preservice teachers’ comments illustrated these points.
. When you design, you create the rules. To do so, you have to have an in-depth understand-ing of the rules in order to construct the game around it [Survey, St. #16].
. It is impossible to create a game without knowing the theory behind it. Therefore the kidscan learn through the act of creating a game [Survey, St. #28]
. [learning by game design and building] would lead to a deeper understanding of thematerial and a meaningful construction of that understanding in their own way. It alsogives them a change to develop and nourish their strengths [Survey, St. #5]
Ownership of learning was another benefit of learning through game design perceived by thepreservice teachers (45%). They posited that game design and building could empower studentsby promoting their own learning and allowing students to target their own learning styles for thegames they created. Such a process would further challenge students to integrate their knowledgein different domains and exercise diverse skill sets. The following quotes exemplified these.
. I think that learning through game design would also let students feel some responsibilityfor their own learning kind of think you are giving them a bit of freedom to decide whatthey learn from their games [Discussion note, St. #27]
International Journal of Play 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
. Learning through game design provided them a unique and engaging opportunity to createmeaning truly for themselves. [Survey, St. #22, italic original]
. You are most challenged in what you think you know when you have to use that infor-mation to build something to help teach others [Survey, St. #52].
Creativity, mentioned by 39% of the preservice teachers was the third major advantage oflearning through game design realized. They discussed how the designing process could let stu-dents’ imagination go wild and exercise innovative ways to learn and practice subject matters,especially for those often perceived boring subjects like math or history.
. Most kids today are technologically savvy and this would provide them with a creativeoutlet in mathematics [Survey, St. #61]
Preservice teachers also indicated that game design and building could offer unique learningexperiences, that often characterized as fun and engaging, for students to acquire the twenty-firstcentury skills.
Constraints
The second research question sought to explore the constraints by examining preservice teachers’perceived challenges when adapting game design in schools. While agreeing that game designand building could be beneficial for classrooms, preservice teachers also cautioned about the con-ditions for successful implementation of such approach. The main challenges identified by thepreservice teachers concerned with: time consuming, careful planning, preparedness of teachers,irrelevant outcomes, and inappropriate pedagogy.
The two conditions discussed most frequently were planning and time. One point with thehighest frequency of concern (36% of the participants) was time required for implementing learn-ing through game design and building, as exemplified by the following comments:
. feel like it would be really time consuming as it takes a lot of work so you would have todedicate a lot of lesson to it [Discussion note, St. #53].
. [Learning through game design] could become difficult if they need time to learn how tocreate the game, and they may not have enough time to complete the game [Survey,St. #24].
Preservice teachers (31%) considered that carefully designed activities with clear guidelinesand expectations were of ultimate importance. In order to successfully adapt the learning by gamedesign approach, teachers needed to have well-crafted and detailed plans:
. It would need to be really planned out [Discussion note, St. #36].
. As long as the parameters for the game are laid out very clearly and specifically I think itwould be a good way for kids to learn [Survey, St. #72].
Another identified challenge was the teacher readiness and training. Preservice teachers (25%)believed that teacher preparation was an important factor contributing to the successful adaptationof learning through game design. This preparation ranged from gaining teaching experiences withthe subject matter, to the acquisition of knowledge related technology, specifically digital gamedesign. These following comments demonstrated these apprehensions:
12 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
. They would probably be more knowledgeable than me and I could not help them properly[Survey, St. #36]
. The teacher must first be provided with adequate training on the how to aspect of gamedesigning, as well as the appropriate uses of these games [Survey, St. #33].
Educational relevancy was the fourth challenge identified. This relevancy was reflected in twoaspects: 1) desired learning and 2) pedagogical challenge. About 13% of the preservice teachersshared their concern that students might create outcomes that were irrelevant to their learning.
. Kids may goof off. It may be challenging to discourage divergence from desired outcome[Survey, St. #45].
The pedagogical challenge was another salient theme emerged, although only 7% of the pre-service teachers mentioned. Preservice teachers feared the clash between the fun factor and edu-cation factor: that is, how to design games that would be engaging for learners and at the sametime be educational. The following statement typified this thought:
. The biggest challenge is designing a game that is enjoyable. Kids do not find all games to befun and you can very easily design a game that students find boring, thereby defeating thepurpose of using video games in the first place. Another challenge would be ensuring thegame guide the user through the learning process at their own pace. The game should act asa formative assessment tool for the user, gauging their progress and adapting the in-gamechallenges as necessary [Discussion note, St. #3].
