Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
This chapter addresses the integration of digital games in the education arena. It presents findings from research investigating the perceptions of teachers at different stages of their career regarding digital game integration in teaching and relates to the perceptions of school principals in this context as well. The findings show that teachers at different stages of their careers integrate digital games in different ways and with varying scopes. It was found that school principals hold positive perceptions of integrating digital games into teaching and encourage, leading teachers to disseminate the new idea of incorporating digital games in instruction.
Keywords
- digital games
- education
- teachers’ professional knowledge
- teachers’ perceptions
- teachers’ professional development
1. Introduction
In recent years, several trends have emerged that have brought digital games to the center stage in the education arena. The first trend is the accelerated development of digital technology that facilitated the introduction of innovative digital technologies and platforms into our world, among them the internet, the mobile telephone, and the tablet [1]. The technologies enabled wide-scale integration and access to digital games on a range of platforms and with relative ease, in the education arena too. A second trend is the increasing popularity of digital games among students for whom they are an integral part of their daily lives [2, 3, 4]. Digital games are close to the world of students who generally play them in their free time. Digital games are perceived as having the potential to arouse enthusiasm, interest, and motivation in a school setting as well [5, 6]. A third trend indicates a significant improvement in learning using digital games in contrast to the use of traditional teaching methods [7, 8]. A fourth trend demonstrates the encounter between the students’ desire to play digital games and the education system’s willingness to offer innovative and experiential learning environments which advance twenty first-century skills while providing solutions that respond to differences between students [3, 4]. The fifth and last trend took place as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the mandatory transition of education systems to online learning. This constituted a significant catalyst in accelerating the integration of techno-pedagogical tools, such as digital games, in teaching and learning [9, 10, 11]. In its essence, the digital game is an ideal platform for integration into online learning, so as to generate interest and engagement in learning among students.
As a result, the integration of digital games in education systems is gaining momentum in many countries as it carries the promise of innovation alongside the challenge and opportunity to bring about change in the field of education [12, 13, 14]. Thus, many education systems in Europe, Asia, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries choose to integrate digital games into teaching and learning [15, 16]. There are differences between the ways those countries have chosen to implement and assimilate digital games into education. This may be due to the absence of an orderly policy, even between one school and another [17]. In Israel, for example, the Ministry of Education promotes wide-ranging initiatives to integrate digital games in teaching, even encouraging competitions between schools. In general, education systems invest a substantial amount of monetary resources in integrating innovations and digital games into teaching and learning processes. This investment is mainly needed for building a technology infrastructure in schools (such as Wi-Fi), payment for games and purchase of licenses (for example, see Figure 1), and teacher and school staff training. Nonetheless, despite the many resources invested in integrating innovation and digital games into teaching and learning processes, the difficulties in integrating them leads researchers to argue that these efforts and attempts are destined to fail and that in most cases, innovative technology, including the integration of digital games, will have a minor effect, if any, on instruction, learning, or students’ achievements [18, 19, 20].
Figure 1.
This screen capture is taken from the “Ofek” website, which offers digital games to Israeli schools for monthly payment (Hebrew).
In this chapter we will present the studies we conducted, which address the integration of digital games in schools from the perspective of policymakers, principals, and teachers. We will, in addition, present the practical implications of integrating digital games in teaching for policymakers and proposals for follow-up research in this context. The chapter opens with insights concerning digital games in the education arena and goes on to present research we conducted as well as the research of others in the field.
2. The integration of digital games in the education arena
The research literature includes many definitions of digital games, among them serious games – intended for learning purposes not only in the field of education, video games, online games, etc. Prensky [21] coined the term ‘digital game-based learning’ (DGBL) and thus distinguished between games whose purpose is entertainment and leisure and games whose aim is teaching and learning. In addition, there are a wide range of games, platforms, and types of games – starting with single-player games to multi-player board games, strategic games, and console games [22]. In this chapter, we will define a digital game as a digital, interactive, and competitive environment that has clear learning goals for promoting teaching and learning processes in education [23, 24].
