THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMACOLLEGE OF EDUCATION

LEARNING THROUGH PLAY: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PLAY ON PROCEDURAL LEARNING, LEARNER ENJOYMENT, AND

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

BY

Susan Kay Codone

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of South Alabama in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Instructional Design and Development

May 2000

Approved: Date:

_______________________________________________________________________Chair of Dissertation Committee: Dr. John Strange_______________________________________________________________________Member of Committee: Dr. Susan Tucker________________________________________________________________________Member of Committee: Dr. Burke Johnson________________________________________________________________________Member of Committee: Dr. Rebecca McMahon________________________________________________________________________Chair of Department: Dr. John V. Dempsey________________________________________________________________________Director of Graduate Studies: Dr. William Gilley________________________________________________________________________Dean of the Graduate School: Dr. James L. Wolfe

LEARNING THROUGH PLAY: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PLAY ON PROCEDURAL LEARNING, LEARNER ENJOYMENT, AND

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of South Alabama in partial fulfillment of the requirement

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

The College of Education

bySusan Kay Codone

M.B.A., University of West Florida, 1992May 2000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Over the last five years, there have been many people who have helped and

supported me throughout my pursuit of this degree. Although I cannot thank everyone

personally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone for helping me

reach this goal.

I would like to thank several people who have consistently encouraged me

throughout the last few years. To begin, I would like to thank my doctoral committee:

Dr. John Strange, Dr. Burke Johnson, Dr. Susan Tucker, and Dr. Rebecca McMahon. In

particular, I would like to thank Dr. Martin Tessmer, who helped me “play around” with

the idea of play and was a primary influence in the last two years of doctoral study and in

this research journey. Additionally, I would like to thank my employer, Raytheon

Interactive Technologies Support Center, for providing me with enough flexibility and

support to reach this goal.

Most importantly, I would like to single out my husband, George, for the sincerest

appreciation and love that I can offer. For five years, he has assumed almost complete

care of our household and growing family so that I could both work and complete this

academic degree without distraction. He alone is the reason that I have finished this

process to find myself in the midst of a marriage that is even better than when I started.

And, let me also thank my children for reminding me why I pursued this degree. Each of

ii

them has been with me at different stages of the doctoral program. I began my studies

with Erin, who I literally carried with me to my doctoral orientation when I was 8 months

pregnant; then was blessed with Brynn, born mid-way through the program, and now I

am privileged to conclude my studies by carrying our newest addition, due in October

2000, with me to the end -- graduation.

Although this degree has been a singular achievement in my life, I count the

comfort and love of my relationship with George and the presence of my children as an

even greater accomplishment, surpassing any academic or professional work I will ever

do.

Thanks to all of you!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................viii

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................ix

CHAPTER 1........................................................................................................................1The Problem to be Investigated....................................................................................................................1

Critical Issues in Play Research................................................................................................................3Statement of the Research Questions.......................................................................................................5Summary.................................................................................................................................................11Description of this Study........................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 2......................................................................................................................17Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................17

Defining Characteristics of Play.............................................................................................................17Theoretical Views of Play......................................................................................................................20Behaviorist Influences on Play...............................................................................................................22Developmental Influences on Play.........................................................................................................23Cognitive Influences on Play..................................................................................................................23Play and Childhood Learning.................................................................................................................23Play and Adult Learning.........................................................................................................................24Play as a Preparation for Adult Performance.........................................................................................25Play as Adaptation..................................................................................................................................26Play as Control and Mastery...................................................................................................................27Relationship of Play to Positive and Negative Affect............................................................................28Relationship of Play to Cognitive Development....................................................................................28

Play and Creativity...............................................................................................................................................28Play and Problem-Solving....................................................................................................................................29Play and Motivation and Exploration...................................................................................................................30

A Cognitive Model of Play and Learning...............................................................................................32Play and Instructional Design.................................................................................................................35

CHAPTER 3......................................................................................................................41Methodology...............................................................................................................................................41

Basic Assumptions of Mixed-Method Designs......................................................................................41Methods of Data Collection....................................................................................................................43Settings...................................................................................................................................................43Participants.............................................................................................................................................45

iv

Data Collection Methods........................................................................................................................46Interviews.............................................................................................................................................................46Multimedia Treatment Intervention......................................................................................................................48

Delivery Platform...................................................................................................................................52Procedures for the Multimedia Treatment..............................................................................................52Participant Observation..........................................................................................................................53Data Collection.......................................................................................................................................54

Qualitative Data Collection with Student Interviews...........................................................................................54Instructor Interviews.............................................................................................................................................55Practitioner Interviews..........................................................................................................................................56

Coding Procedures..................................................................................................................................57Coding Process.......................................................................................................................................57Quantitative Data....................................................................................................................................58

Instrumentation.......................................................................................................................................59Experimental Design and Data Analysis................................................................................................60Data Reduction.......................................................................................................................................61Internal Validity......................................................................................................................................62

External Validity......................................................................................................................................63 Researcher Bias.......................................................................................................................................................63

Summary.................................................................................................................................................65

CHAPTER 4......................................................................................................................66Results.........................................................................................................................................................66

Student Interviews Coding Process........................................................................................................76Summary of Student Interview Findings from QSR NVivo Analysis...................................................76Participant Observation..........................................................................................................................83Instructor Interviews...............................................................................................................................83Practitioner Interviews............................................................................................................................87Emerging Patterns Across all 3 Interview Groups.................................................................................92

Quantitative results..................................................................................................................................96Description of the Participants and Environment...................................................................................97Hypothesis One.......................................................................................................................................99Hypothesis Two....................................................................................................................................101Summary...............................................................................................................................................104

CHAPTER 5....................................................................................................................106Discussion.................................................................................................................................................106

The Purposes and Study Findings.........................................................................................................106The Research Questions and the Study Findings.................................................................................107

Research Question 1...........................................................................................................................................107Research Question 2...........................................................................................................................................113The Use of the W-I-R-E Model for Instructional Strategy-Building.................................................................117Instructional Design Cautions Using the W-I-R-E Model.................................................................................121Findings Related to Mixed-Method Research....................................................................................................122Suggestions for Future Research........................................................................................................................123

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................126

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview Protocol Form – Pilot Version A..................................................................137Appendix B: Interview Protocol Form – Version B (revised)............................................................140Appendix C: Instructor and Practitioner Interview Protocol..............................................................143Appendix D: Student Enjoyment Scale...............................................................................................146Appendix E: Student Enjoyment Scale................................................................................................146

v

Appendix F: Standard Naval Letter Job Sheet...................................................................................150Appendix G: QSR NVivo Summary of Student Interview Coding Report.........................................151Appendix H: QSR NVivo Summary of Instructor Interview Coding Report.....................................180Appendix I: QSR NVivo Summary of Practitioner Interview Coding Report..................................185Appendix J: Code Glossary...............................................................................................................199

Appendix K: Vita.................................................................................................................................201

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Qualitative Indicators Compared To Play................................................................................13

Theoretical Views Of Play Throughout History................................................................21

A Cognitive Model Of Play And Learning........................................................................34

Study Participants By Gender, Age, Education, And Years Of Experience......................46

Indicators Of Play Derived From The Literature Review.................................................68

New Indicators Of Play Derived From Interviews............................................................72

Frequency Of Student Interview Codes.............................................................................77

Frequency Of Instructor Interview Codes..........................................................................84

Frequency Of Practitioner Interview Codes......................................................................88

Combined Indicators Of Play And Their Frequencies.......................................................93

Results Of The Cbt And Letter-Writing Tests.................................................................100

Group Means Of Enjoyment Scale Items........................................................................103

Play Codes Listed By W-I-R-E Categories.....................................................................111

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Interface Menu -- The Late Show......................................................................................51

The W-I-R-E Model of Play.................................................................................................120

viii

ABSTRACT

Codone, Susan Kay, Ph.D. University of South Alabama, May 2000. Learning through play: the effectiveness of play on procedural learning, learner enjoyment, and instructional design. Chair of Committee: John Strange.

This dissertation presents findings of a study into the nature of play and its

appropriateness as an instructional strategy for procedural learning outcomes. Years of

research into play have not provided a thorough definition of play behavior or a

taxonomy of the indicators of play. The field of instructional design also has not

adequately specified play as an instructional strategy appropriate for certain instructional

outcomes.

This study has two research questions. The first question concerned the indicators

of play from student, instructor, and practitioner perspectives. The second investigated

play as an instructional strategy and questioned how play affects enjoyment and emotion.

There were three methods of data collection, including an analysis of a multimedia

intervention into a CBT course teaching procedural skills, interviews, and participant

observation. Study participants included Navy “A” school students and instructors, along

with corporate instructional design practitioners.

First, a multimedia intervention was performed using a computer-based course

teaching procedural skills for letter-writing. Two versions of the course were produced:

one with an additional module of play, and one with an additional module of practice

ix

questions. The play module was designed using play characteristics derived from a

literature review. Participants were divided into treatment and comparison groups. Data

was collected on three measurements: an end-of-the-course test within the CBT; a

summated rating scale measuring enjoyment; and a letter-writing assignment. Data

analysis indicated that the comparison groups scored higher on all three measurements

than the treatment groups, which was an unexpected finding.

Next, interviews were conducted with three groups: students, instructors, and

practitioners. These interviews resulted in a list of play indicators. From these indicators,

a new model for applying play to instruction was generated – the W-I-R-E model,

specifying an instructional strategy based on ways to use play, internal indicators, results

of using play, and environmental elements of play. The W-I-R-E model assists

instructional designers to embed play into instructional environments using these

components.

x

CHAPTER 1

The Problem to be Investigated

This chapter presents an introduction into the phenomenon of play, and describes

the major problem to be investigated, which is how play can be effectively combined

with learning. After an introduction to the concept of play, this chapter will present an

overview of the critical issues of play research, describe the research questions on which

this study is based, and provide a brief overview of this study.

Play has existed since the dawn of civilization. The anthropologist Johann

Huizinga (1951) remarked that while all cultures are alike in the pursuit of religion and a

god, all cultures are also marked by the capacity for play. Huizinga refers to our species

as Homo Ludens, or Man the Player, and states that play antedates culture, because

human civilization has done nothing to create the concept of play. Play simply exists.

Neither animals nor children wait for instruction on how to play; they simply play

throughout each phase of life.

Play goes beyond physical, physiological, biological, or cultural foundations,

transcending human attempts to define and categorize it as a neatly describable

phenomenon. The elusive nature of play resists all logical interpretations and cannot be

1

denied. Though it can be expressed as an abstraction, it does not belong with other

abstractions such as justice, beauty, truth, goodness, mind, or religion.

The study of play in learning and education speaks to this undeniable capacity of

play to co-exist in all environments. Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey, Bruner, Froebel, and

many others have long admired the educational value of play and have recommended

ways in which play and learning can be optimized. While children have always had a

basic right to play outside of instructional settings, the educational value of play has not

always been recognized by educators. In fact, Berlyne's (1969) statement that

"psychology would do well to give up the category of 'play' in favor of both wider and

narrower categories of behavior" (p. 843) still has resonance today in institutional and

political resistance to play's inherent value as an instructional strategy.

