Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers are increasingly vital for countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom, to remain innovative and productive in the 21st century. Despite the growing demand and lucrative nature of STEM fields, minorities have remained traditionally underrepresented in STEM careers, possibly due to digital divide factors. In this study, we use social cognitive theory to explore the potential of video gameplay to provide a means of increasing minority students’ comfort with information and communication technologies, thereby increasing their positive STEM attitudes. Data were gathered during a large-scale computing intervention in an elementary school district in the southeastern United States. The results indicate that video game experiences may influence STEM attitudes via the mediating role of computer self-efficacy and emotional costs. Video gameplay, including games for entertainment, may be beneficial for young digitally divided populations as it may provide them with positive enactive experiences with technology.
AdmiraalW. (2015). A role-play game to facilitate the development of students’ reflective internet skills. Educational Technology & Society, 18, 301–308.
2.
AgarwalR.SambamurthyV.StairR. M. (2000). The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy—An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 11, 418–430.
3.
AguilarS. J.HolmanC.FishmanB. J. (2015). Game-inspired design: Empirical evidence in support of gameful learning environments. Games and Culture, 13, 44–70. doi: 10.1177/1555412015600305
4.
AlmudeverB.Croity-BelzS.HajjarV. (2007). Activity system model, perceived self-efficacy, and newcomer integration behaviour. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 62, 613–640.
5.
ArmstrongR. A. (2014). When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 34, 502–508. doi:10.1111/opo.12131
6.
BallC.HuangK. T.FrancisJ.KadylakT.CottenS.RikardR. (2017). A call for computer recess: The impact of activities on minority students’ technology self-efficacy. Paper presented at the Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide, San Diego, CA.
7.
BallC.HuangK. T.RikardR.CottenS. R. (2016). The emotional costs of computers: An expectancy-value theory analysis of young students’ STEM attitudes. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association annual meeting, Seattle, WA.
8.
BallC.HuangK. T.RikardR.CottenS. R. (2017). The emotional costs of computers: An expectancy-value theory analysis of predominantly low-socioeconomic status minority students’ STEM attitudes. Information, Communication & Society, 22, 1–24.
9.
BanduraA. (1994). Self-efficacy. In Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
10.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London, England: Macmillan.
11.
BanduraA. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In PervinL.JohnO. (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 154–196). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
12.
BanduraA. (2004). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In SinghalA.CodyM. J.RogersE. M.SabidoM. (Eds.), Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 75–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
BanduraA. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307–337.
14.
BarrM. (2017). Video games can develop graduate skills in higher education students: A randomised trial. Computers & Education, 113, 86–97.
15.
BarrM. (2018). Student attitudes to games-based skills development: Learning from video games in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 283–294.
16.
BateF.MacNishJ.MalesS. (2014). The politics of gaming in schools: A sociocultural perspective from Western Australia. Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 306–327.
17.
BeedeD.JulianT.KhanB.LehrmanR.McKittrickG.LangdonD.DomsM. (2011). Education supports racial and ethnic equality in STEM. Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics Administration.
18.
BeserraV.NussbaumM.ZeniR.RodriguezW.WurmanG. (2014). Practising arithmetic using educational video games with an interpersonal computer. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 343–358.
19.
BoyleE. A.HaineyT.ConnollyT. M.GrayG.EarpJ.OttM.…PereiraJ. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178–192.
20.
CarnevaleA.SmithN.MeltonM. (2014). STEM. Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce.
21.
CarterA.CottenS.GibsonP.O’NealL.SimoniZ.StringerK.WatkinsL. (2014). Integrating computing across the curriculum: Incorporating technology into STEM education. In YangZ.Hao YangH.WuD.LiuS. (Eds.), Transforming K-12 classrooms with digital technology (pp. 165–192). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
22.
CheeY. S.MehrotraS.OngJ. C. (2015). Authentic game-based learning and teachers’ dilemmas in reconstructing professional practice. Learning, Media and Technology, 40, 514–535.
23.
ChenC. H.WangK. C.LinY. H. (2015). The comparison of solitary and collaborative modes of game-based learning on students’ science learning and motivation. Educational Technology & Society, 18, 237–248.