Many researchers agree that integrating digital games into teaching and learning has everything needed to turn them into effective instructional and learning tools (for example, [5, 25, 26, 27]). Digital games enable students to acquire twenty first-century skills including critical thinking skills, research skills, communication skills, self-regulated learning skills, creativity, computing and programming skills, and strategic thinking, which rarely occur in traditional learning [6, 14, 28, 29, 30, 31]. These skills are intended to prepare students to optimally adapt to the changes in twenty first-century society and employment.
In contrast, there are researchers who argue that the efficacy of digital games in imparting knowledge and significant learning is controversial and constitutes an obstacle to their integration [22, 32]. Thus, for example, according to Fiorella & Mayer [33], digital games require players to be skillful at identifying and selecting learning tasks, skills that the learner may have not yet acquired. In some cases, this kind of learner autonomy in the game, intended to arouse interest and engagement, may come at the cost of the learning itself [34].
Alongside these findings, certain researchers perceive digital games as a great promise that will lead to a revolution in education [12, 13, 14]. However, together with these expectations, there are obstacles to the integration of digital games into education, which reflect the difficulties relating to the teachers’ skills, game technology, curricula, costs, etc. [16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. The literature, however, rarely relates to these difficulties, using a multidimensional view of the phenomenon from the perspective of the school principals and the teachers who, in practice, lead this change.
3. Main research findings
The research literature concerning digital game integration in teaching and learning highlights the significant role of teachers [15, 16, 29, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46]. Several findings point to the importance of focusing on the teachers’ perceptions regarding the integration of digital games into teaching and learning. They argue that the negative perceptions of educators, particularly schoolteachers, regarding the efficacy of digital games in teaching and learning may be a barrier to the integration of digital games in practice [17].
Teachers’ perceptions regarding the integration of digital games into teaching may derive from the lack of their knowledge concerning the integration of digital games into teaching [47]. Koehler and Mishra [48] proposed a theoretical framework for understanding teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). TPACK is a framework for the integration and effective use of technology in the classroom, arguing that teachers need to understand the link between three bodies of knowledge: pedagogy, the content being taught, and technology. The concept is based on Shulman’s [49] theory, which argues that teacher pedagogy and teacher content knowledge should not be treated as distinct knowledge areas. Studies that examined the willingness of teachers to integrate digital games into their instruction found that they lacked the necessary knowledge and skills for digital games [15, 50] and, in particular, lacked the game literacy needed to enhance and facilitate digital game integration [51].
In this context, claims that have been made in recent years relate to the absence of the games component from the TPACK framework [52], and importantly, the practice teachers need to integrate digital games. Research we conducted shows that the type of professional knowledge teachers need to integrate digital game-based learning in schools requires diagnosis, intervention, and inference skills. These professional skills are essential in order to respond to each student’s and class’s particular needs in the promotion of learning achievements. The claim is that teachers have been left on their own to decide how to integrate digital games and evaluate the students’ achievements [37].
The results of other research we conducted shows that teachers at different stages of their career integrate digital games differently [37]. Thus, novice teachers in the early stages of their career tend to integrate digital games right as they start out. Teachers at late stages of their career perceive digital games as less effective and integrate them into their lessons to a lesser extent, as compared to other groups of teachers. Teachers at advanced stages of their career perceive digital games as more effective than teachers in the different groups. They perceive themselves as integrating digital games in their teaching to a greater degree than teachers in the different groups. They perceive digital games as an innovative and advanced teaching techno-pedagogical tool that enables them to create inquiry-based learning, differential learning, alternative assessment, and a flipped classroom into their teaching. They prepare for the integration of digital games in a more comprehensive way, as compared to the teachers in the different groups.