History suggests that American teachers, schools, and parents have been reluctant

to value play as an integral part of cognitive and social development, viewing play

instead as a diversion from learning and not an actual form of learning. Although play

has always had a natural place in schools, Seefeldt (1985) states that play, in our culture,

is often thought of as unproductive and alien to intellectual pursuits -- something that

should be done outside of the school setting. King (1979) describes that during colonial

times, children's play was seen to be a form of moral laxity and did not build character or

work ethics. Instead, adults encouraged children to avoid play in favor of work, study,

and education. Clearly, there exists both a historical and modern lack of interest and

understanding regarding the value of play for learning -- a gap that needs well-

documented attention through research and investigation.

2

Critical Issues in Play Research

As a psychological construct and a method of learning activity, play has received

much attention over the years, but not a great deal of focused, investigative research. In

children, play has been studied to determine its composition -- its characteristics and

components, along with its meaning for childhood development. Yet there is a research

void that becomes larger as we approach adulthood. In adults, play has been studied as

recreation and leisure, but not as a serious method of learning. There is a critical lack of

research into the impact of play upon learning, especially in adults. This study seeks to

fill a portion of that gap.

Manning and Boals (1987) state that three critical issues surround the importance

of play research: the difficulty of composing an operational definition of play, despite

years of research and study; the role of play in cognitive development and academic

achievement; and the right of children to play. Theorists have proposed a variety of

different definitions of play over the years, but none has been adopted as an overall

standard. In addition, links between play activities and learning in children have been

proposed and validated to some degree, but no studies have focused entirely on the

impact of play on adult learning.

Because of this lack of research, another critical issue in the study of play is the

cognitive and affective impact of play in adult learning, specifically within interactive

multimedia instruction and other forms of electronic and virtual training (Rieber, 1998).

Distinct from gaming, as in video or computer games, which are rule-driven and goal-

oriented, the inclusion of play within interactive multimedia can be open, voluntary,

3

pleasurable, and non-goal oriented. Technology-based play can also be elaborative and

promote deeper processing by serving as an exploratory and investigative device. As the

world moves to be more and more dependent upon the Internet for information and

learning purposes and as adults allocate more leisure time to their computers, the

importance of studying technology-based play becomes more critical.

This criticality of studying play in adult learning is evident in the rapidly growing

multimedia instructional environments available for adult learning. While interactive

multimedia training is becoming readily available to adult learners, it often struggles to

remain relevant to performance needs, such as in a job or skill application context, while

at the same time maintaining interest. Instructional strategies that are particularly

effective with adult learners continue to evolve both in definition and application.

Gagne, Briggs, & Wager (1992), Jonassen (1996), and Merrill (1996) have written

volumes of scholarly works specifying hierarchies of instructional strategies and tactics

to be used with differing types of content, but none include specifications regarding play.

Berlyne (1968) describes the perplexing and arduous task of attempting to compile a list

of the most salient characteristics of play, and states that a characterization of playful

behavior is not easy. Yet its very complexity may be the critical vehicle for lifelong

learning. Rieber (1998) states that ". . . play is an ideal construct for linking human

cognition to the educational applications of technology, given its . . . obvious

compatibility with interactive computer-based learning environments . . . ." (p. 30).

Levy (1978) writes that despite the development of a large number of theories attempting

to explain play, none have been validated by extensive empirical studies, and none

discuss the structure or characteristics of play behavior. Gredler (1996) writes that the

4

technology used to create instructional games faces two problems: the lack of

comprehensive design paradigms derived from learning principles, and the lack of well-

designed research studies regarding the instructional value of games. Levy (1978) states

that the establishment of a clear and universal taxonomy of play behavior would

contribute greatly to the expansion of research in the fields of psychology, leisure studies,

and recreation . . . and presumably adult learning. Because of the burgeoning growth of

technology-based training for adults and the need to know more about instructional

strategies that work for adult learners, further research and investigation into the potential

of play as an instructional strategy is warranted.

Statement of the Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of play on adult learning and

the possibilities of play as a viable instructional design strategy. To accomplish this, I

conducted a mixed-method study into the influence of play into the instructional

environment of an existing interactive multimedia course. The major intended learning

outcome of the course was procedural (i.e., letter-writing skills), so play was studied as

an instructional strategy in the context of procedural learning.

Though broad, the general question driving this study is how play affects adult

learning. In addition, the context was focused on its utility to instructional designers.

This was a mixed-method study, relying on both qualitative and quantitative

methodologies to generate answers to two questions. There were two primary research

questions. Each question is supported by a brief review of the relevant literature and an

explanation of the desired findings. Ultimately it is hoped that answers to these questions

will help instructional designers understand how to use play as an instructional strategy,

5

based on ways in which adults construct meaning of a procedural learning task (i.e.,

letter-writing) through play.

RQ1.0 What are the indicators of play?

1.1 What are the indicators of play from a learner's perspective - how do

they experience play?

1.2 What are the indicators of play from an instructor’s perspective?

1.3 What are the indicators of play from an instructional designer’s

perspective – how do they describe the design of play?

For this study, play was defined as a phenomenon crossing both cognitive and

behavioral lines that can be stimulated by events or environmental effects. For play to

occur, the following conditional characteristics should be present in an instructional

environment: surprisingness, novelty, incongruence, randomness, suspension of reality,

and variety (Levy, 1996). My hypothesis was that if these play characteristics are

present, then the instructional environment can effectively stimulate play in the learners

and influence the learning of the desired outcome through play. Understanding the

indicators of play from student, instructor, and designer perspectives will yield more data

on how the elements of play can be designed into instruction and if play can indeed be

used as an instructional strategy.

In fact, David Merrill (1996) states that if an instructional experience or

environment does not include the instructional strategies required for the acquisition of

the desired knowledge or skill, then effective, efficient, and appealing learning of the

desired outcome will not occur. Merrill also states that if the media objects are relevant

6

to the instruction and if they facilitate in implementing effective instructional strategies,

then the effect is efficient, effective, and appealing instruction. If, on the other hand, the

media objects are merely decorative and have no instructional purpose, then they may in

fact interfere with, rather than facilitate, learning. Thus, if technology is used to deliver

instruction, it must complement the instruction and even serve to enhance it through the

use of proper instructional strategies tied directly to expected outcomes. Can play be

used as such a strategy? Merrill thinks so. In the same article, he writes that procedural

learning can be accomplished through play:

The student should have an opportunity to "play with" the procedure. This

"play" should allow the student to explore "what happens if . . . " type

questions by actually trying out a variety of actions and observing the

consequences. Such exploration requires some form of an exploratory

environment or simulation.

(Merrill, 1996, p.l)

Here Merrill is writing about play as exploration. If play can be used by designers as a

viable instructional strategy, then they must first know the indicators or defining

characteristics of play that will maximize its utilization. How can designers incorporate

play into instruction? What, if any, characteristics must be perceived by learners? And

finally, given that play may impact many outcomes, this study focused on how play

operates on procedural learning.

Levy (1996) describes dimensions of stimulation that activate play. Designers

could embed interventions within instruction that stimulate play behavior, if they knew

7

(1) what sort of interventions could reliably cause play behavior to occur in learners, and

(2) the relationship of play to a specific learning outcome. If we could begin to answer

these two questions, we could begin to create instructional environments that promote

play as a learning strategy, and know when play is actually occurring.

To investigate these questions, an extensive review of the literature has been

conducted to gather definitions and characteristics of play that have been generated over

the last 100 years. This literature review has revealed a major gap in information

available concerning play, in that almost all research in play has been conducted on

children. Very few studies exist on the impact of play in adult learning. This study

attempted to contribute to the literature regarding play and adult learning.

In addition, the qualitative methods of interviews were used to document student,

instructor, and designer perspectives of play. Interviews were designed to uncover the

indicators of play from these different perspectives in order to more deeply understand

the role of play in learning. Students were observed in both lecture and interactive

multimedia learning environments to gather additional data regarding how play occurs

and how it is represented by those present in the instructional environment. These

interviews and observation strategies are explained in more depth in Chapter 2, Research

Methods. Once data were collected regarding the indicators of play, it was desirable to

know more about how play can impact the acquisition of specific learning outcomes.

Research Question 2.0 is designed to focus more narrowly on the outcome of procedural

learning.

RQ2.0 How does play promote the acquisition of skills within a procedural

context?

8

2.1 How does play impact enjoyment of learning?

2.2 How does play act as a bridge from cognitive experience to

affective experience by engaging emotion and interest?

Merrill (1996) states that procedural learning is a viable instructional outcome,

and as such can be accomplished through instruction supported by proper instructional

strategies. As mentioned earlier, Merrill writes that instruction with an intended

procedural outcome can use play to allow students to metaphorically “play with” the

procedure. Further research is needed to determine how instructional designers can

incorporate this form of exploratory play in instruction.

Levy (1978) states that all contemporary theories of human behavior accept the

principle of multiple determinants of behavior, and as such recommends that researchers

studying play consider the following three determinants of play behavior (p. 57):

1. Unique human characteristics that have evolved as a result of

socialization;

2. The immediate antecedent environment preceding the play behavior

response; and

3. The options perceived by individuals as available to them for self-

expression through play.

The prior activities and experiences of individuals probably affects their

expectation for learning environments that include play activities, but this fact has not

been demonstrated empirically. Berlyne (1968) describes play activities as being carried

on for their own sake or for the sake of pleasure, contrasting them with serious activities.

He goes on to assert that play will be engaged in only when the organism is in the kind of

9

motivational condition that makes the inner consequences rewarding, or intrinsically

motivating behavior. Levy (1978) supports this by saying that the person at play is not

driven by external forces but is characteristically motivated from within. Christie &

Johnsen (1983) state that when an individual is confronted with novelty or incongruity,

he or she responds with a motivational state of curiosity, exploring the environment to

reduce the uncertainty. This corresponds with Levy's description of novelty and

incongruence as stimulating play. Does this increase motivation to learn? What is the

effect of this play-stimulated motivation? From a logical point, perhaps yes, but more

research is needed.

To investigate these questions, two quantitative methods were used: an experimental

multimedia treatment intervention, and an enjoyment scale. The multimedia treatment

intervention incorporated play as an instructional strategy for procedural learning. This

play intervention was contained in a multimedia computer-based course that teaches

adults how to write Standard Naval Letters. Based on the writings of Levy (1996), the

intervention was designed to meet the play criteria of simple intensity, meaningfulness,

variation, novelty, complexity, suprisingness, and incongruity, it uses a popular talk-show

comedian format (i.e. the David Letterman Show) and consists of interactive menu items

titled: Top Ten Ways to Mess Up a Standard Naval Letter, Stupid Letter Tricks, and

Celebrity Visit.

Students were randomly assigned into either a treatment group, in which they

completed the course plus the additional practice module using play, or a comparison

group, in which they completed the course plus an additional module of practice

questions without play characteristics. In addition to comparing the performances of

10

adults on the procedural task, learners were interviewed to learn about how they

experienced the module, probing for indicators of play. Interviews with course

instructors and designers were also be conducted to define play in instruction more

holistically.

