Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter is organized into four main sections: Introduction, Conclusions, Recommendations, and Summary. The Introduction is an executive summary of chapters 1 through 4. The Conclusions section provides a detailed response to the research questions

proposed in this study. The Recommendations section provides solutions to the research problem identified. Also within the recommendations section, the researcher discusses the implications of this study for the higher education faculty instructors that would like to implement digital game based learning strategies. The Summary provides the concluding statement.

Introduction

A plethora of research exists that examines the “digital native” student’s need for education that more closely parallels the digital economy and student’s daily life activities. Educators are clambering to find ways to engage and motivate students while preparing them for the technology entrenched 21st century workforce. Today’s students expect educational

technology to be a source of engagement, and a means to provide relevancy and convenience (Istance & Kools, 2013). Research has shown that DGBL is a successful tool to address engagement and motivation concerns and to reach learning objectives in higher education (Ariffin & Sulaiman, 2013; Moylan et al., 2015; Nadolny & Halabi, 2015). DGBL has become a popular approach in K-12 educational practice to address some of these expectations; however, higher education has been slower to acceptance and implementation.

Creative actions are preceded by a decision to be creative (Sternberg, 2002, 2006), and research has shown traits associated with creative people, including curiosity, openness to new perspectives, problem solving, positive attitudes, and time to be creative (Amabile &

technology can employ a “top down” or “bottom up” innovative strategy, however both require time management skills and support (Crowther et al., 2001; Darini et al., 2011; Kayaalp, 2014; Lorfink, 2012). Together, these findings guided the key questions associated with this research. The key questions are as follows:

1. What was the basis of the faculty decision to implement DGBL?

2. How do instructors balance the effort required to implement DGBL with their workload and academic responsibilities?

3. How did additional support (or lack of) influence the faculty experience when implementing DGBL?

The conceptual framework that informed this study explored three themes, creativity and innovation, trending innovations in higher education, and digital game based learning. Creativity and innovation is critical to bring about change in educational practices. New trends and

innovations require educators remain current in their knowledge and training, adding to the already substantial faculty workload. DGBL is finding its way into college curricula. A plethora of studies have explored the pedagogy and learning theories behind its use, however acceptance and integration has been slow to occur in higher education.

This research employed a multi-case study approach and employed a semi-structured interview as the primary means of data collection, allowing for a focused exploration of the key questions while still permitting the illumination of a detailed understanding of the personal and unique experiences. Using triangulation of multiple data points, this study was guided by the maximum variation strategy. The participants in this study included six faculty instructors and two support staff that are employed in higher education. To support the maximization of the variation in the date, the participants were chosen deliberately from a range of institutions from

four different countries and included a two-year undergraduate school, and undergraduate, graduate and medical school instructors.

The findings of this study showed that the faculty’s self-perception of being a “gamer” is not a contributing characteristic behind the participant’s decision to implement games in the classroom. The findings of this study also showed that the faculty decided to use game based learning as a solution in response to conflicts or problems they identified in their classroom and that the decision was a “bottom-up” faculty led initiative directed toward increasing student motivation and engagement, promote collaboration and team learning, and personalize instruction. The early adopters of DGBL in this study had several creative characteristics in common that may contribute to their decision to explore and ultimately implement the innovative pedagogy.

The faculty workload and job expectations were similar across all participants and would be considered typical for higher education faculty. Overall the faculty described a creative work environment that provided flexibility, with only one participant defining their schedule as rigid. Also contributing to the creative work environment was the autonomy to manage their time and implement strategies that satisfied their unique cases. The faculty, focused on improving student learning, found that blocking off time for student interaction was beneficial. Finally, a positive attitude inventory of the faculty toward DGBL was evidenced.

The challenges faced by the faculty that benefited from support included the lack of pedagogic training and game design challenges. Creative work environments provide needed resources to employees. The faculty instructors had varying degrees of monetary support, however all received internal grants that were beneficial to faculty development and game implementation. Cost was described as being an issue only in the high-end 3D video game. All

the participants viewed the process in a positive light and intend to use games moving forward. Additionally, all participants recommended game based learning for higher education.

Conclusions

The qualitative design of this research study allowed for the examination of the unique experiences of a diverse group of instructors that are early adopters of DGBL in higher

education. The semi-structured interview focused on the key questions, however the participants were encouraged to describe their unique journey to becoming early adopters of DGBL in higher education. It was not the intent of this study to advocate for the use of DGBL in higher education rather this study provided an insight into the experiences of early adopters and provides

recommendations to faculty and administrators that are considering use. Drawing on the evidence presented in Chapter 4, the conclusions for the three key questions are presented.