Another research study we conducted, which has not yet been published, examined the perceptions of school principals, who lead the integration of digital games in their schools, related to strategies they employ in this context. The findings show that most of the school principals have positive perceptions regarding the integration of digital games into teaching and learning, but they emphasize that teachers play an important role in assessing the contribution of digital games to the students’ learning and achievements. In addition, these school principals deploy several strategies to promote the integration of digital games in their school, for example, using leading teachers in the school, the ones who integrate digital games in their teaching, as “change engines” to lead the move to digital game integration. This means that they leverage the leading teachers, who are devoted enthusiasts of using digital games in their teaching, in a number of strategic ways: disseminating success stories, participating in the school’s decision-making processes, establishing peer instruction, and finally, defining them as the school’s “agents of change” [35, 53]. Thus, the principals believe that by observing leading teachers, other teachers can be positively influenced and can revise their beliefs regarding the integration of digital games [54]. Eyal and Yosef-Hassidim [55] point out in their research on teachers who champion new technologies that they carry the weight of leading technological innovation in their schools and indicate that these teachers collapse under its burden and do not succeed in meaningful diffusion of the technology in their schools. Integrating digital tools, including digital games, is conducted in small “islands,” in school [56]. Therefore, the innovation fails in expanding to the point of “total innovation” integrated within all levels of the organization. Nevertheless, the “islands of innovation” do serve schools by allowing them to present to their environment the appearance of having adopted innovation, thus leading them to gain legitimacy along with the resources it brings [57, 58].
Furthermore, the results of our research that examined the factors inhibiting and supporting teachers in integrating digital games into their teaching and learning found that the technical issue is the major factor inhibiting teachers from integrating digital games in their instruction. Teachers noted the technical, logistical, and operational difficulties involved in operating the equipment and the technical infrastructure for using digital games in their classroom as the main inhibiting factor. In contrast, the main supporting factor stems from the influence of enthusiastic teachers, which results from their experience of seeing students’ learning experience and engagement in learning using digital games.
Related to the supporting and inhibiting factors for integrating digital games of teachers at different career stages [37], we found differences between the teacher groups. Teachers at early stages of their career mentioned the need to enforce discipline in their classroom as an inhibiting factor. Teachers at advanced and late stages of their career mentioned technical factor as an inhibiting factor. With respect to supporting factors, among teachers in early stages of their career the pedagogical and professional factor was found to be supportive, whereas teachers in advanced and late career stages stressed the effect of the students’ positive learning experience using digital games as the main supporting factor. Similar findings were seen in the research literature [35, 37, 59]. These findings indicate the need for teachers’ professional development in the integration of digital games in teaching and learning.
4. Practical implications
Based on the research findings and the insights emerging from the studies we conducted, we wish to clarify a number of recommendations regarding two aspects: (1) policy related to the integration of digital games in schools and (2) teachers’ professional development.
4.1 Policy concerning the integration of digital games
Research shows that schools are expected to integrate innovative technology, as emerges, for example, from the documents of the European Union Commission, which finances several research projects to promote this issue [60, 61]. In addition, there are programs and projects to integrate digital games into classroom instruction as part of the program to integrate technology [16, 39, 62, 63]. For example, Scotland, Australia, and Singapore operate programs to integrate digital games into the instruction of science and mathematics and programs for developing and designing digital games by students. Recently, in Eastern Asia, emphasis was placed on the integration of innovation in and the use of technology including digital games to teach English [64]. In the United States, the Department of Education declared that it is aware of the effectiveness of digital game use for learning and is therefore committed to widespread and comprehensive integration of high-quality games in schools and in non-formal education settings [65]. In 2013, DigComp, the European Digital Competence Framework, published a list of digital skills and competencies students need to acquire in the digital age, including digital competency and knowledge needed for using digital technologies, with digital games being counted among the tools used for acquiring these skills [66]. Therefore, we recommend that countries, districts, and schools formulate a clear policy concerning the integration of digital games into the instruction in school. This will align policy with expectations of innovation in schools and define achievement goals for digital competency among the relevant stakeholders.
In our experience, integration of digital gaming is also related to policy. Without policy, implementation is carried out only by “devoted enthusiasts.” Our practical experience shows that when leaders of education systems draw up policies regarding the integration of technology, in general, and digital games, in particular, it increases the likelihood of assimilating digital games as part of teaching and learning processes in education systems.