The enjoyment scale was derived from Csikszentmihayli’s (1979) description of the

characteristics of flow, and attempts to measure student’s perception of their enjoyment

of the interactive multimedia course. This scale, along with the quantitative experiment

described above, was used along with other qualitative research methods, described

further in Chapter II, Research Methods. Both the enjoyment scale and interview

protocols are included in the appendices to this proposal.

Summary

As stated earlier, play has resisted interpretation since the earliest attempts to

define it as a naturally occurring phenomenon. This study attempted to document

answers to two primary questions that concern the identification of the indicators of play

along with how well play impacts the acquisition of procedural skills. To generate

answers to these questions, mixed methods were used and included both qualitative and

quantitative means.

Description of this Study

Believing that adults enjoy play, adapt well to interactive multimedia environments,

and are engaged by intellectual exploration, this dissertation investigated the educational

value of play in interactive multimedia as an instructional strategy for adult learning.

This study used a mixed-method design including both qualitative and quantitative data

11

collection primarily because of the complex nature of play. Bogdan and Biklen (1998)

write that qualitative research is:

Naturalistic – concerned with actual settings and context;

Descriptive – using data that takes the form of words or pictures;

Concerned with process;

Inductive -- allowing theories to emerge from the bottom up; and

Concerned with meaning-making – how people make sense of their lives.

The characteristics of play make it an ideal target for qualitative research. Given that

an excellent use of qualitative research is to generate questions and narrow the focus of a

study, the characteristics of play, listed in Table 1, will guide much of the qualitative data

collection by serving as a foundation for seeking the indicators of play.

This study was centered upon the theoretical activity of symbolic interaction, a

social psychological theory of interpretation with clear ramifications for the study of

play. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) describe symbolic interaction as synonymous with

qualitative research, with the following assumptions:

Human experience is mediated by interpretation;

Meaning is constructed or conferred by individuals;

The meaning people give to their experiences and their processes of interpretation

is essential and constitutive, not accidental or secondary to their experience;

People act as interpreters, definers, signalers, and symbol and signal readers; and

The goal of qualitative research is to better understand human behavior and

experience by understanding the process by which people create and describe

meaning.

12

Table 1.1

Qualitative Indicators Compared to Characteristics of Play

Qualitative Indicators Characteristics of Play

Play is Naturalistic Play is a free-standing activity standing outside

of ordinary life as being not serious, but at the

same time absorbing the player intensely and

utterly (Huizinga, 1951).

Play is Intuitive and Difficult to Define Play is intuitive, but the factors that are

involved in the play process are especially

difficult to define (Lentz, 1982). Thus, current

quantitative measures of play will not

contribute to new definitions or

characterizations of play - only highly

descriptive data can yield new insights.

Play is Process-Oriented Play is pleasurable, voluntary, spontaneous,

devoid of imposed tasks or regulations,

intrinsically motivated, undertaken for process

rather than expected outcomes, requiring active

participation. (Frost, 1992). Play should be

process oriented, exploratory, and active

(Isenberg & Quisenberry, 1988).

table continues13

14

Table 1.1 cont.

Play Generates Meaning Play is developmental and can emerge

spontaneously given a setting or model of

fantasy behavior in childhood (Garvey, 1977).

Play acts as assimilation into existing

knowledge and is a predecessor to the

development of reason (Piaget, 1962); Play

contributes to and widens the store of factual

knowledge (Manning & Boals, 1987); and

leads to the projection of new mental

representations (Singer, 1973).

As a social psychological construct, play reflects these assumptions of symbolic

interactionism. Jones (1990) describes children at play as active constructors of

individual identities. Play is intepreted and negotiated with others and is a self-chosen

activity, building divergent thinking through its open-ended nature. Jones describes

children at play as actors who recreate familiar scripts from their social and emotional

lives, practicing representative sequences that lead to mastery. Gitlin-Weiner (1998)

describes play as meaning-making, or the chance to bestow novel meanings upon objects.

Gordon (1961) states that play is a constructive, constitutive effort. In all, play is

described repeatedly as a constructive, negotiated process enacted by human actors in an

attempt to use symbols to communicate shared meanings in a non-literal fashion.

15

Symbolic interaction, as a theoretical basis for research, is thus a solid and compatible

platform for the study of play.

Schwandt (1998) describes three premises of symbolic interaction by drawing on the

work of G.H. Mead and Herbert Blumer. First, individuals act toward physical objects

and beings in their environment on the basis of existing meanings. Second, these

meanings are derived from social interaction between and among individuals using

existing symbolism in language and creating new symbolism through this interaction.

Third, these meanings are established and modified through an interpretive process as a

formation for action. Schwandt goes on to state that a study using symbolic interaction as

a theoretical foundation requires that a necessary condition for study is careful attention

to the overt behaviors of and settings of human actors and their interactions. Again,

symbolic interaction and play go hand-in-hand as a method and focus of research effort

and study.

Data collection methods in this study included participant observation, interviewing,

quantitative analysis, and a direct instructional intervention of a multimedia unit of play

into an existing course using treatment and comparison groups. A mixed-method focus

fits into generally accepted qualitative approaches, as described by Denzin and Lincoln

(1998). These authors state that qualitative research is “ . . . multimethod in focus,

involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter." (p. 3). Denzin and

Lincoln also describe qualitative research as the studied use and collection of a variety of

empirical materials, including case studies, personal experience, introspectives, life

stories, interviews, and observations, among others.

16

This study sought to uncover answers to the research questions provided earlier

by using the qualitative and quantitative techniques described above. In all, this study

attempted to produce results that shed more light into the role of play in learning and its

demonstrated value as an instructional strategy that can be used by instructional designers

to create efficient and appealing instruction.

17

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the information available in the research

literature regarding play. Educational and psychological literature is rich with expository

and rhetorical descriptions of play, but weak regarding measurable studies of the

effectiveness of play in learning. This chapter includes descriptions from the literature

which describe the characteristics of play, along with the theoretical views of play, which

include both behaviorist and cognitivist perspectives. Additionally, play is described in

relationship to both childhood and adult learning. Literature is also reviewed regarding

play and its relationship to control and mastery, positive and negative affect, cognitive

development, creativity, problem solving, motivation, exploration, and instructional

design.

Defining Characteristics of Play

Play is a psychological construct that subsumes a variety of human behaviors and

thus has received a great deal of attention in the last 30 years. The Association for

Childhood Education International (ACEI) recognizes and affirms the essential role of

play in children's healthy development (Isenberg & Quisenberry, 1988). Emerging from

a perspective that originally emphasized social adaptation as an effect of play in

18

Montessori's writings in the early 19th century and as an expression of primary needs in

Freud's writing in the early twentieth century, play has become connected to many other

psychological constructs, such as language formation, symbolism, abstraction of

intellectual prototypes, acquisition of tool use, social skill development, perspective or

role taking, and the development of creativity (Sutton-Smith, 1979; Christie & Johnsen,

1983).

As an abstract concept, play is sufficiently rich and ambiguous to effectively link

to these constructs and many more; however, a consensual, operational definition of play

continues to elude researchers in the fields of psychology, anthropology, education, and

sociology (Lentz, 1982, Levy, 1978). Lentz summarizes this dilemma neatly by saying,

"We seem to intuitively know what play is, but we still have difficulty defining exactly

what factors are involved in the play process" (p. 68). F.A. Beach was one of the earliest

to study play behavior in the animal kingdom and make play generalizations to humans.

Regarding the lack of understanding of play, Beach stated,

On the other hand stands our undeniable ignorance as to the essential

nature of play, its causes and its results. The richness of observational

evidence is in sharp contrast to the poverty of scientific knowledge . . .

The majority of interpretations purporting to define or explain play are

speculative in nature, deductively derived, and completely untested.

(Beach, 1945, p. 523, 527)

In 1971, Herron and Sutton-Smith stated that the study of child’s play has

attracted the attention of researchers from many fields, including anthropology, biology,

child development, education, psychology, psychiatry, recreation, and sociology. Yet

19

despite the magnitude of concentration on play, it has never been an organized focus of

scientific attention or sustained research. Levy (1978), in his recommendation to employ

the scientific method to the study of play, describes the research of play behavior up to

the 1970’s as being meager and devoid of traditional scientific approaches such as those

used in the physical sciences.

Despite difficulties of definition and a lack of rigorous research, many researchers

have managed to summarize the common characteristics that are present in most

definitions of play and form the core of an emerging theoretical stance on the role of play

in graduated levels of development. Johann Huizinga (1951) defined play as a “ . . . free

activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious’, but at the

same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly.” (p. 13). Christie and Johnsen

(1983) state that cognitive, social, and psychomotor behaviors that constitute play should

have the following characteristics: (a) behavior which is intrinsically motivated,

spontaneous, and self-generated; (b) behavior which is pleasurable or connected with

positive affect expressed in the absence of highly anxious conditions -- play is not

serious; (c) behavior that varies individually and situationally -- play is flexible; and (d)

behavior that is not literal or that expresses an element of pretense and fantasy. Isenberg

& Quisenberry (1988) add that play should be process-oriented, exploratory, and active.

Frost (1992) agrees with Christie and Johnsen by describing play as an activity that is

pleasurable, voluntary, spontaneous, devoid of imposed tasks or regulations, intrinsically

motivated, undertaken for process rather than expected outcomes, and that requires active

participation.

20

Theoretical Views of Play

Theorizing over play has been documented since the 1800’s. A variety of

psychological and anthropological theories of play behavior have been proposed, but

none has become widely accepted as the prevailing method of thought regarding why

people play. Joseph Levy (1978) provides an excellent review of five major theory

categories in his book Play Behavior. His description of the theories of play is

summarized in the table below. Each theory represents the prevalent thinking of the time

period from when it originated, spanning early psychological thought through

behaviorism and early cognitive science.

The theoretical relationship of play to instruction and learning can be traced to the

advent of functionalism, or functional analysis, that became widespread during the early

part of the twentieth century through the work of the sociologist Emile Durkheim

(Cheska, 1978). Durkheim’s work, in turn, influenced the British anthropologists

Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, who studied the role of cultural traits and societal

structures. Many early studies of play are based upon the theoretical approaches of

functionalism and generated widely held functions of play in society, such as play as

enculturation, cartharsis, and development (Cheska, 1978). Emerging from

functionalism, research on the relationship of play and learning became gradually and

predominantly associated with developmental theorists such as Piaget, Vygotsky, and

Erikson. As research in the developmental realm has evolved, play has subsequently

been viewed through a variety of theoretical lenses. In fact, Lentz (1982) says that the

perceived value of play for individual growth and development depends heavily on the

theoretical framework taken by the researcher.

21

Table 2.1

Theoretical Views of Play Throughout History

Theory Definition ComponentsSurplus Energy Play is the result of a

surplus of energy that is

no longer needed for basic

survival.

