Considerable research has been conducted on gender
differences and games. This chapter intersperses a literature review of this
domain with expectations of how girls and boys in the research experiment will
compare in their reactions when they are required to play six different
space-related games in same-sex, same grade, small group settings of fifth and
eighth graders. Throughout this chapter, “game” is used to refer to digital
forms of games, including ones played on computers and consoles such as
PlayStation, unless otherwise noted.
The computer culture gender gap mirrors
adolescent female and male attitudes toward science and math. The
The
fundamental goal of science education is to communicate scientific information
and to encourage a deep comprehension of scientific concepts, reasoning and
problem-solving skills (Kim et al., 2000). In an effort to reach this goal,
many science education reforms have occurred over the past decades—all in the
name of preparing the next generation by making science learning more
applicable and pertinent (Yager, 2000). However, many of the customary science
learning activities, such as lectures and labs, do not adequately and
effectively promote the learning of science; students are either required to
passively accept textbook- or teacher- provided knowledge, or must attempt to
reconcile discrepancies between their flawed experimental results and the
expected outcomes based on established scientific ideas (Nott & Smith, as
cited in Kim et al., 2000).
Many
authors have recommended that new technologies, specifically computer
simulations of natural science phenomena, the Web as a “virtual classroom,” and
the inclusion of multimedia among others, melded with proven pedagogies such as
experiential learning, constructivism, collaboration among students, and
teachers’ role as facilitator of learning instead of provider of knowledge,
might provide a feasible alternative to previous ways of learning science (Kim
et al., 2000; Moor & Zazkis, 2000). Due in great part to the generous
support of the National Science Foundation, this essential transformation in
science education is presently underway. One way NSF is supporting this
transformation is by seeking $200 million to initiate a new partnership
project—the President’s Math and Science Partnership—which is part of the
President’s initiative No Child Left Behind (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/mathandsciencepi.asp). The reality behind the initiative is complex: too
many children are not receiving the math and science education they need to
succeed in an increasingly technological society; too many girls, students with
disabilities, and minority students are underserved and underrepresented in
science classes and fields (Directorate for Education and Human Resources,
1999; Monhardt, 2000; Swiatek, 2000); teachers are inadequately prepared to
teach math and science; and not enough U.S. schools offer demanding and
challenging science courses (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/mathandsciencepi.asp; Kumar & Libidinsky, 2000). The consequence is
that not enough students are pursuing science study that will equip them for
future opportunities and contributions in science areas.
New
technologies hold great promise for enhancing science and math education.
Teachers reason that if designers can make computer games so entertaining as to
be termed “addictive,” why can’t some of that talent be used to design equally
compelling educational materials (AAUW, 2000)? A proposed remedy to achieve
gender equity in the computer culture is to get more girls and women involved
in the creation of hardware and software and thus themselves
participate in the evolution of computer culture. To wait only compounds the
problem; it is far better to involve females in the creation of this culture
now than to try to reshape it later.
Technology holds great promise for advancing science education. However,
there exists a troubling computer game culture gender gap. In contemporary
culture, the computer is no longer an isolated machine: It is a centerpiece of
science, the arts, media, industry, commerce, and civic life (AAUW, 2000). As
AAUW Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education co-chair Sherry
Turkle writes, the computer culture has become linked to a characteristically
masculine worldview, such that women too often feel they need to choose between
the cultural associations of “femininity” and those of “computers” (AAUW, 2000,
p. 7). Most computer games often have subject matter of interest to boys, or
feature styles of interaction known to be comfortable for boys (AAUW, 2000).
Statistics on girls’ participation in the culture of computing are of
increasing concern, from the point of view of education, economics, and
culture. We need a more inclusive computer culture that embraces multiple
interests and backgrounds and that reflects the current ubiquity of technology
in all aspects of life. As the AAUW report describes, girls assert a “we can,
but I don’t want to” attitude about participating in computer activities.