When educators succeed in integrating digital games into their teaching and experience success in this context, there is a high probability that they will continue to integrate them in the future as well.
4.2 Teachers’ professional development
Research indicates the need for in-depth understanding of how to support teachers in their role as change agents in a way that will help implement ongoing and sustainable innovation in schools [67]. To this end, professional development related to the integration of digital games is needed throughout the stages of the teachers’ careers. Such professional development programs are still in their infancy [68]. Thus, for example, in Europe there are professional development courses for teachers on diagnostic tools that help them to assess the suitability of games to students and to teaching. For instance, since 2014, there are MOOCs (massive open online course) for teachers across Europe that guide them on how to integrate digital games into their teaching. Helping teachers be able to diagnose the degree of a game’s suitability to teaching and learning, they use the PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) system for games (see Figure 2), in general, and for digital games as well. This system classifies the content of the game and its suitability for the target audience although the rating received is enforced only in Finland and Norway [69]. In Israel, the situation is somewhat similar to what is taking place around the world.
Figure 2.
PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) provides age classifications for video games in 38 European countries. The age rating confirms that the game is appropriate for players of a certain age.
In addition, as mentioned, the findings of the research we conducted among teachers at different stages of their career show that there is a need for in-service education throughout the stages of the teachers’ career and aligned with the stage of the teacher’s career. For example, in accordance with the teacher’s career stage, customized development programs can be offered to interested teachers [70]. In training, it is very important to include practical experience in integrating digital games and development of capabilities to assess learning using digital games [47]. Similarly, training should be accompanied by an evaluation of the teacher with respect to her perceptions and knowledge of technology, in general, and the integration of digital games, in particular. Such evaluation will provide a snapshot of the teacher’s knowledge and perceptions. Professional development should begin already at the teacher-training stage, and therefore, having policymakers is important at teacher education colleges/universities to lead this policy among the teaching faculty at the college/university [53, 71]. We recommend devoting thought in advance to the professional development processes needed and as part of the process of integration of digital games into teaching and learning, to carefully plan customized development processes for teachers that are aligned with their knowledge, perceptions, and their career stage. All this should be conducted in coordination with their school principals and in line with the policy defined.
In the context of the professional development of teachers, in our experience, professional development is critical for leading change processes in education systems. We know that teachers experience many changes. These should be accompanied by the definition of goals as part of their professional development. A great number of teachers do not have the skills and abilities needed to assimilate technology in teaching or to integrate digital games into their teaching. To succeed in motivating teachers to integrate digital games into their teaching, systematic and orderly development processes for learning the subject must be built. Learning, however, is insufficient; it should be accompanied by support and guidance in the field during assimilation into classroom teaching.
Teachers at different career stages have varying degrees of technological knowledge and require training and guidance tailored to their level - this is what we have learned from our experience in the education field.
4.3 Suggestions for follow-up research
In order to expand the understanding of the integration of digital games in education, it is suggested that research concerning stakeholders in and out of the school setting be conducted, as this may shed the light on teachers’ perceptions, adoption and integration, and professional development concerning the integration of digital games in teaching and learning. These stakeholders are school principals, mid-level school management, parents, students, parties in the administration responsible for digital game integration in schools, etc. Regarding teachers’ professional development in the integration of digital games, there is a need to deepen the understanding of the teachers’ pedagogy when using games in the classroom, meaning that there is a need for a more faithful description of the teachers’ activities during the process of the integration of digital games. Consequently, future research can shed light on how teachers integrate digital games into the curriculum and on which teaching-supported practices they should implement when integrating digital games in their classroom. If we learn substantially more about teachers and students in schools and classrooms, about what works for whom, under which circumstances, and with what effects, the knowledge will have real practical value for teachers who are meant to respond to development processes with respect to the effectiveness of the integration of digital games in their teaching in schools [72].
