Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The effects of an online professional development course on teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions regarding digital game-based learning

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the effects of a graduate level, professional development (PD) course on teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions regarding the use of digital games in the classrooms, teacher involvement in educational game design, and constructionist gaming. Twenty-one teachers participated in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from pre- and post-surveys and participants’ reflections on major assignments. The results revealed significant changes in participants’ perceptions, attitudes, and self-efficacy. At the end of the course, all participants believed that digital games could be helpful for students’ learning and help students develop real-world skills, including higher-order thinking, problem solving, decision making, and collaboration skills. They also felt more comfortable using digital games in the classroom after completing the course. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that teachers should be involved in the process of educational game design. The participants also realized that constructionist gaming could provide an engaging and meaningful context where students can practice and develop real world skills. This study examined the impact of the PD experience on the participants’ behavioral intentions beyond their perceptions and attitudes. The results showed that the PD experience had a positive influence on the participants’ behavioral intentions. The findings of this study provide useful insights into teacher professional development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • An, Y. (2016). A case study of educational computer game design by middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 555–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, Y., & Cao, L. (2017a). Examining the characteristics of digital learning games designed by in-service teachers. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 7(4), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, Y., & Cao, L. (2017b). The effects of game design experience on teachers’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of digital games in the classroom. TechTrends, 61(2), 162–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, Y., Haynes, L., D’Alba, A., & Chumney, F. (2016). Using educational computer games in the classroom: Science teachers' experiences, attitudes, perceptions, concerns, and support needs. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 16(4), 415–433.

  • An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K-12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akcaoglu, M. (2014). Learning problem solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akcaoglu, M., & Kale, U. (2016). Teaching to teach (with) game design: Game design and learning workshops for preservice teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 60–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akcaoglu, M., Gutierrez, A. P., Sonnleitner, P., & Hodges, C. B. (2016). Game design as a complex problem solving process. In R. Zheng & M. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of research on serious games for educational applications (pp. 217–233). Hershey, PA: IGN Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computer games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 765–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beglau, M., Craig Hare, J., Foltos, L., Gann, K., James, J., Jobe, H., Knight, J., & Smith, B. (2011). Technology, coaching, and community: Power partners for improved professional development in primary and secondary education (White Paper). Retrieved from https://www.ri-iste.org/Resources/Documents/Coaching_Whitepaper_digital.pdf.

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf.

  • Denham, A. R., Mayben, R., & Boman, T. (2016). Integrating game-based learning initiative: Increasing the usage of game-based learning within K-12 classrooms through professional learning groups. TechTrends, 60(1), 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudelli, W., & Taylor, A. (2011). Modding the global classroom? Serious video games and teacher reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 70–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, H. R., & Price, D. P. (2013). Fighting baddies and collecting bananas: Teachers’ perceptions of games-based literacy learning. Educational Media International, 50(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanover Research (2014). Professional development for technology integration. Retrieved from https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/files/techsvc/Professional%20Development%20for%20Tech nology%20Integration.pdf.

  • Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer-assessment- based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

  • Kennedy-Clark, S., Galstaun, V., & Anderson, K. (2011). Using game-based inquiry learning to meet the changing directions of science education. In Proceedings of ASCILITE -Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2011 (pp. 702–714). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.

  • Kenny, R. F., & McDaniel, R. (2011). The role teachers’ expectations and value assessments of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.

  • Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: A study of affordances and constraints of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 785–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, T. R. (2016). Game-based learning in professional development for practicing educators: A review of the literature. TechTrends, 60(5), 496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, R. R. (2013). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. Journal of Educational Research, 2, 120–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, B., & Coulter, G. A. (2010). Perceptions of the value of digital mini-games: Implications for middle school classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 26(3), 92–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: Benefits and gender concerns. Computers & Education, 59, 385–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeuchi, L M., & Vaala, S. (2014). Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. Retrieved from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/jgcc_leveluplearning_final.pdf.

