IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

A Comparative Analysis of the Attitudes of Primary School Students and Teachers

Regarding the Use of Games in Teaching

Branko Anđić
University of Montenegro, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Podgorica,
Montenegro

Srđan Kadić
University of Montenegro, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Podgorica,
Montenegro

Rade Grujičić
University of Montenegro, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Podgorica, Montenegro

Desanka Malidžan
School “Radojica Perović”, Podgorica, Montenegro

5
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the attitudes of students and teachers toward the use of
educational games in the teaching process. The study encompassed a didactic experiment, and
adopted interviewing techniques and theoretical analysis. Likert distributions of attitudes to
particular game types are presented in tables and the arithmetic means of Likert values are used
as indicators of centrality. Spearman’s rank correlations between teaching and student attitudes
are also discussed. The research has shown that word associations, memory games, anagrams
and quizzes are games that enhance students’ motivation the most, whereas crosswords and
rebuses have been found to be least interesting. Teachers, on the other hand, find that self-made
games are better than ready-made games, as they inspire creativity in teaching.

Keywords: educational games, teaching, motivation, primary school, students, teachers

6
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

Introduction

For children, most learning comes from play, which is their most natural activity. As many as
91% of American children between the ages of 2 and 17 play video games (NPD Group, 2011).
The Entertainment Software Association (2012) states the following reasons for playing
games: they are fun, challenging, they bring families and friends together and provide
entertainment.

Educational games are games used for educational purposes. There are numerous definitions
of educational games. However, one of the generally accepted definitions is that a game is a
system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, which results in a
quantifiable outcome (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). The strategy of educational games is to
place students in situations where a competitive spirit and intelligence need to be brought into
play. Students are guided by the competitive spirit towards gaining a certain knowledge which
helps them win the game and, at the same time, relieves stress and provides additional
motivation.

Many scientists believe that educational games make up an important area of research in the
field of developmental psychology (Erikson, 1977; Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978). The
characteristics of every educational game should be as follows: clear goals and objectives,
opportunity to apply what is being learned, ensuring that the learner can only succeed in the
game if they have the required knowledge, learning based on experience, providing immediate
feedback on the results achieved, encouragement to learn from mistakes, enabling cooperation,
presenting challenges tailored to students’ abilities, the visual appearance, and animations that
help maintain learner’s attention (Fischer, 2005; Kelly, 2005; Prensky, 2002). One of the most
important features of educational games lies in considering wrong answers as part of the
cognitive process and the possibility for a student to learn from their own mistakes (Groff,
Howells, & Cranmer, 2010; Ke, 2009; Klopfer, Osterweil, & Salen, 2009). Many research
studies have shown that games are a great motivational tool in learning (Chang, Yang, Chan,
& Yu, 2003; Schwabe & Goth, 2005). However, as the selection of activities and games
depends on the teaching that is carried out by a teacher, it is necessary to analyze the teachers’
opinions on educational games.

Apart from being used as a teaching technique geared towards acquisition of knowledge, a
game is also a highly motivational tool for better learning, and a tool for affirmation and
expression of students’ attitudes. In fact, a game shapes the content of a course, stimulates
cognitive abilities and makes otherwise boring contents interesting (Facer, 2003; Prensky,
2003). A successful educational process entails not only motivated students, but also motivated
teachers. It is therefore important to allow teachers to independently create teaching materials
for teaching classes including educational games. If a teacher is highly motivated then so are
their students, and the teaching process overall is better (Maehr, 1984). Some research studies
have shown that teachers are motivated when they see students achieving desirable results
(Lortie, 1975; Menlo & Low, 1988). One of the important factors that determines teachers’
motivation level is the selection of, and access to, contemporary teaching aids (Namestovski,
2013).

The majority of previous research studies have revolved around the use of ready-made software
games in classrooms. This study seeks to analyze the possibilities for teachers to design
educational games on their own and adjust them to the needs and abilities of students, as well
as to the lesson plan. The aim of this research is to assess the capacities of teachers to create

7
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

self-made games, the impact of such games on students’ motivation level, and their role as a
complement to theoretical knowledge. In addition, one of the main objectives of this research
study is to describe the games that motivate students the most from those considered to be least
interesting. Previous research studies have not sufficiently tackled teachers’ attitudes toward
educational games, which is why this paper provides a comparison of teachers’ and students’
opinions on the use of educational games in teaching.