In concluding this chapter, we would like to reiterate that digital games are an important techno-pedagogical tool and investment must be made in its assimilation among teachers as part of teaching and learning processes.
Studies show, as mentioned, that digital games contribute to students’ motivation and help to impart twenty first-century skills. As those involved in teacher training and professional development of teachers, we recommend adopting techno-pedagogical approaches in teaching among teachers that will use digital games as part of their teaching.
If, during teacher training, students were to experience using digital games, there is a greater likelihood that they will later use digital games as part of their teaching.
As mentioned, although the use of digital games requires professional development processes and guidance, it leads to diverse, challenging, and enriched teaching for the students.
References
- 1.
Brom C, Šisler V, Slavík R. Implementing digital game-based learning in schools: Augmented learning environment of ‘Europe 2045’. Multimedia Systems. 2010; 16 :23-41 - 2.
Beck JC, Wade M. The Kids are Alright: How the Gamer Generation is Changing the Workplace. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press; 2006 - 3.
Huizenga J, Admiraal W, Akkerman S, Dam GT. Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: Engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2009; 25 :332-344 - 4.
Van Eck R. Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review. 2006; 41 :16 - 5.
Ke F. Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2016; 64 :219-244 - 6.
Kirriemuir J, McFarlane A. Literature Review in Games and Learning. A Graduate School of Education. UK: University of Bristol: Futurelab; 2004. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.futurelab.org.uk - 7.
De Freitas S. Are games effective learning tools? A review of educational games. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2018; 21 :74-84 - 8.
Zhonggen Y. A meta-analysis of use of serious games in education over a decade. International Journal of Computer Games Technology. 2019; 2019 :1-8. Article ID 4797032. DOI: 10.1155/2019/4797032 - 9.
Dubé AK, Dubé NJ. Policies to guide the adoption of educational games into classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69 (1):167-171 - 10.
Reimers F, Schleicher A, Saavedra J, Tuominen S. Supporting the continuation of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. OECD. 2020; 1 :1-38 - 11.
UNESCO. COVID-19 educational disruption and response [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-emergencies/coronavirus-school-closures - 12.
Gee JP. What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2003 - 13.
Kirkley SE, Kirkley JR. Creating next generation blended learning environments using mixed reality, video games, and simulation. TechTrends. 2004; 49 :42-89 - 14.
Prensky M. Digital Game-based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001 - 15.
Hsu CY, Tsai MJ, Chang YH, Liang JC. Surveying in-service teachers’ beliefs about game-based learning and perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge of games. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2017; 20 :134-143 - 16.
Joyce A, Gerhard P, Debry M. How are Digital Games Used in Schools: Complete Results of the Study. Brussels, Belgium: European Schoolnet EUN Partnership AISBL; 2009 - 17.
Huizenga JC, Ten Dam GTM, Voogt JM, Admiraal WF. Teacher perceptions of the value of game-based learning in secondary education. Computers & Education. 2017; 110 :105-115 - 18.
Fullan M. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 5th ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2015 - 19.
Allen LK, Crossley SA, Snow EL, McNamara DS. L2 writing practice: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement. Language Learning & Technology. 2014; 18 :124-150 - 20.
Fuhrman S, Elmore R. Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. Vol. 38. NY: Teachers College Press; 2004 - 21.
Prensky M. Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE). 2003; 1 :21-21 - 22.
Young MF, Slota S, Cutter AB, Jalette G, Mullin G, Lai B, et al. Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research. 2012; 82 :61-89 - 23.
Erhel S, Jamet E. Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education. 2013; 67 :156-167 - 24.
Prensky M. Don’t Bother Me, Mom, I’m Learning! How Computer and Video Games are Preparing Your Kids for 21st Century Success and how You Can Help! New York: Paragon House; 2006 - 25.
Chen CH, Shih CC, Law V. The effects of competition in digital game-based learning (DGBL): A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68 :1855-1873 - 26.
Jabbar AI, Felicia P. Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :740-779 - 27.
Wouters P, Van Oostendorp H. A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning. Computers & Education. 2013; 60 :412-425 - 28.