Almost all the sex differences documented in
electronic game studies conform to social gender roles. People are under social
pressure to act in accordance with their gender roles, and their play
activities are also governed by such pressure. Studies suggest
gender-stereotyped toy preference is established as early as 18 months of age (Serbin, Poulin-Dubois, Colbourne, Sen, & Eichstedt, 2001). Males play with machines that stimulate
motor activity while females play with dolls that induce nurturance (Eisenberg,
Murray, & Hite, 1982). As they grow older, boys are more likely to be sent
to computer classes and have new computers. Girls are more likely to receive
productivity-oriented software (i.e. “Learn to Type”) and “hand-me-down”
computers (Ray, 2003, p. 3), reinforcing that mastering computers is not
important to a girl’s life. Gradually, girls learn to see computers as tools
that facilitate work, instead of a source of entertainment (Ray, 2003; Turkle,
1988). As a result, using computers to have fun is less natural for females
than for males.
There is fundamental gender-inequity in computer
gaming today. Playing computer games is still considered a masculine activity
and it has been well established that game play is more popular among males
than females (Bryce & Rutter, 2003; Colwell,
Grady, & Rhaki, 1995; Funk & Buchman, 1996a, 1996b; Griffiths & Hunt, 1995;
International Hobo, 2004; Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, & Brodie, 1999). Not
only have academics found this to be true, representatives from the industry
generally share the same view.
How many
females play games?
In today’s market, if a game has a female player
population of 15% or more (as in the case of EverQuest), it is classified as
being “girl-friendly” (Falstein, 1997; Taylor, 2003a;
Yee, 2001). However, some research contradicts evidence that males play more
than females. ISDA industry research has reported a female gamer population of
nearly 50% (Interactive Digital Software Association [IDSA], 2001, 2002).
Another source documented 60% of college females playing computer games
compared to 40% of males (Jones, 2003). However,, this
study categorized operating systems’ built-in games such as Solitaire as computer games. Indeed,
solitaire on a computer is a computer game, but it exists outside of the realm
of the game market. If a female had ever played Solitaire, although far from
the current notions of a “gamer”, she would be part of the 60% female gaming
population in the study. This exemplifies the importance of clarification of
key terms in game studies. The original surveys by the IDSA and their
methodology have never become fully available to the public. Therefore, the
precision of their data cannot be determined. Very similar issues have also
been noted by veteran game designer Chris Crawford (n.d.),
questioning another set of results regarding player demographics published by
the Entertainment Software Association (2003).
Females do
not play games as much as males
Numerous studies related to games have found that
males not only comprise the majority of the gaming population, they spend more
time playing than females (Colwell & Payne, 2000; Funk & Buchman, 1996b; Ivory & Wilkerson, 2002;
Researchers focusing on game content have indicated
that most titles on the market are designed by males to please males (Chaika, & Groppe, 1996; Gorriz & Medina, 2000; Klawe Inkpen,
Some academics suggest that it is not “socially
rewarding for females” to identify themselves as gamers because gaming is
considered a male dominated area (Griffiths, 1997, p. 235). Funk and Buchman (1996b) found that it is more socially acceptable
for boys to play a lot of games than for girls. Other researchers proposed that
females tend to have psychological barriers when gaming in public, while
private domains provide more comfort for such activities. (Bryce
& Rutter, 2003).
When boys
play games, girls step aside
However, even within domestic gaming settings, girl
gamers often take on the role of watcher while male family members act as the
expert, even when the females own the gaming equipment (Schott & Horrell, 2000). In a study focusing on both children and
adult females gaming in home environments, researchers concluded that girls’
gaming rights existed under conditions of “social dynamics and gender
hierarchies”(Schott & Horrell, p.42).
It is difficult to determine whether it is the girls’
“stepping aside” from their opportunity (Schott & Horrell,
2000, p.42) or it is the boys “crowding out” (Ray, 2003, p. 4) the girls.