Play is motivated by a superabundance

of energy; man is innately motivated to

be active

Pre-Exercise Play is the impulse to

practice incomplete

hereditary instincts.

The instinct theory of man (natural

selection, genetic blueprint for play);

survival of the fittest; play in order to

survive;

Recap-itulation Play is the recapitulation

of the various

phylogenetic stages that

have preceded man on the

evolutionary scale

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny;

atavistic tendencies of an earlier state in

the development of the human race are

adapted to the human environment

Recreation Play is the result of the

individual’s need to

overcome a deficit of

energy.

Play is motivated by a deficiency of

energy; characteristics and consequences

of play and work are different

22

Table 2.1 cont.

Relaxation Play is the result of man’s

need for gross motor

activities that are not

being exercised because

of reliance upon small-

muscle activities

Play is motivated by the strain of more

recently developed fine motor and

cerebral activities; play is motivated by

man’s need to exercise racially old

instincts

The predominant theories explaining the nature of play are typically either

developmental or psychological in nature (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). These theoretical

foundations often cast play as either symbolic manifestations of childhood preparation for

adult life or the absorption of complex information into developing schemas, touching

both the affective and cognitivist domains.

Behaviorist Influences on Play

The behaviorist movement of educational psychology also restricted the value of

play. Singer (1995) explains the impact of stimulus-response reductionism on

psychology, particularly on play. Behaviorists contend that since children's play did not

provide immediate benefits in learning that were easily observable or measurable, their

energies were directed toward drill and practice exercises rather than playful, constructive

effort.

23

Developmental Influences on Play

Singer writes that the early part of the twentieth century was characterized by the

biologically based motivational systems of the type fostered by Sigmund Freud in the last

thirty years of his life, and that play was perceived as largely an effort by children to deal

with early conflicts about psychosexual impulses. According to Singer (1995) and

Cheska (1978), Freud believed that children at play re-enact situations that they wish to

master in order to deal with prior tensions and conflicts. Singer described further that the

independent research of Kurt Lewin, Lev Vygotsky, and Jean Piaget was collectively

responsible for refocusing the attention of researchers away from behaviorist perspectives

on play to more of a cognitive orientation through the major cognitive psychological

movement of the 1960's.

Cognitive Influences on Play

The shift to a cognitivist mindset, which promotes active mental processing and

systematic changes in knowledge states, also does not allow great flexibility for the

affective impact of play, which is often emotionally charged and fluid. Cognitive

learning emphasizes highly structured, hierarchical instruction that is linear and well

defined. Constructivist instruction, with its emphasis on student-centered learning, the

active construction of knowledge, subjective meaning, and learning situated in authentic,

real-world environments, provides a more open and acceptable place for play in

instruction.

Play and Childhood Learning

Lieberman (1977) studied children at play and subsequently defined play as

having physical, social, and cognitive spontaneity, manifest joy, and a sense of humor.

24

Lytle (1998) adds another characteristic to Lieberman's: that of the empowerment

brought about by the personal control and choice of the player. Spodek & Saracho

(1988) describe play as composed of activities that are internally motivated, self-directed,

spirited, and characterized by some degree of divergent "as-if" thinking.

Seefeldt (1985) describes play as beginning with sensory and motor activities and

evolving to include language and symbolic activity. Seefeldt, writing primarily about

kindergarten, portrays play as a logical precursor to intellectual growth and academic

achievement through the tasks of making decisions and choices. Symbolic play, which

requires children to hold images in their minds for long periods of time, to use language,

and to consider the ideas of others, is thought to be the richest type of play relevant to

children's growth and learning.

Jones (1990) writes that children at play are busy constructing their individual

identities as well as their knowledge of the world. Play is negotiated with others and is a

self-chosen activity, building divergent thinking through its open-ended nature. Jones

believes that play begins as exploration of the physical world and relies upon script and

schema theory to cast play in a representational light; she states that children at play are

recreating familiar scripts from their social and emotional lives, practicing representative

sequences that lead to mastery. Likewise, Perlmutter (1995) describes playful people as

creative risk-takers with open-ended thinking.

Play and Adult Learning

Gitlin-Weiner (1998) summarizes the work of several researchers by stating that

some of the common features that adults associate with play suggest that it is pleasurable,

the antithesis of work, free of extrinsic goals, and an absorbing process involving the

25

temporary loss of awareness of one's surroundings. Gitlin-Weiner also describes adult

play as non-literal, spontaneous, an opportunity to bestow novel meanings onto objects,

and an overt expression of wishes and hopes. Gordon (1961) states that play in adults is

not a lighthearted waste of time, but is a constructive effort constituting a serious, form-

making endeavor.

Play as a Preparation for Adult Performance

The philosopher Karl Groos observed the play-fighting of animals and the

imitative play of childhood and believed both to be preparation for adult performance

(Garvey, 1977, Lieberman, 1977). Groos defined three levels of play in animals: (1)

hereditary propensity, exemplified when the young puppy automatically snaps at a hand;

(2) serious practice, when dogs grab each other’s throat in practice play; and (3)

conscious play, when a dog grabs his master’s hand in a make-believe attack (Gordon,

1961). Maria Montessori believed play to be "child's work," a phrase that has become a

commonplace reference to childhood play. Montessori also saw play as a primary

method of social adaptation (Practical Applications of Research, 1982).

Bruce (1993) states that Erik Erikson viewed childhood play as a metaphor for

adult life, allowing children to become partners with their future. Erikson's beliefs are

similar in nature to Vygotsky's idea that play is a precursor to the abstract, symbolic

thought that originates in late adolescence and adulthood (Manning & Boals, 1987).

Erikson (as described in Lentz, 1982) also believed that play is a function of the ego and

an attempt to learn culturally acceptable and effective ways to perform in society.

Lentz describes an early view of play as functional preparation for later life, as

also expressed by Bruner (1972). Bruner believed that play provided an opportunity to

26

minimize the consequences of one's actions to make them less risky than reality, allowing

the individual to try out behavior which would otherwise never be tried. Lieberman

(1977) derives this state of behavior from play, terming it "playfulness.”

Play as Adaptation

The psychologist Sigmund Freud viewed play as a means to express primary

needs and theorized that there are two modes of adaptation: primary needs for food,

water, sex, and self-esteem, and secondary needs for adjusting to the outside world things

(Practical Applications of Research, 1982). Freud believed that primary needs arouse

dreams, fantasy, and play. The views of psychoanalytic theorists, symbolized primarily

by Freud, cast play as a means to compress feelings, fears, and frustrations into symbols

in order to deal with internal emotional complexes (Christie & Johnsen).

Jean Piaget agreed with Freud but differed on the nature of adaptation (Piaget,

1962). Piaget identified the two modes of adaptation: assimilation (concerned with

personal needs) and accommodation (adapting to the external world). Piaget believed

that play spurs creativity and reason and is the impetus of assimilating reality to the ego.

As he states, "Play constitutes the extreme pole of assimilation and reality to the ego,

while at the same time it has something of the creative imagination which will be the

motor of all future thought and even of reason” (Piaget, 1962, p. 162). Gordon appeals to

Piaget’s concept of play by stating that play involves upsetting or distorting inner

consistency (1961). Garvey (1977) expands on the developmental role of play espoused

by Piaget by postulating that most aspects of play will emerge spontaneously if a basic

model of nonliteral behavior is experienced in childhood. Lieberman (1977) expressed

that another prerequisite for play is familiar and known elements.

27

Play as Control and Mastery

Play has also been viewed as an effort to achieve mastery. Yamamoto (1979)

describes play as a potent means at children's disposal for attaining mastery over

themselves and their worlds. In a related manner, Garvey (1977) believes that the control

children achieve through play is the most important contribution of play to development

and learning. Other descriptors of play as defined by Garvey include that play is

pleasurable, enjoyable, contains no extrinsic goals, is spontaneous and voluntary, and

promotes active engagement on the part of the player. She also adds that play should be

marked by sheer exuberance and should be somewhat cathartic, allowing the player to

reexperience and resolve difficult situations. Garvey distinguishes play from work and

artistic pursuits, differing on the end goals of each. Play has no extrinsic goal, while both

work and art are oriented toward production. In addition, play differs from leisure and

daydreaming in that play requires active engagement while both leisure and daydreaming

are passive activities. The very idea of play, states Garvey, depends on these contrasts to

what play is not. Beyond these basic characteristics, Garvey adds to the perceptions of

Huizinga (1951) and Piaget (1962) by detailing the isolationist nature of play, describing

play as being to some degree revocable and uncoupled from analogous non-play

behavior.

Bruce (1993) coins the phrase "free-flow play" and expresses its definition

through an equation, as follows: "(Play =) wallowing in ideas, feelings and relationships

+ the application of competence, mastery, and control that has already been developed"

(p. 237). Bruce describes a network of learning in which play makes its major

contributions. This network consists of firsthand experience, games, representation, and

28

free-flow play. In firsthand experience, Bruce describes play as manipulative,

exploratory, and reflective of practice. In games, rules are set externally, while in free-

flow play, children operate at high levels of thinking and learning.

Relationship of Play to Positive and Negative Affect

Singer (1995) describes the early imaginative play of children as an effort of the

growing organism (the child) to deal with the large objects and people around it by

matching stimulus complexes with preestablished schematic structures or by gradually

reducing negative affects produced by novel experience. In other words, Singer believes

play to enhance positive affect and reduce negative affect by cutting down large objects

to manageable proportions by assimilating novel material to established schemas. Make-

believe play, states Singer, is a critical way for children to make sense of their worlds.

Relationship of Play to Cognitive Development

Research on the impact of play on a variety of psychological constructs, including

creativity, cognition, attention, motivation, perspective-taking, and language development

shows a variety of effects, explained in the next section.

Play and Creativity.

A number of correlational studies indicate that a relationship exists between play

and creativity. Alternately, creativity is defined as ideational fluency, flexibility, and

originality (Wallach & Kogan, 1965), and associative fluency (Dansky & Silverman,

1973). Play and creativity have much in common. Play often involves symbolic

transformations in which objects and actions are used in new and unusual ways, which is

similar to the novel, imaginative combination of ideas which usually result from creative

thinking (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Gordon, in his theory of Synectics (1961), believed

29

play to be the “ . . . activity of floating and considering associations apparently irrelevant

to the problem at hand” (p. 118). In this sense, Gordon emphasized, play involves

constructive illusion, conscious self-deceit, daydreams, and general associations marked

by no immediate benefit.

Lieberman (1977) studied playfulness and found that it was characterized by

spontaneity, manifest joy, and humor, and that kindergarten students who were rated high

in playfulness scored higher on tests of divergent thinking than those who received lower

playfulness ratings. Her study was later replicated with Mexican-American kindergarten

students with similar results (Durrett & Huffman, 1968). Johnsen (1976) discovered high

correlations between divergent thinking and the frequency with which lower

socioeconomic preschoolers engaged in sociodramatic play, an advanced form of pretend

play activities.