Groff., Howell, C, Cranmer S. The Impact of Console Games in the Classroom: Evidence from Schools in Scotland. UK: Futurelab; 2010 - 29.
Klopfer E, Osterweil S, Salen K. Moving Learning Games Forward. Cambridge, MA: The Education Arcade; 2009 - 30.
McFarlane A, Sparrowhawk A, Heald Y. Report on the Educational Use of Games. Cambridge. [Internet: TEEM; 2002 Available from: http://consilr.info.uaic.ro/uploads_lt4el/resources/pdfengReport%20on%20the%20educational%20use%20of%20games.pdf - 31.
Shaffer DW, Squire KR, Halverson R, Gee JP. Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 2005; 87 :105-111 - 32.
Foster AN, Shah M, Duvall M. Game network analysis: For teaching with games. In: Foster AN, Shah M, Duvall M, editors. Teacher Education: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. USA: IGI Global; 2016. pp. 371-403 - 33.
Fiorella L, Mayer RE. Paper-based aids for learning with a computer-based game. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104 :1074 - 34.
Easterday M, Aleven V, Scheines R, Carver S. Using tutors to improve educational games. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education; Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. 2011. pp. 63-71 - 35.
Avidov-Ungar O, Hayak M. Teacher perception of the adoption and implementation of DGBL in their classroom teaching: Adoption and implementation of DGBL among teachers. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL). 2021; 11 :17-30 - 36.
Baek YK. What hinders teachers in using computer and video games in the classroom? Exploring factors inhibiting the uptake of computer and video games. CyberPsychology and Behavior. 2008; 11 :665-671 - 37.
Hayak M, Avidov-Ungar O. The integration of digital game-based learning into the instruction: Teachers’ perceptions at different career stages. TechTrends. 2020; 64 (6):887-898 - 38.
Groff J, Clarke-Midura J, Owen VE, Rosenheck L, Beall M. Better learning in games: A balanced design lens for a new generation of learning games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Education Arcade and Learning Games Network; 2015 - 39.
Koh E, Yeo G, Wadhwa B, Lim J. Teacher perceptions of games in Singapore schools. Simulation Gaming. 2012; 43 :51-66 - 40.
Papadakis S. The use of computer games in classroom environment. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies. 2018; 9 :1-25 - 41.
Piller Y, Roberts-Woychesin J. Raising parental awareness about game-based learning. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education-Volume 2-CSEDU (2); SCITEPRESS-Science and Technology Publications. 2015. pp. 385-389 - 42.
Becker K. Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2007; 38 :478-488 - 43.
Bourgonjon J, Valcke M, Soetaert R, Schellens T. Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education. 2010; 54 :1145-1156 - 44.
Chee YS, Mehrotra S, Ong JC. Professional development for scaling pedagogical innovation in the context of game-based learning: Teacher identity as cornerstone in “shifting” practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 2015; 43 :423-437 - 45.
Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM. A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education. 2012; 59 :661-686 - 46.
Williamson B. Computer games, schools, and young people: A report for educators on using games for learning [Internet]. Futurelab. 2009. Available from: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources / documents/project_reports/becta/Games_and_Learning_educators_report.pdf - 47.
Allsop Y, Jessel J. Teachers’ experience and reflections on game-based learning in the primary classroom: Views from England and Italy. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL). 2015; 5 :1-17 - 48.
Koehler M, Mishra P. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 2009; 9 :60-70 - 49.
Shulman LS. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 1986; 1986 (15):4-14 - 50.
Hsu TY, Chiou GF. Preservice science teachers’ prior gameplay experience and their perceptions of digital game-supported learning. In: EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, Lisbon, Portugal. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); Jun 2011. pp. 3331-3339 - 51.
Takeuchi LM, Vaala S. Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. In: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. New York, NY: Center at Sesame Workshop; 2014 - 52.
Hsu CY, Liang JC, Chai CS, Tsai CC. Exploring preschool teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge of educational games. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2013; 49 :461-479 - 53.