Nonetheless, this aggressive-passive chemistry seems to exist between males and
females pervasively when it comes to using gaming machines. Inkpen,
et al. (1994) made available ethnographic data collected from an exhibit where
gaming consoles and computers were available to all visitors. According to the
observation,
When a particular station was filled with a group of
boys, the girls were very hesitant to approach. If they did approach, they
would usually watch for a few minutes and then walk away. (1994, Presence of
Others section, para. 1)
Researchers also noted that:
Many girls would enter the exhibit, look around, and
then leave. Some would stay if they saw a free machine or if a group of girls
were playing a game. Few girls would approach if a large crowd of children were
clustered around a particular game. (1994, Girls' Interest in
Electronic Games Section, para. 5).
Additionally, the researchers indicated that girls
often “waited to be offered a turn” (1994, Ways of Playing and Watching
Electronic Games Section, para. 2), while boys
usually approached the current player to request turns.
Is it a “large group” of people or a “large group of
boys” that makes girls hesitate to approach the games?
Is it gaming in public that makes them uncomfortable? Or is it that they feel
uneasy to encroach into boys’ territory? Are they too shy to ask for a turn? Do
the findings reveal what a previous study described as “a sense of female
inferiority in relation to gaming competence” (Schott & Horrell,
2000, p.42)? Does that attitude apply to the general use of computers, or even
technology in general?
Are girls
less confident with games/computers/technologies?
Gender-neutral
games for both genders
Some psychologists argue that the context of games
can dramatically influence how girls perform on the
Perhaps there are basic gender differences in
handling tasks. In a study observing children playing video games, when girls’
characters were chased by a creature, the girls tended to react dramatically,
giggling, swinging their bodies, and even screaming, while boys were more
likely to stay quiet and focused on the tasks (Thomas & Walkerdine,
2000).
Risk-taking
Turkle (1988) has pointed out that males adapt a
trial-and-error approach when using computers and playing games, which is a
good computer learning strategy. They are willing to take the risk of failing
before they can succeed. However, many females find it difficult not to take
failure personally, and prefer games that they can understand the rules of
before starting to play. Needing to know how to play before they start becomes
a hurdle to learning games. The researcher infers risk-taking is a masculine
trait.
Beating the
game
It seems important for boys to be able to beat the
games. Klawe et al (2002) found that when girls were
first exposed to the game in their study, they spent more time on the story
plot while boys rushed to complete the game. Documented in various studies,
boys were quick at figuring out strategies to score and exchanged notes with
each other (Klawe et al., 2002; Subrahmanyam
& Greenfield, 1998). On the other hand, girls took their time exploring
without hurrying to finish the game, and appeared lukewarm about hidden clues
and secret tips, let alone further conversation about game magazines or trading
games (Gorriz & Medina, 2000; Inkpen,
et al., 1994; Klawe et al., 2002; Miller et al.,
1996).
Non-linear
game flow
Girls value “free play” (
Gorriz and Medina (2000) supported the above finding,
stating that girls do not appreciate starting games over each time the
character “dies”, which is a main characteristics of the games on the market
that are mostly played by boys. One may argue that males do not like starting
over either, however the degree of disliking does not
seem to be strong enough to stop them from playing.
Genre
preferences
Across age groups, males generally like Shooters,
Fighters, Sports, Racing/Speed games Fantasy/Role
Playing, Action-Adventure, Strategy, and Simulations more than females like
those genres. Females
favor traditional games such as Classic Board Games,
Girls
perform better on verbal tasks (Berk 2003) and
pattern-matching, which may explain why quiz-trivia or puzzle games such as
Tetris are favored by females (
Exercising
reflexes
In terms of game genre preference, it has been found
that girls prefer solving puzzles more than exercising their eye-hand reflexes
(Gorriz & Medina, 2000), which is boys’ favorite.
Kafai’s research indicated adolescent girls prefer
games that do not require quick-paced interactions (1996). Likewise, college
males reportedly favor games that require fast reactions (Sherry et al., 2001)
while females prefer games they can play quietly such as puzzle solving and
trivia games.
Action
content
Across age groups, it is believed that boys are more
likely than girls to play action content games, while girls prefer puzzle,
quiz-trivia or classic board games (Roberts, et al., 1999; Sherry et al., n.d.). With regards to females who play action games, Buchman and Funk (1996) found that girls play less fighting
games as they grow older, as gender roles become more firmly entrenched Funk & Buchman,
1996b).