Materials and Methods

An experiment was conducted with both teachers and students to explore their attitudes to
educational games designed by teachers. The part of the experiment that involved teachers as
a target group entailed practical training on the creation of educational games, followed by a
survey. The practical training for teachers, entitled “Using educational games in the
classroom”, was approved by the Institute of Education of Montenegro, and listed in the
Catalogue for the Professional Training of Teachers for the school year 2015–2016 (Institute
of Education of Montenegro, 2015). As many as 270 teachers from 8 Montenegrin primary
schools underwent the practical training. Out of the said total number, 148 teachers (54.8%)
teach classes to younger children between the ages of 6 and 11, whereas 122 of their peers
(44.2%) teach pupils in the upper elementary grades between the ages of 11 and 15. After
completing the training, the teachers went on to apply the skills for creating games in their
classrooms. The teachers conveyed their attitude regarding the use of these games in teaching
through a survey. After the classes involving educational games were delivered, the students
who were learning through play were also surveyed. A total of 428 pupils were surveyed, 217
(50.08%) being those between the ages of 6 and 11, while 221 (49.02%) were pupils aged 11–
15. The research involved students from city schools in Montenegro. The students who
participated in the survey were of similar social status. A flowchart of the research process is
presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The layout of the research study stages.

8
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

Games used in the research

For the purpose of this research, the following educational games that teachers can create on
their own were chosen: rebuses, anagrams, crosswords, word associations, memory games,
quizzes and “Break the Wall”. Rebus is an educational game that engages students’ logical
thinking, combinatorics, linking of concepts, and helps transform explicit into experiential
knowledge. The solutions to rebuses are meaningful notions that are reached through
conversion of characters and images into words. An anagram is a type of letter-rebus
educational game which requires that a meaningful notion be figured out from an illogical
combination of words. With crosswords, answers to questions are entered in a grid. Word
association is an educational game in which an associative pattern between concepts leads to
the solution to the game. A memory game requires students to locate and pair up several hidden
notions, hidden notions with images or several associated images. A quiz is an educational
game in which students opt for one of the offered answers to a question. An impact of quizzes
in the teaching process is not clarified so far, so additional research in this direction is needed
(Wang, Øfsdal, & Mørch-Storstein, 2009). “Break the wall” is a game in which an image is
hidden behind a set of questions. With each correct answer, another brick gets torn down, thus
uncovering a part of the image. The aim is to provide as many correct answers as possible, so
as to unveil the entire image. The teachers were trained to use Microsoft PowerPoint for
designing all of the abovementioned games, so that they could, at any point in time,
independently design games and use them to achieve lesson goals.

The survey
The survey for teachers comprised 12 questions, 8 closed-ended and 4 open-ended questions.
The closed-ended questions pertained to teachers’ evaluations of each game and its purpose as
a motivational teaching aid, as well as its benefits and disadvantages. The games were rated on
a scale of 1 to 5. In the open-ended questions, teachers were asked to write down suggestions
on how to improve the use of educational games in classrooms, and on which parts of a class
these games would be most suitable for. The survey for students contained 8 closed-ended
questions in which students were to rate each game, as well as 4 open-ended questions asking
for their suggestions for the further use of educational games.

Data processing
The results obtained through the study are presented in tables and a graph. Statistical processing
of data involved calculation of the arithmetic mean of Likert values and correlation coefficients
between teacher and student Likert returns. Likert results obtained served as input data for
calculating Spearman’s correlation coefficient, and in this case, they represent the extent to
which quantitative assessments provided by teachers match those provided by students.
Finally, the said results were compared to other published findings by students. Finally, the
said results were compared to other published findings.

Results and Discussion

Of the total of 270 teachers, 67 (23.7%) had already used the existing computer-based
educational games in classroom teaching, whereas 203 (76.3%) had never used them. The
survey has shown that 165 (61%) teachers find their schools to be technically equipped for the
use of educational games in teaching, whereas 135 (39%) believe the opposite. The majority
of teachers, 228 (84.4%), claim that they will be using educational games in classrooms on a
regular basis, owing to the positive experience gained through such activities, whereas 42
(15.6%) say otherwise.

