Rethinking Game-based Learning from a Gender Perspective: A Case Study of a Male English Language Learner in China

Abstract

As game-based learning gains more and more scholarly recognition, this article proposes to incorporate a gender concern with a critical perspective into the concept. The aim of this study is to explore how far such a concern can enhance the understanding of game-based learning. To this end, an ethnographic case study of a male English language learner at a Chinese university was conducted, with Harding’s (1986) three levels of gender as the analytical tools, namely, gender symbolism, gender structure, and individual identity. The case study produced differentiated gender symbols of big and small games. It was found that rather than seeing game playing as a way to facilitate his language learning, the student participated in big game playing as a way to socialize with the masculine world around him. This participation stopped short of contexts with different gender structures such as at home and in the labor market. The author concludes that Harding’s critical theory of gender provides a nuanced understanding of the complex relation between gender and game-based learning. Educational intervention can encourage increased participation of female students in game-based learning.

Keywords

Gender computer games game-based learning gender symbolism gender structure individual identity China

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbiss

(2008). Rethinking the “problem” of gender and IT schooling: Dis-courses in literature. Gender and Education, 20(2), 153–165.

Anderson

Lankshear

Timms

Courtney

(2008). “Because it’s boring, irrelevant and I don’t like computers”: Why high school girls avoid professionally-oriented ICT subjects. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1304–1318.

Boyle

Connolly

(2008). Games for learning: Does gender make a difference? Paper presented at the 2nd European Conference on Games Based Learning, Spain.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Bryce

Rutter

Sullivan

(2006). Digital games and gender. In Rutter

Bryce

(Eds), Understanding digital games (pp. 185–204). London: SAGE Publications.

Butler

(1990). Performative acts and gender constitution. In Case

(Ed.), Performing feminisms: Feminist critical theory and theatre (pp. 270–282). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Carr

(2006). Games and gender. In Carr

Buckingham

Burn

Schott

(Eds), Computer games: Text, narrative and play (pp. 162–178). Cambridge: Polity.

Chen

L.-W.

(2005). Perception of university faculty and adult students on online games: A q-methodology study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, US.

Connell

R.W.

(1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

Crawford

Groundwater-Smith

Millan

(1990). Gender and the evolution of computer literacy. A report prepared for the NSW Ministry of Education. Erskinville, New South Wales: Department of School Education.

11.

Culley

(1993). Gender equity and computing in secondary schools: Issues and strategies for teachers. In Beynon

Mackay

(Eds), Computers into classrooms: More questions than answers (pp. 147–159). London: The Falmer Press.

12.

Denzin

Lincoln

(1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

13.

Facer

Furlong

Sutherland

(2003). Screenplay: Children and computing in the home. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

14.

Flax

(1987). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12(4), 621–643.

15.

Foreman

(2004). Game-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21st century. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 50–66.

16.

Gee

J.P.

(2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

17.

Gee

J.P.

(2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.

18.

Gee

J.P.

(2006). Why game studies now? Video games: A new art form. Games and Culture, 1(1), 58–61.

19.

Gee

J.P.

(2007). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy. New York: Peter Lang.

20.

Harding

S.G.

(1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.

21.

Hartmann

Klimmt

(2008). Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p13951_index.html

22.

Johnson

N.F.

(2009). Contesting binaries: Teenage girls as technological experts. Gender, Technology and Development, 13(3), 365–383.

23.

Mitchell

J.C.

(1984). Typicality and the case study. In Ellen

R.F.

(Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 238–241). New York: Academic Press.

24.

Pelletier

(2005). The uses of literacy in studying computer games: Comparing students’ oral and visual representations of games. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(1), 40–59.

25.

Prensky

(2001). Digital game-based leraning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

26.

Prensky

(2006). “Don’t bother me Mom, I’m learning!”: How computer and video games are preparing your kids for twenty-first century success—and how you can help! (1st ed.). St Paul, MN: Paragon House.

27.

Sanders

(2006). Gender and technology: What the research tells us. In Skelton

Francis

Smulyan

(Eds), The SAGE handbook of gender and education (pp. 307–324). London: SAGE Publications.

28.

Squire

(2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 2(1). Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/squire/

29.

Weedon

(1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

30.

Wilson-Keenan

Solsken

J.W.

Willett

(1998). “Only boys can jump high”: Reconstructing gender relations in a first-second grade classroom. In Kamler

(Ed.), Constructing gender and difference: Critical research perspectives on early children (pp. 33–70). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

31.

Wodak

(1997). Gender and discourse. London: SAGE Publications.