Dansky & Silverman (1973) found that students allowed to play with objects

produced significantly more non-standard responses than students who did not play with

the objects, generalizing that play creates a generalizable set to allow the production of

novel responses. This ability is referred to as associative fluency. Dansky (1980) further

investigated play behavior and found that make-believe during play produces gains in

associative fluency.

Play and Problem-Solving.

A number of studies exist on the role of play in the problem-solving behavior of

primates (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Sylva, Bruner, & Genova (1976) conducted one of

the first studies on play and problem solving in children. Subjects were exposed to three

treatment conditions: (a) observation of the complete solution, (b) free play with solution

30

instruments, and (c) no treatment. The play group did as well at problem-solving than

did the group exposed to the complete solution and much better than the control group, as

well as exhibiting more persistence and goal-directed behavior. Smith and Dutton (1979)

modified the 1976 study, varying the levels of difficulty in the problem-solving tasks and

providing both observation and training to one group, freeplay in another, and no

treatment in a third. Their results showed that the children in the play group solved

problems better than either the observation and training group and the control group.

Play and Motivation and Exploration.

Other researchers have examined the motivational characteristics of play rather

than its cognitive or structural aspects (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Wolfe, Cummins, &

Myers (1998) state that explorative play must be characterized by "as-if" thinking, be

internally motivating, and personally meaningful. The research of Berlyne (1960)

presents a model of motivation based on arousal control, suggesting that organisms

function comfortably with moderate stimulus information. When the stimulus changes to

that of novelty or incongruity, the organism responds with a motivational state of

curiosity (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Exploration or investigation occurs to allow the

organism to gather enough information to assimilate and comprehend the situation,

reducing the arousal level. When environmental stimuli are insufficient to maintain a

high level of arousal, the organism seeks a diversion through exploration, which Christie

& Johnsen (1983) state might be called play.

Bruner's contention that play minimizes the consequences of actions, allowing

individuals to "try out" behaviors without risk, and Erikson's belief that play is practice

for future roles in adulthood (Lentz, 1982) lends credibility to play as an explorative

31

device. The idea of exploratory play as a means to assimilate novel experience also

meets Piaget's concepts of assimilation and accommodation (Piaget, 1962). Singer

(1995) posits that the playful attempt of children to explore and manipulate experiences is

related to Piaget's notion of assimilation of information to established schemas. In this

process of assimilation, Singer states, the child experiences joy through the repetitive

linking of earlier material with novelty. In addition, Piaget's (1962) idea of equilibrium

and disequilibrium is similar to Berlyne's (1960) idea of stimulus-based arousal; until the

information is assimilated into the existing knowledge base, disequilibrium occurs. Both

concepts resonate with Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, in which the

development of individuals is accelerated through peer interaction. Wolfe, Cummins, &

Myers (1998) state that exploratory play creates cognitive scaffolding within the player,

and possibly allows growth beyond current competencies in the absence of peer

interactions. Merrill (1997) describes play as a way of encouraging exploration in

procedural learning. He recommends that designers provide an opportunity for students

to “play with” a procedure, to allow the student to explore “what happens if” by trying

out a variety of actions and observing the consequences. He supports the conclusion of

Wolfe, Cummins, & Myers (1998) that exploratory play can be a form of cognitive

scaffolding if help is provided in the early stages of practice, with the gradual withdrawal

of the help until the student is able to perform the entire task without further guidance.

Sawyers and Horm-Wingerd, (1993) describe a model of exploration and play that

links exploration with the process of encoding, describing encoding as the action of

making a novel stimulus meaningful. Through this process, categories are formed.

When an individual encounters a novel object to be encoded, either the objects are

32

reinterpreted to fit an existing category (Piaget’s assimilation theory) or a new category

must be formed (Piaget’s accommodation theory). The act of encoding stimuli is

inherently satisfying and motivates continued exploration.

A Cognitive Model of Play and Learning

The relationship of play to cognitive development and learning is complicated and

embedded in different domains of thought and research. This section will detail linkages

between play and cognitive development, and will act as a beginning model of the impact

of merging the two domains. Early in the study of thought and reason, Aristotle

considered imagination to be the way that images are presented to the mind, stating that

“ . . . the soul never thinks without an image” (De Anima, 431a, 15-20). Much later,

Paivio created his “Dual Coding Theory” (available: www.gwu.edu/~tip/paivio.html) in

which he assumed that there are two cognitive subsystems, one specialized for the

representation and processing of nonverbal events and the other for dealing with

language. Paivio believed that learning is enhanced when both cognitive subsystems are

engaged; that is, when the learner processes both verbal and nonverbal items. Craik and

Lockhart (1972) studied memory and concluded that knowledge that gets encoded into

memory depends on the depth or level of processing of the presented information as it is

encoded into memory. The depth of processing, in turn, depends on the continuum of

sensory to semantic processing. Jonassen (1988) studied microcomputer courseware and

composed a set of assumptions about how learning occurs, including:

Learners need to attend to stimuli;

Learners need to access existing knowledge to which to relate new knowledge;

33

Learners need to realign the structure of existing knowledge to accommodate the

new information;

Learners need to encode the restructured knowledge base into memory; and

Meaning is individualized, constructed by the learner, using existing knowledge

as the foundation for interpreting information and building new knowledge.

Jonassen echoed Craik and Lockhart’s emphasis on increasing the depth of processing

through the use of appropriate instructional strategies in courseware to promote the above

methods for learning. Among other methods for increasing processing depth include

mental imagery, reflecting Paivio’s beliefs, and Wittrock’s generative hypothesis (1978),

which holds that meaning is generated by activating and altering existing knowledge

structures in order to intepret what is presented. Generative learning is dependent on a

complex set of elaborations and transformations unique to each learner (Jonassen, 1988).

The following table includes the beginnings of a cognitive model of play and

learning. Seven general assumptions of cognitive thought are listed along with

corresponding characteristics of play.

34

Table 2.2

A Cognitive Model of Play and Learning

Cognitive Characteristics of Learning

Common Characteristics of Play

Attention to Stimulus Behavior which is intrinsically motivating and

spontaneous; imitation and play remain important

accommodation and assimilation strategies throughout

life (Rieber, 1996); reliance on existing scripts or models

of how roles are played (Singer, 1973)

Accessing of existing

information (Jonassen, 1988)

Play acts as assimilation into existing knowledge (Piaget,

1962)

Altering or modifying

existing information to

accommodate new

information (Jonassen, 1988)

Imaginative play provides opportunities for integrating

scripts and developing schemas (Singer, 1973); play

causes children to generate images, recombine earlier

memories and project new mental representations

(Singer, 1973)

Unique and individualized

expression of meaning

(Jonassen, 1988)

Behavior which is variable from person to person and

from one situation to the next (Jones, 1990); play is a self

chosen activity

35

Table 2.2 cont.

Meaning is constructed by

the learner

Behavior that is not literal, or expresses some element of

pretending, fantasy, or imagination (Practical

Applications of Research, 1982); Vygotsky believed play

to separate thought from physical objects and make

abstract thought possible (Manning & Boals, 1987);

children become aware of representational processes

through imaginative play (Singer, 1973)

Play and Instructional Design

Seymour Papert (1996), writing about learning, notes that while there are plenty

of words in our language for the art of teaching, there is no such word for the art of

learning. What about methods of learning, he says? What kinds of courses are offered

for those who want to become skilled learners? Papert goes on to say:

The same imbalance can be found in words for the theories behind these

two arts. “Theory of Instruction” and “Instructional Design” are among

many ways of designating an academic area of study and research in

support of the art of teaching. There are no similar designations for

academic areas in support of the art of learning.

Papert, 1996, p. 9

Instructional design is the field in search of a systematic means to design good,

sound instruction. Gagne, Briggs, & Wager (1992) state that instruction is a

36

human undertaking whose purpose is to help people learn. Seminal thinkers in

instructional design themselves, they believe that instruction must be planned if it

is to be effective. The purpose of designed instruction, they state, is to activate

and support the learning of the individual student. How then does systematic,

planned instructional design mesh with the sporadic, spontaneous, flexible nature

of play?

Gagne, Briggs, and Wager (1992) list five abiding assumptions for the

design of instruction. These are:

Instructional design must be aimed at aiding the learning of the

individual;

Instructional design has phases that are both immediate and long-term;

Systematically designed instruction can greatly affect individual

human development;

Instructional design should be conducted by means of a systems

approach; and

Designed instruction must be based on knowledge of how human

beings learn.

Assumptions 1-4 indicate that instruction should be systematic and aimed directly

at the individual. These assumptions indicate a rigidity of sorts within the field of

design toward any type of instructional activity that is fluid and/or constructed by

the learner. Assumption number five, however, provides a glimmer of access into

taking the knowledge of how humans learn and folding it into the way instruction

is designed. If play is one way in which humans can learn, then it stands to

37

reason that instructional designers should study play to understand more about

how it can be used as a systematic instructional strategy to aid the learning of the

individual.

Can instructional designers develop a method for systematically using

play as an instructional strategy? Perhaps David Merrill has an answer. Merrill

(1998) coined the term “knowledge objects”, describing them as a framework or

way to organize a database of content resources so that an instructional algorithm,

or predesigned instructional strategy, can be used to teach a mixture of different

contents. Merrill states that knowledge objects have five components, listed

below:

The entity (some device, person, creature, place, symbol, object, or

thing;

Parts of the entity;

Properties of the entity;

Activities associated with the entity; and

Processes associated with the entity.

If this is so, then perhaps instructional designers can include play as either a

process or activity to associate with the content entity. In the same article, Merrill

states that determining what to teach is the most important activity of the

instructional design process. Learning will not be effective if the knowledge

components are incomplete.

Jones (1997), while writing about computer games, similarly states that defining

or establishing problems is important. Gaming environments, Jones states, regularly

38

present users with predetermined problems. Designer-driven problems are common

(Reiber, 1996), and are often viewed as limiting to the learner (Jonassen, 1988).

However, Jones states that interesting and ill-defined or open-ended problems provided to

the learner may prove to be as powerful in learning environments as they are in games.

Reiber (1996) states that considering the notion of play and its implication to learning is

important, and that if we accept the notion that play can be useful, then naturally

designers should examine environments where play is successful.

Typically, computer-based learning environments present situations in which

learners interact with information in a self regulated environment (Reiber, 1996). In an

unregulated learning environment, learners are free to define their own problems and

work towards individual solutions. The problems, processes, and procedures employed

within the learning environment may differ dramatically as they are initiated and

implemented by the individual learner. Conversely, instructional environments –

specifically computer-based learning environments--hold the designer as primarily

responsible for creating the regulatory structures of the environment (Jones, 1997).

Usually, the designer determines both the problem and the solutions, and all learners will

probably take the same path to generate a solution.

Instructional designers are not trained to design play into instruction. Yet a vision

for the future sees instructional technology as a natural space for play. Writing about a

cyber-future, Gooler & Stegman (1994) describe distance learning as an interactive

playground where people would utilize interactive distance education, voice response

systems, multimedia networks with visualization, collaborative learning, and computer-

aided instruction.