In summary, the perceived challenges of adapting the learning by game design and buildingapproach could be characterized into the following four categories: 1) time constraints, 2) carefulplanning, 3) teacher preparation, and 4) educational relevancy.
Conclusion
This article explores enactivism through a study of preservice teachers’ thinking about gamebased learning focusing on two important enactivist concepts, affordances and constraints. Under-standing affordances and constraints perceived by teachers can assist those looking to designengaging and motivating learning worlds that promotes best practice. It contributes to theongoing research on how to enhance teacher education in order to best prepare our youth forthe future. Centered more on game design rather than existing games in classrooms, this workoffers new insight into learning in the context of the emerging participatory culture by asking tea-chers to think teaching beyond passive knowledge consumption to active participation andcontribution.
The most prominent finding of this article is that a vast majority of the preservice teachersperceive that game design and building, either by teachers themselves or by learners, affordsgreat educational potential. This infers that they highly value the active rather than passive roleof teachers and learners. Data show that more than 80% of preservice teachers like the idea ofteacher design games for instructional purposes. They think that teacher designed gameswould provide not only fun and alternative ways to engage learners, but also a means to bettermeet learner needs. Most importantly, preservice teachers thought the process of teacher design-ing games would enhance practicing teachers’ understanding of the subject area and the peda-gogy. However, only a limited number of preservice teachers see the educational benefit ofusing existing games in classrooms.
International Journal of Play 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Enactivism views affordances as the potential to apply and do that are readily perceived byan agent. Such affordances are determined by the fit between the agent’s capacities and skillsand the action-related properties of the environment itself (Clark, 1999). In this study, preser-vice teachers perceive that game design, whether teacher or learner game design, providesexcellent opportunities to facilitate deep learning, promote creativity, and empower learners.They (i.e. agents) see the fit between their capabilities (e.g. their goal to enhance student learn-ing, possibility to customize games) and their environment (e.g. students are increasinglyinterested in games, game design involves many skills). Such fit enables the preservice tea-chers to perceive that game design affords ways to better connect to learners and meetlearner needs. Since whether and how game based learning will be integrated into classroomsdepend largely on teachers’ view of the affordance of this approach, aforementioned preser-vice teachers’ perception can potentially lead them to adapt game design, instead of existinggames, into their teaching and learning whenever they consider their environments allow suchpractice.
In this study, preservice teachers view game design as holding the best educational poten-tial because it enables teachers to customize games for learner needs. Such opinion aboutgame design can best embody teachers’ knowledge of the content, pedagogy, and the localcontext (e.g. students, environments) and conforms to the enactivist viewpoints. Gamedesign can put agents (i.e. teachers or learners) in the drivers’ seats for creating the digitalcontent. As such, game designers’ intentions can best align with agents’ needs situated in aparticular context.
When existing games are considered, only a small proportion of preservice teachers could seesome educational benefits mostly related to the motivational values of games. This means that thepreservice teachers have narrowed understanding of educational significance of game. It indicatesthat preservice teachers often hold negative attitudes toward digital games and game based learn-ing. This result concurs with previous research that many people have trouble appreciating digitalgames’ educational potential (Schrader et al., 2006). This study also suggests that preservice tea-chers share similar beliefs with in-service teachers that they have concerns with time and avail-ability of technology (Ertzberger, 2009a), as well as requiring curriculum connection of gamesfor game integration (Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011). Therefore, while increasing number of researchstudies demonstrating various educational values of existing games, prospective teachers oftenhave difficulty to see the educational benefit of games in classrooms. Holding such attitudes, itis foreseeable that those teachers would not consider game integration. An implication of thisis that we need to explore how researchers, educators, and leaders can help teachers realize thefull potential of games. One possibility is for preservice programs to provide preservice teacherswith direct experience in digital game based learning so that they can observe and experience theinstructional merit of games. In addition, more attention must be given to presenting an effectiveprogram integrating digital games to both preservice and in-service teachers in order to develop astronger game based learning culture.
Challenges anticipated include the limited time available and the experience and preparationteachers needed for successful implementation. This suggests that we need to consider how to bestequip our teachers for integrating games in classrooms. Teacher education programs, especiallypreservice programs may consider adapting game based learning approaches or teach relatedcourses. Such approaches may want to focus more on game design than using existing gamessince teachers have already highly realized and appreciated its educational affordances. Inaddition, it is recommended to develop courses to demonstrate effective use of digital gamesand provide guidance for both preservice teachers and in-service professional developmentprograms.