9
 IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

The opinions of teachers on self-made educational games used in the teaching process are
presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Attitudes of teachers toward games as being a motivational factor

(5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Below Average, 1=Poor)

Question: Answers:
How would you rate 1 2 3 4 5
educational games as a means n % n % n % n % n %
for increasing students’ 0 0 0 0 8 2.96 101 37.41 161 59.63
motivation for the teaching
process?
How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5
“associations” game as a n % n % n % n % n %
means for increasing students’ 0 0 0 0 3 1.11 89 32.96 178 65.93
motivation for the teaching
process?
How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5
“memory” game as a means n % n % n % n % n %
for increasing students’ 0 0 2 0.74 16 5.93 123 45.56 129 47.78
motivation for the teaching
process?
How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5
“quiz” game as a means for n % n % n % n % n %
increasing students’ 0 0 0 0 5 1.85 11 4.07 254 94.07
motivation for the teaching
process?
How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5
“Break the wall” game as a n % n % n % n % n %
means for increasing students’ 0 0 6 2.22 17 6.30 128 47.41 119 44.07
motivation for the teaching
process?
How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5
“anagram” game as a means n % n % n % n % n %
for increasing students’ 18 6.67 34 12.59 72 26.67 89 32.96 57 21.11
motivation for the teaching
process?
How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5
“rebus” game as a means for n % n % n % n % n %
increasing students’ 8 2.96 13 4.81 34 12.59 96 35.56 119 44.07
motivation for the teaching
process?
How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5
“crosswords” game as a n % n % n % n % n %
means for increasing students’ 9 3.33 17 6.30 54 20 124 45.93 66 24.44
motivation for the teaching
process?

The average grade that teachers have assigned to educational games serving as a motivational
factor in teaching is 4.56. Out of a total of 270 teachers who have undergone training for self-
made games to be used independently in the classroom, 161 (59.6%) found educational games
to be a very good motivational tool, marking them with the highest grade. The lowest grade
assigned to games as being a motivational tool was a Likert category of three (3), assigned by
8 or 2.96% teachers. These attitudes of the teachers are consistent with those expressed in
previous research studies in this area (Gee, 2001; Kebritchi, Hirumi, & Bai, 2010; Liu & Chu,
2010; Woo, 2014; Yang, 2012). Students find learning through play to be very interesting,

10
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

giving it an average grade of 4.77. As many as 332 (77.57%) students rated the interest-
triggering aspect of games with the highest grade, whereas 96 (22.42%) assigned the grade of
four (4), being the lowest grade overall. Table 2 provides the review of students’ opinion on
games.

Table 2: Attitudes of students on the use of games in teaching

(5=Excellent, 4=Good, 3=Average, 2=Below Average, 1=Poor)

Question: Answers:
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the use of games in classroom n % n % n % n % n %
teaching? 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 22.43 332 77.57
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the “word association” game n % n % n % n % n %
to be? 0 0 0 0 23 5.37 221 51.64 184 42.99
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the “memory” game to be? n % n % n % n % n %
0 0 0 0 0 0 156 36.45 272 63.55
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the “quiz” game to be? n % n % n % n % n %
0 0 0 0 28 6.54 157 36.68 243 56.78
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the “Break the wall” game to n % n % n % n % n %
be? 0 0 12 2.80 0 0 223 52.10 193 45.09
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the “anagram” game to be? n % n % n % n % n %
0 0 0 0 2 0.47 134 31.31 292 68.22
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the “rebus” game to be? n % n % n % n % n %
29 6.78 56 13.08 12 2.80 243 56.78 88 20.56
How interesting do you find 1 2 3 4 5
the “crosswords” game to be? n % n % n % n % n %
24 5.61 37 8.64 82 19.16 148 34.58 137 32.01

According to the teachers, the best motivation-triggering game is the quiz game, giving it the
4.92 score, while students rated it with 4.50. This educational game is a very good motivational
tool in the teaching process, a conclusion that follows up on the results from the previous
studies such as Wang, Øfsdal, & Mørch-Storstein (2008) and Anđić & Malidžan (2015).
Teachers find anagrams to be least motivational, assigning an average grade of 3.47, whereas
students described this game as a very interesting one, giving it a score of 4.68. The data from
the relevant literature correlate with the students’ opinion, describing anagram as a very good
motivational tool (Deci, 1991; Melero & Hernández-Leo, 2014). The students surveyed found
the rebus game to be least interesting, giving it an average score of 3.74 while the teachers’
score was 4.12. Some research studies have shown that the rebus game helps pupils master the
skill of reading in an interest-inducing manner (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

For classroom teaching with educational games to be successful, a balance needs to be struck
between the games that educators find to be motivational and those that students find to be
appealing. By using a Spearman’s rank correlations coefficient, a comparison of teachers’ and
students’ ranks (1 to 5; n=5) frequencies is made for each game. This research reveals a high
correlation between opinions of teachers and students when it comes to games such as quizzes,
word associations, memory games and crosswords, the Spearman’s correlation coefficient
being ρ=0.90. A lower Spearman’s coefficient of correlation between opinions of teachers and

11
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

students was recorded with rebuses, anagrams and “Break the Wall,” and amounts to ρ=0.70
or less. The overall correlation of opinions for each question is presented in Graph 1. The
teacher-student responses Spearman’s correlation coefficient is fairly high, and its average
value in this research amounts to ρavr=0.85.