39

So how can designers incorporate play as an instructional strategy? Merrill

(2000, not yet published) writes that the design of an instructional strategy includes a

number of important decisions. Among them are:

Selecting content segments;

Sequencing these segments;

Selecting appropriate instructional transactions;

Sequencing instructional transactions; and

Configuring instructional transactions for a given student.

One important aim of this study is to isolate the conditions or characteristics of play so

that instructional designers can use these components to design instructional strategies

that aid student learning. Currently, designers do not possess a knowledge base

regarding the inclusion of play in instructional strategies. Merrill describes this problem

in more generic terms:

At the heart of my argument is that students must engage in those

activities (conditions of learning) that are required for them to acquire a

particular kind of knowledge or skill. These activities can be directed by

an instructional system (live or technology-based) or they can be engaged

in by the student on their own. However (a) many instructors do not know

these fundamental instructional strategies, consequently much of what

passes for instruction is inadequate and does not adequately implement

these fundamental learning activities; and (b) most students are unaware of

these fundamental instructional (learning) strategies and hence left to their

40

own are unlikely to engage in learning activities most appropriate for

acquiring a particular kind of knowledge or skill.

Merrill, 2000 p. 2

The analysis and identification of the characteristics and conditions of play in learning

will be a solid contribution to the field of instructional design, in that it will become a

new rubric for the design of play within instruction. Perhaps “the conditions of play”

can be identified and prescribed for use by instructional designers. If so, it will mark a

new era in the study and application of understanding regarding play and the ability to

train designers to “design play.”

41

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the methods used to conduct the study

outlined in the first chapter. This chapter includes a discussion of the basic assumptions

of qualitative and quantitative designs, the design model, a description of the participants

of the study, the data collection methods, the procedure, and the data analysis methods to

answer the research questions. This study used a mixed method design to assess the

effectiveness of using play as an instructional strategy on a procedural learning outcome

as well as measuring the impact play on participant enjoyment. The mixed-method

design also was designed to probe participants to learn the indicators of play.

Basic Assumptions of Mixed-Method Designs

As stated earlier in this paper, this study was both qualitative and quantitative in

scope and focus. Both qualitative and quantitative research are well suited to the overall

purpose of this study. In fact, Johnson (2000) views quantitative and qualitative research

methods as complementary. Describing a metaphor first presented by Lincoln & Guba

(1985), Johnson compares research to fishing, and the research methods used to fishing

nets, albeit nets with holes. By combining different nets into one overall net, the

researcher metaphorically minimizes the chance of letting data fall through holes, and in

fact can improve the overall data collection process by using more than one means to

42

gather information. Both inductive and deductive modes of the scientific method were

used in support of the overall research objective of exploration and discovery, which is

the underlying motive in the study of play – to discover its components and indicators.

Qualitative research has a definite design, although it may be loosely organized

and subject to change as the study progresses. Bogdan & Biklen (1998) state that

qualitative researchers

. . . proceed . . . based on theoretical assumptions (that meaning and

process are crucial in understanding human behavior, that descriptive data

are what is important to collect, and that analysis is best done inductively)

and on data-collection traditions (such as participant-observation,

unstructured interviewing, and document analysis.) These provide the

parameters, the tools, and the general guide of how to proceed. It is not

that qualitative research design is nonexistent; it is rather that the design is

flexible.

(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 58)

While flexible, qualitative research usually follows a typical pattern of events.

Johnson (2000) writes that there is a common pattern in a qualitative research study relied

upon by many researchers. This study follows that pattern, and includes a detailed

literature review and a comprehensive explanation of the proposed research methods.

Using an inductive analysis approach in the qualitative portion of the study, this

study attempted to reveal important categories, levels, types, forms, and indicators of

play. Deductively, interrelationships between play, learning, and instruction were sought

after and documented using both quantitative and qualitative means. This study explored

43

open and authentic research questions regarding these relationships for which there are

currently no available empirical answers.

Methods of Data Collection

Data collection methods in this study included participant observation,

interviewing, and quantitative analysis of an instructional intervention of a multimedia

unit of instructional play into an existing course using treatment and comparison groups.

Multiple data collection methods were used to target a new understanding of play and its

relationship to learning and instruction. Quantitative methods were used to provide a

numerical description of the value of one instructional method over another.

Denzin and Lincoln (1998) state that qualitative research is “ . . . multimethod in

focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter.” (p. 3).

Denzin and Lincoln also describe qualitative research as the studied use and collection of

a variety of empirical materials, including case studies, personal experience,

introspectives, life stories, interviews, and observations, among others. This study also

used field research and naturalistic inquiry (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998), because much of

the data collection took place in the actual field of study, and because play itself is a

naturally occurring phenomenon – though this study attempted to stimulate the

occurrence of play for data collection purposes.

Settings

There were two settings for this study, involving different groups of participants.

The primary setting was the Cryptologic Technician Administrative (CTA) "A" School

onboard the Naval Technical Training Center, Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida. The

CTA school conducts a 16 week course of study that prepares students for a rating as a

44

Naval Cryptologic Technician, Administrative. Of this CTA course of study,

approximately half the courses are offered in a traditional lecture format with podium

instructors and half are delivered by computer-based training, with follow-on support in a

lab conducted by a human instructor. Readiness for graduation is determined by an end-

of-program paper-based test that is comprehensive over all individual courses taken by

the students. After graduation, CTA’s are assigned duty as office assistants and

administrative personnel in United States cryptologic commands across the world and at

sea.

The primary setting at Corry Station was the BETA testing lab within the

Curriculum and Instructional Standards Office at the Naval Technical Training Center

onboard Corry Station. Within this setting, students were observed, interviewed, and

tested to document their perceptions of play and learning from the phenomenological,

experiential, and learning perspectives.

The second setting for this study was the Raytheon Interactive Technologies

Support Center in Pensacola, Florida. Raytheon is the world’s third-largest defense

contractor, employing over 100,000 people worldwide. Approximately sixty people

(including this researcher) are employed in the Pensacola Interactive Technologies

division, of which ten to fifteen are instructional designers and multimedia developers.

This study targeted design and development personnel from this facility through

interviews to document their perceptions and understandings of play from the

instructional design practitioner perspective.

45

Participants

Participants in the primary setting onboard Corry Station were demographically

similar in age and prior knowledge. Participants were both male and female students,

ranging in age from 18-22 years old. The Holding Company at the Naval Technical

Training Center onboard Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida, made the Navy students

available for the quantitative portion of this study. The Holding Company assigned

students to the study based on availability, up to 12 at a time, over a two-week period.

The Holding Company is responsible for assigning temporary duty to students who are

currently between schools, waiting on a security clearance, or who have graduated and

are waiting on orders. The participants represented all service branches, including the

Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army.

Other participants onboard Corry Station included Navy instructors who are

responsible for teaching the Navy students in the CT “A” school. The instructors have

reached the rank of Petty Officer and have earned the Master Training Specialist

designation from the Navy.

Participants in the secondary setting at the Raytheon office in Pensacola were

professional instructional designers and multimedia developers, ranging in age from mid-

twenties to mid-sixties. One graphic artist also participated. Most personnel have a

bachelor’s and/or master’s degree, while one has only an associate’s degree. Two

personnel have degrees in instructional design or adult learning, and most have been

working in this field for some time. Employment time at the Pensacola location ranges

from at least 6 months to eighteen years. Average experience in instructional design is

four years. All work daily on the production of interactive multimedia courseware for the

46

Navy CTA school and other customers, and all attempt to design interaction that includes

many elements. Games or play, however, are not primary concerns for this group. Table

3.1 summarizes the participants in this study in all settings.

Table 3.1

Study Participants by Gender, Age, Education, and Years of Experience

Male Female Age Years Experience Education

Students 63 4 18-22 N/A High school

Instructors 2 0 30-40 10-20 (Navy) High school, some

college

Practitioners 1 3 30-35 3-12 College, some graduate

school

Data Collection Methods

Data collection was based on three major methods:

1. Interviewing2. Intervention of a multimedia treatment3. Observation

Interviews.

Participants in all settings were interviewed, with students at Corry Station being

interviewed first. Two pilot interviews were conducted with eight students in a

convenience sample drawn from the CTA “A” School at Corry Station. Initially, data

from these first interviews were used to generate additional and/or more focused

questions for use in subsequent interviews with participants in all settings. The questions

47

from the first pilot interview were revised for the second, and those were revised and

finalized into an interview protocol used in the subsequent interviews.

Interview data were gathered and analyzed by this researcher. Notes were taken

and interviews were mechanically recorded for later transcription and analysis. A semi-

structured interview guide was used, but the freedom to extend the interview as the

situation warrants was maintained. Interview questions were designed to reveal

participant perspectives and understandings about play and its relationship to learning

and instruction. The interview questions for both the interviews at Corry Station and the

Raytheon practitioners are contained in Appendices A-D.

In the primary study setting onboard Corry Station, participants were interviewed

to determine the following:

Past experiences with play;

Perception of the relationship between play and learning;

Indicators of play; when and why they recognize and self-report activities as

playful;

How play in learning impacts their motivation for the content and learning

outcomes;

How play in learning engages their emotions and interest;

If play can be experienced in isolation or if it only occurs in social groups;

How, during play, they interact with each other and with the source of play to

create meaning; and

How play can be embedded within instruction without distracting from

learning goals.

48

Raytheon instructional designers and multimedia developers and Navy instructors

were interviewed to determine the following:

Past experiences with play;

Perception of the relationship between play and learning;

Indicators of play; when and why they recognize and self-report activities as

playful;

How play in learning impacts their motivation for the content and learning

outcomes;

How play in learning engages their emotions and interest;

If play can be experienced in isolation or if it only occurs in social groups;

How play can be designed into instruction;

The events or conditions of play within instruction;

How play can be matched with learning outcomes;

The relationship between play and cognitive and/or affective outcomes; and

The nature of play as a behaviorist, constructivist, or cognitive learning

phenomenon.

Multimedia Treatment Intervention.

The play intervention consisted of a course of interactive multimedia instruction

titled “Standard Naval Letter.” The purpose of this course is to teach Navy, Marine,

Army, and Air Force students the procedural steps to write a Standard Naval Letter

according to guidelines published in the Naval Correspondence Manual. Two versions of

the course were created. Version A contained the existing course along with an

additional module of instructional play, and version B contained the existing course along

49

with an additional module of practice questions without play characteristics. The

hypothesis examined was that the treatment group receiving the play module would score

significantly higher on content and skill posttests than the comparison groups, and that

the treatment group receiving the play module would express higher enjoyment ratings

than those receiving the module without play characteristics.