  • U. S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology (National Educational Technology Plan 2010). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, R. (2015). Digital game-based learning: Still restless, after all these years. EDUCAUSE Review, 50(6), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, N., van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 56, 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yunjo An.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Yunjo An declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Appendix: Descriptive statistics

Appendix: Descriptive statistics

Pre-survey

 

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

Digital games can enhance students’ motivation to learn

4.52

0.98

− 2.71

8.22

Digital games can get students interested in the subject matter

4.57

0.98

− 2.88

8.99

Digital games can be helpful for my students’ learning

4.52

0.98

− 2.71

8.22

Digital games are an effective way to teach lower-level factual and procedural knowledge

4.38

0.74

− 0.77

− 0.65

Digital games are an effective way to teach basic skills (e.g., addition, subtraction)

4.24

0.94

− 0.92

− 0.25

Digital games are an effective way to teach complex content and high-level skills

3.95

0.92

− 0.32

− 0.89

Digital games can support the needs of diverse learners

4.38

0.87

− 1.39

1.48

Digital games can help me provide personalized instruction

4.14

0.96

− 1.05

0.44

Digital games can be used to assess student learning

4.33

0.97

− 1.50

1.52

Digital games are an effective way to teach real-world skills

4.10

0.99

− 0.54

− 1.13

Digital games can help students develop higher-order thinking skills

4.33

0.80

− 0.71

− 1.00

Digital games can help students develop problem-solving skills

4.48

0.75

− 1.09

− 0.20

Digital games can help students develop decision-making skills

4.48

0.75

− 1.88

4.82

Digital games can help students develop social skills

3.76

0.99

− 0.14

− 1.05

Digital games can help students develop collaboration skills

4.05

1.07

− 0.91

− 0.30

Digital games can help students develop communication skills

3.62

1.07

− 0.21

− 1.12

Digital games can foster teamwork among students

4.19

0.93

− 0.83

− 0.29

I am interested in using digital games in my classroom

4.62

0.92

− 3.36

12.71

I feel comfortable using digital games in my classroom

3.48

1.08

− 0.59

− 0.06

I am confident using digital games in my classroom

3.43

1.08

− 0.46

− 0.15

I have knowledge and skills required for using digital games in the classroom

3.43

0.93

− 0.61

1.30

Teachers should be involved in the process of educational game design

3.90

0.70

− 0.83

1.96

Post-survey

 

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

Digital games can enhance students’ motivation to learn.

4.95

0.22

− 4.58

21.00

Digital games can get students interested in the subject matter

4.86

0.36

− 2.20

3.14

Digital games can be helpful for my students’ learning

4.86

0.36

− 2.20

3.14

Digital games are an effective way to teach lower-level factual and procedural knowledge

4.67

0.48

− 0.76

− 1.58

Digital games are an effective way to teach basic skills (e.g., addition, subtraction)

4.62

0.59

− 1.32

0.99

Digital games are an effective way to teach complex content and high-level skills

4.43

0.75

− 0.93

− 0.48

Digital games can support the needs of diverse learners

4.76

0.54

− 2.32

5.06

Digital games can help me provide personalized instruction

4.67

0.73

− 2.77

8.73

Digital games can be used to assess student learning.

4.76

0.44

− 1.33

− 0.28

Digital games are an effective way to teach real-world skills

4.76

0.44

− 1.33

− 0.28

Digital games can help students develop higher-order thinking skills

4.76

0.44

− 1.33

− 0.28

Digital games can help students develop problem-solving skills

4.81

0.40

− 1.70

0.98

Digital games can help students develop decision-making skills

4.90

0.30

− 2.97

7.56

Digital games can help students develop social skills.

4.38

0.92

− 1.31

0.73

Digital games can elp students develop collaboration skills

4.67

0.66

− 1.85

2.33

Digital games can help students develop communication skills

4.48

0.87

− 1.66

2.12

Digital games can foster teamwork among students

4.62

0.67

− 1.59

1.43

I am intersted in using digital games in my classroom.

4.76

0.54

− 2.32

5.06

I feel comortable using digital games in my classroom.

4.29

0.90

− 1.09

0.40

I am confident using digital games in my classroom

4.10

0.94

− 0.60

− 0.74

I have knowledge and skills required for using digital games in the classroom

4.29

0.90

− 1.09

0.40

Teachers should be involved in the process of educational game design

4.57

0.51

− 0.31

− 2.12

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

An, Y. The effects of an online professional development course on teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions regarding digital game-based learning. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1505–1527 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9620-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9620-z

Keywords

Navigation