24.
ColtmanT.DevinneyT. M.MidgleyD. F.VenaikS. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1250–1262.
25.
Committee on STEM Education. (2013). Federal STEM education 5-year plan. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.
26.
CottenS. (2010). XO laptops, education, and connection: Results from the Birmingham youth and technology study. Paper presented at the Texas A&M Race and Ethnic Studies Institute, College Station, TX.
27.
Del BlancoÁ.TorrenteJ.MarchioriE. J.Martínez-OrtizI.Moreno-GerP.Fernández-ManjónB. (2012). A framework for simplifying educator tasks related to the integration of games in the learning flow. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 305–318.
28.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.CelesteC.ShaferS. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In NeckermanK.ShaferS. (Eds.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
29.
DiSalvoB. J.CrowleyK.NorwoodR. (2008). Learning in context: Digital games and young Black men. Games and Culture, 3, 131–141. doi:10.1177/1555412008314130
30.
DugganM. (2015). Gaming and gamers. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
31.
EllwartT.KonradtU. (2011). Formative versus reflective measurement: An illustration using work–family balance. The Journal of psychology, 145, 391–417.
GamesI. A.SquireK. (2011). Searching for the fun: A historical perspective on the evolution of educational video games. In TobiasS.FletcherJ. (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 17–46). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
34.
HaineyT.ConnollyT. M.BoyleE. A.WilsonA.RazakA. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Computers & Education, 102, 202–223.
35.
HargittaiE.HinnantA. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35, 602–621.
36.
HeeterC.WinnB. M.GreeneD. (2005). Theories meet realities: Designing a learning game for girls. Paper presented at the Conference on Designing for User eXperience, San Francisco.
37.
HoeppnerB. B.KellyJ. F.UrbanoskiK. A.SlaymakerV. (2011). Comparative utility of a single-item vs. multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41, 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2011.04.005
38.
HuangK. T.RobinsonL.CottenS. (2015). Mind the emotional gap: The impact of emotional costs on student learning outcomes. In RobinsonL.CottenS.SchulzJ.HaleT., & WilliamsA. (Eds.), Communication and information technologies annual (studies in media and communications (Vol. 10, pp. 121–144). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
39.
JoëtG.UsherE. L.BressouxP. (2011). Sources of self-efficacy: An investigation of elementary school students in France. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 649–663. doi:10.1037/a0024048
40.
JongM. S. Y.LeeJ. H. M.ShangJ. (2013). Educational use of computer games: Where we are, and what’s next. In HuangR.KinshukS.SpectorJ. M. (Eds.), Reshaping learning: Frontiers of learning technology in a global context (pp. 299–320). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
41.
KarstenR.MitraA.SchmidtD. (2012). Computer self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Journal of organizational and end user computing, 24, 54–80.
42.
KimS.ChangM. (2010). Computer games for the math achievement of diverse students. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 224–232.
43.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155–163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
44.
KuO. Y.ChenS. Y.WuD. H.LaoA. C.ChanT. W. (2014). The effects of game-based learning on mathematical confidence and performance: High ability vs. low ability. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 65–78.
45.
LeithA.CottenS. (2014). Learning to play: Academic impacts of digital gameplay among disadvantaged African American students. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
46.
LepperM.MaloneT. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, 3, 255–286.
47.
MaloneT. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems, 18–19 September 1980, pp. 162–169. New York, NY: ACM.
48.
MaloneT. (1981). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Pipeline, 6, 50–51.
49.
MaloneT. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3, 223–253.
50.
MargolisJ.EstrellaR.GoodeJ.HolmeJ. J.NaoK. (2010). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
51.
MargolisJ.FisherA. (2003). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge: MIT press.
52.
MayerR. (2011). Multimedia learning and games. In TobiasS.FletcherJ. (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 281–305). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
53.
MelguizoT.WolniakG. (2012). The earnings benefits of majoring in stem fields among high achieving minority students. Research in Higher Education, 53, 383–405.
54.