Version A, which contained the play module given to the treatment group, was

accessible from the main menu or from a linear path through the courseware, and was

sequenced so that it is at the end of the instruction, but before the lesson test. Students

were required to complete the module. Although required participation violates a

commonly defined characteristic of play – that of voluntary or spontaneous action, it was

necessary for testing purposes. The module is based on a metaphoric spoof of the David

Letterman show and contained a menu with three branches: the Top Ten Ways to Mess

Up a Standard Naval Letter, Stupid Letter Tricks, and Celebrity Visit. In the Top Ten

Ways to Mess Up a Standard Naval Letter, the most common letter-writing and

formatting mistakes (as identified by the CTA instructors) were portrayed textually and

graphically as non-examples, with additional instruction showing students the correct

way to format the letter. Stupid Letter Tricks contained a silly series of five ways to use

Standard Naval Letters in non-traditional ways. The Celebrity Visit contained an audio

interview between David Letter-Man and the Navy Chief of the CTA School regarding

common mistakes made when writing Standard Naval Letters. The Navy Chief recorded

the audio personally and allowed his image to be used for graphical support, adding

fidelity to the lesson. His visual and auditory presence also supported Gagne’s assertion

(1992) that human modeling is the best way to teach outcomes regarding attitude or

50

behavioral change. Since it is the Navy’s desire that students have the proper attitude

regarding the importance of correctly formatting Standard Naval Letters, this was entirely

appropriate instruction.

Copyright infringement issues were examined but disregarded, since this spoof

was used temporarily for study purposes only and was not used in the final course

delivered by Raytheon to the Navy.

To match commonly defined characteristics of play, extensive audio and

graphical effects were used to augment the play module. Random effects, animations,

and unexpected graphics appeared and were more intense than those contained in the

preceding instruction. The inclusion of play was based upon Levy’s characteristics of

playful behavior. Novelty, incongruity, and surprisingness, as described by Levy (1978),

were embedded to stimulate the feeling of playfulness in the participants. The menu

screen for the module is shown in Figure 1.

51

Figure 1 . Interface Menu -- The Late Show.

After the students completed all menu choices in the Letterman play module, they

were returned to the lesson summary and proceeded to take the lesson test.

Version B, which contained the practice question module given to the control

group, consisted of true-false, multiple choice, and fill-in-the-blank questions about the

formatting rules of Standard Naval Letters. This module contained approximately 10

questions and required between 15-30 minutes for completion. Because the questions

used the same content found in the Top Ten ways to Mess Up a Standard Naval Letter

contained in the Letterman play module, I felt that the practice module was equivalent to

the play module in regard to estimated time to complete and content accuracy. Extensive

feedback and remediation were provided upon incorrect answers.

52

Delivery Platform

Both versions of the Standard Naval Letter course were authored in ToolBook II

Instructor, delivered via CD-ROM, and installed on the AEC network. The minimum

delivery platform (which varies at or above this specification) is a Pentium 90 computer,

with a 6x CD-ROM, 640x480 screen resolution, 16 MB RAM, 2 MB VRAM, 32-bit true

color display, 16-bit sound card, ear phones, 3.5" FDD, and mouse interface. The course

used a standard interface developed for all topics created for the CTA school. Graphics,

recorded narration, and limited interaction (Level II of DOD standards) are also used.

Procedures for the Multimedia Treatment

When the play modules and the practice question modules were ready, the Navy

Holding Company and the Course Conversion Director were contacted to provide

students for participation in a treatment and control group. As a common practice,

students did not volunteer for this assignment, but were instead directed to participate by

Navy course directors.

The first group of students tested was considered the pilot group. These students

identified no major problems in the course, other than the wrong stripes on David

Letterman’s uniform, giving him an incorrect rank across several screens. This problem

was not considered to affect the instructional integrity of the course, so no further

revisions were necessary.

The designated groups of students completed the appropriate version of the

Standard Naval Letter topic: the comparison group completed the version with the

53

additional practice module, and the treatment group completed the topic with the

additional play intervention.

The students were surveyed using the enjoyment scale contained in Appendix C

to obtain both quantitative and subjective responses about any feelings of enjoyment

experienced while using the courseware. Students reported quantitative data from the

interactive course in the form of the test score percentage.

The students completed the job sheet activity using the same computers as the

course. Microsoft Word was used to create the Standard Naval Letters from the job

sheets. The Navy Chief responsible for course management within the CTA School acted

as an independent grader and scored these job sheets, providing the researcher with

quantitative scores for each student.

Random assignment was used to assign participants into the treatment or

comparison group to ensure equivalency in all students regarding their prior knowledge

of procedures for writing Standard Naval Letters and their ability to learn with computer-

based instruction.

Participant Observation

Because this study only attempted to briefly illuminate the elusive phenomenon of

play, full-time observation and/or immersion into the natural environment was not

possible. In fact, the play intervention using the above-mentioned multimedia treatment

was contrived and created an environment designed to stimulate an occurrence of play

within the participants. Participant observation only took place in the setting onboard

Corry Station in the BETA testing lab. Observed comments were recorded in a working

54

journal, with care taken for objective reporting. Observations were also taken during

interviews and other conversations with participants in all settings.

Data Collection

Two primary types of data were collected in this study: qualitative data from

interview and participant observations, and quantitative data in the results of the

multimedia treatment and subsequent testing.

Qualitative Data Collection with Student Interviews.

Student interviews were analyzed first. These interviews were conducted during

the two weeks in which the participants from the Holding Company were assigned to the

study, and followed each testing session. In addition, three interviews were held

separately in the CT “A” school. A total of 45 participants were interviewed over a 2-

month period. The interview protocol consisted of eleven questions, relating to the

following categories:

1. Definitions and indicators of play (3 questions)

2. Changes in play (3 questions)

3. Play and learning and training (5 questions)

4. Play and the passage of time (1 question)

Some questions probed past experiences with play, ranging from childhood to

situations throughout life in which concepts or skills were learned through play. This

was done in an attempt to encourage spontaneous descriptors of play from participants’

memories.

Interviews ranged from fifteen to thirty minutes depending on student responses,

and were audiotaped for later transcription. A pilot interview was conducted with a

55

group of 9 participants in the CT “A” school, and 4 interview questions were changed as

a result of those findings. The original interview protocol, along with the revised

protocol can be found in Appendices A & B.

Instructor Interviews.

The instructor interview was conducted in the CT “A” school onboard Corry

Station, Pensacola, Florida. Five instructors were invited to participate, but only 2 were

available due to personal leave and external duty assignments. The instructors

interviewed were enlisted and included one Navy chief and two third-class petty officers.

Only one of the two instructors interviewed had completed a college degree, but both had

completed Navy Instructor Training and received a Master Training Specialist

designation. It is important to note that this Navy training concentrates solely on

classroom training and does not cover instruction using a computer medium.

Because the instructors actually design the classroom training that they deliver,

the interview protocol was based directly on the practitioner protocol. This interview

protocol is contained in Appendix C and consisted of 12 questions related to the

following categories:

1. Definitions and indicators of play (3 questions)

2. Play and learning and training (5 questions)

3. Designing play into instruction (3 questions)

4. Play and the passage of time

Like the student interview data, QSR Nvivo was used to analyze the instructor

interview data to detect play indicators and categories, espeically those concerning how

play can be designed into instruction. Instructor interview data were analyzed to help

56

answer the research question concerning the indicators of play from their perspective, in

the hope that the insights revealed would highlight a classroom instructor’s understanding

of play and how it can be used in instruction.

Practitioner Interviews.

The practitioner interview was conducted after the student and instructor

interviews were completed. The interview was held at Raytheon Technical Services in

Pensacola, Florida. Seven practitioners were invited to participate, including five

instructional designers and two graphic artists; of these, three instructional designers and

one graphic artist actually participated. Two of the instructional designers have master’s

degrees in instructional design, while one has a bachelor’s degree in secondary education.

The graphic artist participating has a bachelor’s degree in fine arts. All work daily in the

design and implementation of computer-based training for adults. The practitioner

interview protocol is contained in Appendix C and consisted of 12 questions related to

the following categories:

1. Definitions and indicators of play (3 questions)

2. Play and learning and training (5 questions)

3. Designing play into instruction (3 questions)

4. Play and the passage of time (1 question)

Just as with the student interview data, QSR Nvivo was used to analyze the

practitioner interview data and detect play indicators and categories, especially those

concerning how play can be designed into instruction. Practitioner interview data were

analyzed to help answer the research question concerning the indicators of play from a

practitioner perspective, in the hope that the insights revealed would contribute to a better

57

understanding of play. Furthermore, it was hoped that practitioners would yield

information about classifying a new taxonomy of play as an instructional strategy for use

by instructional designers in various learning outcomes.

Coding Procedures

Interview data were recorded and later transcribed into a Microsoft Word rich text

file (.rtf) for incorporation into QSR NVivo. The interview data for each group of

participants were summarized into a single .rtf file for easier analysis. Using QSR

NVivo, an analysis of major themes arising from the interview data produced 23 codes,

or categories of data, that could be used to identify indicators and perceptions of play.

Once transcribed, the data were segmented into meaningful analytical units, as

recommended by Johnson (2000). These units formed the basis of symbolic codes used

to categorize segments further for special analysis. These codes were inductively defined

based on emic terms and general themes that emerge from the interviewing process as

well as the literature review process described in Chapter 2. Both interview data and

written observations from other participant contacts were electronically coded using QSR

Nudist Vivo software, and then analyzed to produce broad conceptual themes. From

these themes, an attempt was made to generate answers to the research questions and

create a taxonomy of the events or conditions of play in both learning and instruction.

Conclusions were drawn based on a recursive process of inductive and deductive

examination and re-examination of data.

Coding Process

Interview data, as mentioned above, were recorded and later transcribed into a

Microsoft Word rich text file for incorporation into QSR NVivo. Using the Node feature

58

in NVivo, nodes – or categories of data – were identified and entered into the database.

The interview data were analyzed for common patterns or descriptions used frequently by

the participants to identify the indicators or elements as well as the ways play can be used

in learning. Using the automated coding feature, segments of interview data were then

selected and assigned a code (or codes). At times, multiple codes were assigned to a

single passage of interview data. For example, one instructor defined play as “enjoyable

social activity”; this statement was coded in three ways: as enjoyment, activity, and

social-dependent.

NVivo’s coding report feature was then used to generate a node listing for the

student interview data, and a coding report for the summarized student interviews was

generated that counted and excerpted the selected segments for each code.

Quantitative Data

The quantitative analysis utilized a randomized posttest only control group design

with random assignment into both the treatment and control groups. The primary

dependent or response variable to be measured consisted of the scores on three different

summative measurements. These three dependent variables were as follows:

a content knowledge test score, taken from the test embedded into the multimedia

course,

a skill performance measure, taken from the job sheets completed by the students in

the follow-on lab.

a summated rating scale measuring enjoyment

The explanatory or independent variable was the additional play module attached to the

existing Standard Naval Letter multimedia course.

59

Instrumentation

The content knowledge test was an end-of-course test embedded in the Standard

Naval Letter course. Students completed it after completing all lesson modules,

including the Letter-Man play module or the additional practice module, depending on

the version they were given. This test contained twelve questions that were

comprehensive over the entire course. The question format breakdown was as follows:

Five true-false questions

Six multiple choice questions

One interactive question (student must click on the incorrect letter component)

The courseware automatically calculated and reported a percentage score based on the

number correct.