Hayak M, Avidov-Ungar O. Perceptions of senior academic staff in colleges of education regarding integration of technology in online learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice. 2022b; 21 :77-94 - 54.
Winter E, Costello A, O’Brien M, Hickey G. Teachers’ use of technology and the impact of Covid-19. Irish Educational Studies. 2021; 40 :235-246 - 55.
Eyal O, Yosef-Hassidim D. Managing educational champions: Entrepreneurship in schools. Journal of School Leadership. 2012; 22 :210-255 - 56.
Avidov-Ungar O, Eshet-Alkalay Y. Islands of innovation: A critical analysis of a model for innovation implementation in school systems. Adult Education in Israel. 2014; 13 :60-90 - 57.
Avidov-Ungar O. “Islands of innovation” or “comprehensive innovation.” Assimilating educational technology in teaching, learning, and management: A case study of school networks in Israel. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects. 2010; 6 :259-280 - 58.
Christensen CM, Aaron S, Clark W. Disruption in education. Educause Review. 2002; 38 :44 - 59.
Hayak M, Avidov-Ungar O. Knowledge and planning among teachers integrating digital game-based learning into elementary school classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2022a (Forthcoming) - 60.
Blamire R. Games based learning digital games for learning: Conclusions and recommendations from the IMAGINE project. EuropeanSchoolnet [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://recursostic.educacion.es/blogs/europa/media/blogs/europa/informes/IMAGINE%20Conclusions%20and%20recommendations%202010-3.pdf - 61.
Cagiltay K, Reinhardt R. Green Paper European Network for Growing Activity in Game- based learning in Education – ENGAGE [Internet]. 2010. 2010. Available from: http://www.engagelearning.eu/community/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/WP5_D15_METU_EFQUEL_Green-Paper-on-GBL.pdf - 62.
Ellis H, Heppell S, Kirriemuir J, Krotoski A, McFarlane A. Unlimited learning: Computer and Video Games in the Learning Landscape. London: Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association; 2006. [Internet]. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14632.37127 - 63.
European Schoolnet. Games in schools [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://games.eun.org/upload/gis-full_report_en.pdf . Synthesis report available athttp://games.eun.org/uploade/gis-synthesis_report_en.pdf . - 64.
Butler YG. The use of computer games as foreign language learning tasks for digital natives. System. 2015; 54 :91-102 - 65.
Office of Educational Technology. Games for learning 2014 (September). [Internet]. Available from: https://tech.ed.gov/games/ - 66.
Ferrari A. DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. Luxembourg: European Union; 2013 - 67.
Holdsworth S, Maynes N. “But what if I fail?” A meta-synthetic study of the conditions supporting teacher innovation. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’Éducation. 2017; 40 :665-703 - 68.
Nousiainen T, Kangas M, Rikala J, Vesisenaho M. Teacher competencies in game-based pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 74 :85-97 - 69.
Tsekleves E, Cosmas J, Aggoun A. Benefits, barriers and guideline recommendations for the implementation of serious games in education for stakeholders and policymakers. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2016; 47 :164-183 - 70.
Avidov-Ungar O. A model of professional development: teachers’ perceptions of their professional development. Teachers and Teaching. 2016; 22 :653-669 - 71.
Avidov-Ungar O, Hayak M. Attitudes toward the integration of digital games into instruction in teacher education colleges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 2022; 21 :623-639. DOI: 10.28945/5037 - 72.
Hargreaves DH. The production, mediation and use of professional knowledge among teachers and doctors: A comparative analysis. In: Knowledge Management in the Learning Society. OECD; 2000. pp. 219-238. Available from: https://books.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=1-uaAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA219&dq=Hargreaves+DH.+The+production,+mediation+and+use+of+professional+knowledge+among+teachers+and+doctors:+A+comparative+analysis.+Knowledge+Management+in+the+Learning+Society.+OECD.+2000:219-238&ots=kxXDb7dd65&sig=M_leT5sToeVqPsdZEDAV7c2QkNk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false