MelusoA.ZhengM.SpiresH. A.LesterJ. (2012). Enhancing 5th graders’ science content knowledge and self-efficacy through game-based learning. Computers & Education, 59, 497–504.
55.
MoosD. C.AzevedoR. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79, 576–600.
56.
MorganR.KirbyC.StamenkovicA. (2016). The UK STEM education landscape. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.
57.
MurphyC. A.CooverD.OwenS. V. (1989). Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological measurement, 49, 893–899.
National Science Board. (2007). Moving forward to improve engineering education. Arlington, VA: National Science Board.
61.
National Science Foundation. (2011). Empowering the nation through discovery and innovation NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2011–2016. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
62.
NewmanI.McNeilK. A. (1998). Conducting survey research in the social sciences. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
63.
ObamaB. (2015). Investing in America’s future: Preparing students with stem skills. Washington, DC: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
64.
OrtizJ. (2010). Re-gaming the digital divide: Broadband, MMOGs and U.S. Latinos. In: iConference, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 3–6 February 2010.
65.
PajaresF.PrestinA.ChenJ.NabiR. (2009). Social cognitive theory and mass media effects. The sage handbook of media processes and effects. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
PanoutsopoulosH.SampsonD. G. (2012). A study on exploiting commercial digital games into school context. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 15–27.
67.
PengW. (2008). The mediational role of identification in the relationship between experience mode and self-efficacy: Enactive role-playing versus passive observation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 649–652. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0229
68.
PengW. (2009). Design and evaluation of a computer game to promote a healthy diet for young adults. Health Communication, 24, 115–127. doi:10.1080/10410230802676490
69.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.
Rising Above the Gathering Storm Committee. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
72.
RitterfeldU.CodyM.VordererP. (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. London, England: Routledge.
73.
RobinsonL. (2009). A taste for the necessary. Information, Communication & Society, 12, 488–507. doi:10.1080/13691180902857678
74.
RobinsonL. (2012). Information-seeking 2.0: The effects of informational advantage. RESET—Social Science Research on the Internet, 1, 89–115.
75.
RobinsonL. (2014). Endowed, entrepreneurial, and empowered-strivers: Doing a lot with a lot, doing a lot with a little. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 521–536.
76.
RobinsonL.CottenS. R.OnoH.Quan-HaaseA.MeschG.ChenW.…SternM. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 569–582.
SelwynN. (1997). Student’ attitudes toward computers: Validation of a computer attitude scale for 16–19 education. Computers & Education, 28, 35–41.
81.
ShankD. B.CottenS. R. (2014). Does technology empower urban youth? The relationship of technology use to self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 70, 184–193. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.018
82.
SherryJ. L. (2015). Formative research for STEM educational games. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 90–97.
83.
SkinnerB. F. (1961). Teaching machines. Scientific American, 205, 90–106.
84.
SobelM. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.
85.
StenrosJ. (2017). The game definition game: A review. Games and Culture, 12, 499–520.
86.
TingY. L. (2010). Using mainstream game to teach technology through an interest framework. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 141–152.
87.
Van DeursenA.HelsperE. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In RobinsonL.CottenS. R.SchulzJ.HaleT. M.WilliamsA. (Eds.), Communication and information technologies annual (Vol. 10, pp. 29–52). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
88.
Van DeursenA.Van DijkJ. (2013). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media Society, 16, 507–526.
89.
Van DijkJ.HackerK. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 3152–326. doi:10.1080/01972240390227895
90.
WebsterF. (2014). Theories of the information society. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
91.
WeiK. K.TeoH. H.ChanH. C.TanB. (2014). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22, 170–187.
92.
WilliamsonB.FacerK. (2004). More than “just a game”: The implications for schools of children’s computer games communities. Education, Communication & Information, 4, 255–270. doi:10.1080/14636310412331304708
93.
WilsonD.BatesR.ScottE.PainterS.ShafferJ. (2015). Differences in self-efficacy among women and minorities in stem. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 21, 27–45.
94.
WintersJ. V. (2014). STEM graduates, human capital externalities, and wages in the US. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 48, 190–198.
95.
Ying-chenL. M.KinzieM. B. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 373–396.