Figure 2: Educational games in teaching – the Spearman’s correlation coefficient ρ between

opinions of teachers and students (n=5 for each game).

In the open-ended questions of the survey, students and teachers were to provide answers in
their own words. When asked about the shortcomings of educational games in teaching,
teachers stated the lack of IT equipment, preparation of games as being time-consuming, and
computer illiteracy. The lack of IT equipment in schools in developing countries has been noted
in the report “ICTs and Education” (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2006). The promotion of
computer literacy and use of computers in teaching has been designated as one of the priorities
in the report “Conclusions and recommendations to UNESCO and CEI” for the entire
Southeastern Europe (UNESCO, 2006). The time-consuming preparation of games to be used
in teaching has to do with the moderate computer literacy of teachers who underwent the
training for designing games. Students do not see educational games as having any
shortcomings whatsoever, and think they should be used as much as possible in classroom
teaching. Both students and teachers believe that games can be used during any part of a single
class, as well as both in the course of introducing a new lesson and while reviewing previous
ones.

When asked about other ways to induce motivation with students, teachers mostly stated the
use of computers, outdoor classes and more advanced teaching aids. In addressing the very
same question, students responded with: classroom experiments, practical work and the use of
computers. Both groups of respondents agree that use of computers in classrooms induces
motivation as a number of papers have shown (Dale, 2008; Mellar et al., 2007; Strzebkowski
& Kleeberg, 2002; Turvey, 2006). Teachers also give preference to creating games themselves,
as it is thus easier to tailor them to the lessons being taught, as well as to students’ capabilities,

12
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

whereas fewer teachers feel that ready-made games would be more suitable to them, mostly
due to the reason of time-saving.

The Implications of Educational Games in the Teaching Process

Educational games impact positively on the teaching process and encourage greater motivation
for learners for learning. Students have different attitudes about different games which
significantly affect the success of the teaching process. Therefore, each teacher of the game
should adapt primarily to the teaching content, but also to the students for whom the games are
intended. In this way, it is likely to achieve the best pedagogical and educational benefits of
educational games.

Conclusion

This research has shown that educational games serve as a solid motivational tool. In addition,
there is a high level of correlation between opinions of teachers and students on educational
games, with Spearman’s correlation coefficient of ρ=0.85. The average grade that students
assigned to educational games to be used in classroom teaching amounts 4.77, whereas teachers
gave an average grade of 4.65. From the students’ perspective, the best games used in
classroom teaching are word associations, memory games, anagrams and quizzes, whereas
crosswords and rebuses have been said to be least interesting. When comparing games that
teachers create and adjust themselves with ready-made educational games, the preference has
been given to the former, since teachers thus have the freedom to customize the games to the
lessons being taught, as well as to students’ capabilities. Future research studies should be
directed toward the development of educational software that enable teachers to use games that
are adapted to the material being taught and to students’ capacities.