14 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Notes of contributorQing Li is a professor of educational technology at the College of Education in Towson University, USA.Her current research interests include technology-supported/enhanced learning, digital game based learning,and mathematics education. Dr Li was a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)in winter 2009.
ReferencesBaerveldt, C., & Verheggen, T. (1999). Enactivism and the experiential reality of culture: Rethinking the
epistemological basis of cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology, 5(2), 183–206.Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 38(3), 478–488.Blumberg, C., Rosenthal, E., & Randall, D. (2008). Impass-driven learning in the context of video games.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1530–1541.Brandyberry, A., & Pardue, H. (2001). The effectiveness of computer based ’gameshow’ formats in survey
course: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Information System Education, 12(2), 109–114.Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351.Clayton, K., Blumbery, F., & Auld, D. (2010). The relationship between motivation, learning strategies, and
choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 41(3), 349–364.
Coles, A. (2007). Mathematics education – A field in disarray? Paper presented at the British Society forResearch into Learning Mathematics, Northampton, UK.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design; Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage.Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex
world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Dede, C. (2005). Planning for Neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investment in technology and
faculty. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 15.11–15.22). Boulder,CO: EDUCAUSE.
van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless.EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16–30.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video games. DigitalKompetanse, 3(1), 184–213.
Ertzberger, J. (2009a). An exploration of factors affecting teachers’ use of video games as instructional tools(ED.D Ed.D Dissertation). Pepperdine University.
Ertzberger, J. (2009b). An exploration of factors affecting teachers’ use of video games as instructional tools(Ed.D. EDD dissertation). Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. (2008). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342.Hartley, J. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative
methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 208–229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Holton, D. (2010). Embodied cognition and enactivsm: Implications for constructivitsm and conceptual
change. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of AERA, Denver.Jayakanthan, R. (2002). Application of computer games in the field of education. The Electronic Library,
20(2), 98–102.Johnson, M. (1989). Personal practical knowledge series: Embodied knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(4),
361–377.Kafai, Y. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for
game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40.Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Cambridge:
MA: MIT Press.
International Journal of Play 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M. L., Shih, J. C., & Ching, C. C. (1998). Game design as an interactive learningenvironment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal ofComputers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184.
Ketelhut, D., & Schifter, C. (2011). Teachers and game-based learning: Improving understanding of how toincrease efficacy of adoption. Computers & Education, 56(2), 539–546.
Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3),394–404.
Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, andcivics (Vol. 2008). Washington, DC: PEW Internet & American Life Project.
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project: Pew Internet.
Li, Q., Clark, B., & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in enactivism: Aparadigm shift? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 403–419.
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games teachers eval-uating educational multimedia. Cambridge, UK: Department for Education and Skills.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The primacy of perception and other essays. Evanston, IL: NorthwesternUniversit Press.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michie, M. (2004, April). Teaching science to Indigenous students: Teachers as culture broker or is it some-thing else? Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver,Canada.
Oblinger, D. (2006). Simulations, games, and learning. Educause, May, 1–6.Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of computers. New York: Basic
Books.Papert, S. (1998). Does easy do it? Children, games, and learning. Game Developer, 6, 87–88.Perkins, D. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Pivec, M., & Pivec, P. (2009). What do we know from research about the use of games in education. In
P. Wastiau, C. Kearney, & W. V. d. Berghe (Eds.), How are digital games used in school(pp. 123–156). Brussels: European Schoolnet.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–4.Reid, D. (1995). The need to prove (PhD doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton.Rieber, L., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology, 38(6), 29–37.Sardone, N., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2010). Teacher candidate responses to digital games: 21st-century skills
development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 409–425.Schrader, P. G., Zheng, D., & Young, M. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of video games: MMOGs and the
future of preservice teacher education. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(3), 1–10.Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher,
35(8), 19–29.Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw
Hill.Thompson, E. (2006). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology
and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 407–427.Tuysuz, C. (2009). Effect of the computer based game on preservice teachers’ achievement, attitudes, meta-
cognition and motivation in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(8), 780–790.Varela, F. (1999). Ethical know-how: Action, wisdom and cognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.Wright, P. (2009). Trainee teachers’ e-learning experiences of computer play. Innovate: Journal of Online
Education, 5(4), 1–7.Wikipedia. (2012). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_
CenterYin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16 Q. Li
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f E
dinb
urgh
] at
20:
45 0
8 Se
ptem
ber
2013