According to one survey, not only did three fourths
of children agree that in general boys prefer fighting games, but the sampled
boys tended to consider violent games inappropriate for girls to play (Funk
& Buchman, 1996b). Some researchers suggest
content such as fighting, competition, or sports is a
turn-off to girls (Bryce & Rutter, 2003;
Greenfield, 1994; Kafai, 1996; Provenzo, 1991). Among
girls who like violent content, Buchman and Funk
indicated that they usually prefer fantasy or cartoon violence while boys
prefer realistic, human violence (1996, p.31). In general, girls do not
especially enjoy “shooting bad guys and monsters” (Klawe,
et al., 2002, p.211). In Kafai’s study involving
children designing games, boy designers tended to provide violent feedback to
the players when they gave incorrect answers, whereas girls provided
non-violent feedback (Kafai, 1998).
Role
playing games: social interaction, story, characters, adventures
Researchers have found that the elements girls enjoy
in games include role playing (Brunner, Bennet &
Honey, 1998), social interaction (Gorriz &
Medina, 2000; Klawe et al., 2002; Thomas & Walkerdine, 2000), narrative (Gorriz
& Medina, 2000; Laurel, 2001), and adventure (Falstein,
1997; Gorriz & Medina, 2000). Girls like to
construct narratives and hence, need complex characters to develop narration (
Creation
and destruction, or themes?
Gorriz and
Platform
Girls prefer playing games on the computer than on
video game consoles (Gorriz & Medina, 2000; Klawe, et al., 2002; Thomas & Walkerdine, 2000). Video games
have larger male gamer populations (60%) than female (21%), while the gender
difference for computer games is much smaller (29% to 24%) (Roberts
et al., 1999). The reason for this is undetermined. It may result from
the basic difference in the input devices between that of consoles and of
computers. Many console games, especially the fighting genre, require reflexes
and hand-eye coordination. It may also be that the themes of the console games
do not appeal to females. Many popular console games belong to the genres of
sports, action, and strategy/RPG, while computer games’ bestsellers are
strategy, child, and family (IDSA, 2002).
Biological sex differences in spatial skills may help
explain the different preferences for game genres between the genders.
Psychologists believe that females are disadvantaged in certain spatial skills
such as mental rotation and spatial perception, and this sex difference exists
by age four, emerges by mid-childhood, and lasts throughout one’s lifespan (Berk, 2003; Kerns & Berenbaum,
1991; Levine, Huttemlocher, Taylor, & Hangrock, 1999; Provenzo 1991).
Research has indicated that playing action video games improves spatial skills
(Okagaki & Frensch,
1996; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1996), which is
likely to be a key component of sex differences in mathematical reasoning (Berk, 2003). Playing action video games also improves one’s
visual attention (Green & Bavelier, 2003) and
other visual intelligence skills, which may be “training wheels” for computer
literacy (Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross,
2000).
Psychologists point out that both genders can improve
spatial skills by practicing video games. Many imply that girls are
disadvantaged in the long run by playing far less games (Cassell
& Jenkins, 1998; Ray, 2003). Regardless of the element of violence, games
have been envisioned as potentially effective tools for learning. Furthermore,
researchers believe that gaming opens a door to computer literacy leading to
potential technology careers (Cassell & Jenkins,
1998; Ray, 2003; Subrahmanyam et al., 2000).
[CH1]KAITLAN – whose expectations? The girls’ own expectations of other people’s expectations? Please clarify. Thanks
[CH2]clarify what you mean that one version is gender neutral and the other masculine. How do the two games differ?
Anything else to mention about Kafai;s researcb? Seems like this would be the place to say more, especially since it relates so well to our project. Or perhaps a little later.
[CH3]Kaitlan, you covered this earlier and it really doesn’t fit here under preferences – the girls didn’t choose the games, designers created them, So let’s just delete from this section and leave it in the previous section.