13
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

References

Anđić, B., & Malidžan, D. (2015). Educational game quiz as a motivational tool in the
biological education. 6th International Symposium of Ecologists of Montenegro.
Ulcinj, Montenegro, 15–18 October 2015.
Chang, L.J., Yang, J. C., Chan, T. W., & Yu, F. Y. (2003). Development and evaluation of
multiple competitive activities in a synchronous quiz game system. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 16–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800032000038840
Dale, C. (2008). iPods and Creativity in Learning and Teaching: An Instructional Perspective.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 1–9.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletie, L. G., Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:
The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_6
Entertainment Software Association. (2012). Essential facts about the computer and video
game industry. Retrieved from www.theesa. com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf.
Erikson, E.H. (1977). Toys and reasons: Stages in the ritualization of experience. New York,
NY: Norton.
Facer, K. (2003). Computer games and learning. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/discussion_papers/Computer_Gam
es_and_Learning_discpaper.pdf
Fisch, S. M. (2005). Making educational computer games "educational". In Proceedings of the
2005 conference on interaction design and children (pp. –61). Boulder, Colorado.
Gee, J.P. (2001). Progressivism, critique, and socially situated minds. In C. Dudley Marling,
& C. Edelsky (Eds.). The fate of progressive language policies and practices (pp. 31–
58). Urbana, IL: NCTE,
Groff, J., Howells, C., & Cranmer, S. (2010). The impact of console games in the classroom:
Evidence from schools in Scotland. UK: Futurelab.
Institute of Education of Montenegro (2015). Katalog programa stručnog usavršavanja
nastavnika za školsku 2015/2016. godinu [Catalog of professional teacher training
program for school 2015/2016 year].
Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. E. Furdig
(Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1–32).
New York: IGI Global.
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer
games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education,
55(2), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.007
Kelly, H. (2005). Games, cookies, and the future of education. Issues in Science & Technology,
21(4), 33–40.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward. Cambridge,
MA: The Education Arcade.
Liu, M., & Rutledge, K. (1997). The effect of a “learner as multimedia designer” environment
on at-risk high school students’ motivation and learning of design knowledge. Journal

14
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

of Educational Computing Research, 16, 145–77. https//doi.org/10.2190/27AT-YLJ3-

3PVV-L0JY
Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking
course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2),
630–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R.
E. Ames, & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (pp. 115–144). New
York: Academic Press, Inc.
Melero, J., & Hernández-Leo, D. (2014). A model for the design of puzzle-based games
including virtual and physical objects. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 192–
207.
Mellar, H., Kambouri, M., Logan, K., Betts, S., Nance, B., Moriarty V. (2007). Effective
teaching and learning: Using ICT. Research report for NRDC. ISBN: 9781905188338.
Menlo, A., & Low, G. T. (1988). A comparison of the sources of enthusiasm in teaching across
five countries. Paper presented at the Society for cross cultural research annual
meeting. Texas, USA.
Namestovski, Z. (2013). Analysis of the effects of applying educational software tools on
pupils’ and teachers’ motivation level in primary schools. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Novi Sad, Serbia.
NPD Group (2011). The video game industry is adding 2-17-year-old gamers at a rate higher
than that age group population growth. Retrieved October 03, 2016, from http:// www.
afjv.com/ news/ 233_kids- and- gaming- 2011.htm.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation (Vol. 24). New York, NY: Norton.
Prensky, M. (2002). The motivation of gameplay: The real twenty-first century learning
revolution. On the Horizon, 10(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120210431349
Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–
4. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950596
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Schwabe, G., & Goth, C. (2005). Mobile learning with a mobile game: design and motivation
effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 204–2016.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00128.x
Strzebkowski, R., & Kleeberg, N. (2002). Interaktivität und Präsentation als Komponenten
multimedialer. Lernanwendungen. In Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und
Internet; BeltzPVU: Weinheim, Germany, 229–246.
Turvey, K. (2006). Towards deeper learning through creativity within online communities in
primary education. Computers & Education, 46, 309–321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.004
U.S. Department of Education (2005). Helping your child become a reader. U.S. Department
of Education Office of Communications and Outreach. Jessup, MD.
UNESCO (2006). Conclusions and recommendations to UNESCO and CEI. Workshop on
Information Literacy Initiatives for Central and South East European Countries.

15
IAFOR Journal of Education Volume 6 – Issue 2 – Summer 2018

International Center for Promotion of Enterprises Ljubljana, Slovenia, March 27-28,

2006.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2006). ICTs and education indicators – Suggested core
indicators based on meta-analysis of selected international school surveys.
Communication Statistics Unit UNESCO Institute for Statistics CP6128 Succursale
Centreville Montreal H3C 3J7, Québec, Canada.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, A. I., Øfsdal, T., & Mørch-Storstein, O.K. (2008). An evaluation of a mobile game
concept for lectures. In Proceedings of 21st conference on software engineering,
education and training (pp. 197–204). IEEE Computer Society.
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CSEET.2008.15
Wang, A. I., Øfsdal, T., & Mørch-Storstein, O.K. (2009). Collaborative learning through games
characteristics, model, and taxonomy, Retrieved October 03, 2016, from
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/alfw/LectureGameTaxonomyPaper.pdf
Woo, J. C. (2014). Digital game-based learning supports student motivation, cognitive success,
and performance outcomes. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 291–307.
Yang, Y. T. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for
developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.012

Corresponding author: Branko Anđić

Contact email: [email protected]

16