The skill performance measure was referred to as a “job sheet” by the Navy

instructors, and provided a scenario in which a problem can only be solved by writing a

Standard Naval Letter. The students were given the basic information, including whom

is writing the letter, who it should be sent to, and other personnel involved. The student

was required to read and comprehend the scenario and then construct a Standard Naval

Letter with proper formatting. The Navy instructors scored the letter and calculated a

numerical score based on number of letter components that were properly formatted. Ten

points were subtracted for every error in formatting or spelling. A copy of this job sheet

is contained in Appendix E.

Both tests measured different educational objectives. The content test measured

the student’s ability to recall basic formatting rules, while the skill performance test

measured the student’s ability to construct a Standard Naval Letter using these format

60

rules. The content validity of the individual measures was based on the congruence

between the content information presented in the instructional units and the content

measured by the test items. The content knowledge test was based on a paper version of

the Standard Naval Letter test used by thousands of Navy students over the past five

years, and the job sheet has similarly been used by Navy students in a lab environment

for several years. Content validity of both instruments was verified by Navy instructors

assigned to work as SME’s for this project.

The enjoyment scale was based on questions designed by Mihaly

Csikszentmihayli (1990) to measure flow. It is a summated rating scale that consists of 7

questions. This instrument was analyzed to determine if enjoyment ratings were higher

for either group. The validity of the questions was established in previous research by

Mihaly Csikszentmihayli, who used them to measure “flow,” which is a form of

enjoyment in which a person becomes engaged in a task so much that time passes without

notice (Csikszentmihayli, 1979). The questions on the scale were summed and averaged

to report group results for each participant. Group means were obtained for each

question and for the total scale. This instrument is found in Appendix C.

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

The posttest only control group design was used to determine if the independent

variable (the multimedia play treatment) produced significant differences in the treatment

group when compared to the comparison group. Random assignment into groups equated

the groups on extraneous variables. When participants are randomly assigned to groups,

or treatments, the major research question usually regards the extent to which reliable

mean differences on DV’s are associated with group membership (Tabachnick & Fidell,

61

1996). A pretest was not used because of the possible sensitizing effect, in which

students respond to the posttest due to learning from the pretest rather than the treatment,

which can decrease the external validity of the experiment. In addition, the letter-writing

content was novel to these students, thus greatly diminishing the value of a pretest.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the mean scores of the

treatment and comparison groups to see if the difference was statistically significant. In

other words, this study sought to determine if the two groups were different after taking

two different versions of the Standard Naval Letter course. An alpha level of 0.05 or

lower was the selected level of significance necessary for the results to be considered

significantly different.

Data Reduction

Qualitative data were reduced and interpreted through focus and reflective

analysis. Patton (1997) states that focus in qualitative data analysis comes from the

research generated early in the process. Data from all sources were compared against the

research questions for patterns from which answers were distilled.

After electronic coding and reduction using QSR*NUDIST Nvivo, a qualitative

data analysis program, answers to the research questions generated through interviews

and participant observation were analyzed. QSR*NUDIST is an acronym for “non-

numerical unstructured data indexing searching and theorizing.” This software is used to

create an environment to store, code, and explore data and ideas, to minimize clerical

routine and maximize flexibility, and discover new ideas and build upon them. The

program can also be used to link ideas and construct theories about the data for testing,

62

and to generate reports using statistical summaries. It is able to handle data such as text,

transcripts of interviews, and field notes.

Internal Validity

Internal validity is “the approximate validity with which we infer that a

relationship between two variables is causal” (Johnson & Christensen, 2000, p. 188).

Triangulation of data is an important strategy for establishing internal validity (Patton,

1990). Different types of data were collected, including interview transcripts, participant

observation notes, and quantitative measures. Trochim (1999)

(http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/intval.htm) indicates that the key question in

internal validity for quantitative research is whether observed changes can be attributed to

a program or intervention (i.e., the cause) and not to other possible causes (sometimes

described as "alternative explanations" for the outcome). Whether or not the researcher is

justified in concluding that an observed relationship is causal is a key tenet of internal

validity. When a researcher believes a relationship is causal, he or she must also try to

ensure that the observed change in the dependent variable is due to the IV and not to a

confounding or extraneous variable (Johnson, 2000).

Because of random assignment, threats to internal validity in the quantitative

portion of this study were greatly diminished. In addition, because the comparison group

completed an additional module of the same length as the treatment group’s play module,

the time-on-task effect was also be diminished or eliminated.

Methods used to increase internal validity were as follows:

Data triangulation – multiple sources of data were used

63

Methods triangulation – the study used both qualitative and quantitative

methods

As Johnson (2000) states, when two or more methods are combined, the resulting

evidence obtained is better and promotes internal validity for the results of the study.

External Validity

Generalizability is addressed by the structuring this study so that the results can

be generalized to other people, settings, times, and places. Although most existing

research studies concentrate on play in children, the findings of this study were first

compared to studies in the literature in an effort to match theoretical components.

Johnson (2000) states that generalizability is typically not the major purpose of

qualitative research. Because this study contained both quantitative and qualitative

elements, efforts were taken to maintain a balance between the generalizability of this

study and its ability to be replicated.

Researcher Bias

The issue of researcher bias is inevitable in social research (Agar, 1980). The

biases brought into a study by the researcher can affect the results in both positive and

negative ways. Johnson (2000) states that researcher bias results from selective

observation and selective recording of information, and also through the application of

personal views and reflections. My biases on a personal level include my own

perceptions of play, both from my childhood and adolescence, and also from my

changing views of play in adulthood. Additionally, I have watched my children play and

have gained new ideas from them regarding the nature of both group and solitary play.

My daughter, age 5, enjoys playing various reading and art games on the computer. I

64

have learned what triggers her to experience a state of “flow” in which she becomes

completely engaged in the game and loses track of time. These triggers are surprising

effects, random graphic and audio activity, and the ability to retain control of navigation

and pacing. I have also learned what causes her great frustration – designer-defined

control that reduces her ability to navigate freely. I watch her play for hours as she

happily draws pictures and with a single button click wipes the screen only to start over

again and again. These ideas of how she plays with technology probably impact in some

way the manner in which I view adult play through instructional technology.

On a professional level, I have not experienced much training in the effective

design of play, although I am becoming well-trained in the tenets of instructional design,

with 5 years in the role of an instructional designer both at the community college

curriculum and the corporate training levels. My research for this study has convinced

me that play is a valuable and reliable method of learning. The gap in the available

research and the knowledge base available to instructional design points to a real need to

define how and/or if play can be designed into instruction. Any biases expressed by me

in this way spring from a professional desire to contribute to this knowledge gap and

isolate ways to design play.

As a professional designer and educator, I have been trained to remain aware of

my professional biases, and to examine them as they emerge for the degrees of

subjectivity that they may harbor. Johnson (2000) recommends that a key strategy

designed to reduce researcher bias is “reflexivity”, meaning that the researcher activity

engages in critical self-reflection about potential biases. Throughout this study, I

endeavored to remain aware of any personal or professional biases and sought to

65

minimize their effect through reflection and awareness and through discussions with my

dissertation committee.

Summary

In summary, Chapter 3 provided a description of the methodology of a combined

qualitative/quantitative study of play. The main purpose of this study was to isolate the

characteristics and conditions of play to shed more light on the role of play in learning.

Two major research questions were proposed: what are the indicators that play

influences the acquisition of a procedural task and how does play impact procedural

learning and student enjoyment?

In an effort to support this major purpose and provide answers to these research

questions, a mixed-method research plan was proposed. The unit of analysis was a

multimedia course with additional treatment and control modules, along with data

collection methods that include interviewing and participant observation. A pilot study

was conducted for both the interviews and the multimedia treatment.

Data analysis methods included concurrent data analysis and reduction, hand

coding, computer analysis using the QSR*NUDIST Nvivo software, researcher

interpretation, and ANOVA. Validity procedures include triangulation and comparison

of this study to current research studies in an effort to establish some degree of

generalizability. Finally, I presented my own biases with regard to this study in an effort

to identify my own vulnerabilities as a researcher and instructional designer.

The findings of this study are presented in Chapter 4. Study findings in relation to

the purposes and research questions, some general findings concerning the study in

general, and recommendations for future research are presented in Chapter 5.

66

CHAPTER 4

Results

The purpose of this chapter is to present the results obtained from the mixed-

method design described in chapters 2 and 3. Results will be presented following each

research question posed originally in Chapters 1 and 3. This chapter will include an

explanation of the qualitative results followed by an overview of the quantitative results.

The qualitative results include data from student, instructor, and practitioner interviews,

while the quantitative data are reported from the results of the multimedia play

intervention described in Chapter 3. In addition, a discussion of emerging patterns from

the both forms of data is presented.

A mixed-method quantitative and qualitative study offers several opportunities for

structuring the results of numerical data analysis along with subsequent conclusions and

recommendations based upon verbal information. The triangulation opportunities

offered by multiple data sources and types yields the potential for finding previously

unknown patterns in the data that can later be applied to practical situations. The

approach used in this study led me to an increased understanding of the study findings, as

well as a sharpened understanding of the potential role of play as an instructional

strategy. In an effort to maintain a balance between the phenomena under study and the

67

integrity of the data collected, this chapter will provide a summary of both forms of

qualitative and quantitative data according to the research questions.

The first research question posed in this study described a need to identify the

indicators of play from three different perspectives:

RQ1.0 What are the indicators of play?

1.1 What are the indicators of play from a learner's perspective--how do they experience play?

1.2 What are the indicators of play from an instructor’s perspective?

1.3 What are the indicators of play from an instructional designer’s perspective--how do they describe the design of play?

The attempt to identify a common set of indicators was made because it was important to

the study of play and any future application of play as an instructional strategy. Common

indicators could form the basis of a play taxonomy, or a categorization of the kinds and

levels of play and how play can be designed to meet certain instructional outcomes in a

controlled instructional setting. Because of the potential richness of verbal answers to

both broad and focused open-ended questions, group interviews were chosen as the

vehicle to extract and analyze these indicators from the perspectives of the participants,

instructors, and instructional design practitioners. Prior to these interviews, a review of

the literature was conducted and reported in Chapter 2. The indicators of play identified

through the literature review have been grouped into major categories (macro codes) and

more specific groupings (micro codes). These codes are summarized in table 4.1, along

with the literature source and a confirmation of whether each indicator was also

confirmed by the interviewing data collection activities of this study. The table includes

confirmation from each interview group: students, instructors, and practitioners.

68

Indicators confirmed across these groups are identified by a “Yes” answer in each of the

columns referring to interviews.

Table 4.1

Indicators of Play Derived from the Literature Review

Macro Code

Micro Codes Identifying Play

Literature

Source

Confirmed by Student Interview

Confirmed by Instructor Interview

Confirmed by Practitioner Interview

In Enjoyment Scale

1.0 Internal

1.1 Self-generated

Christie &

Johnsen,

1983

Yes No Yes No

1.2 Intrinsic motivation

Christie &

Johnsen,

1983; Frost,

1-992;

Spodek &

Saracho,

1988; Jones,

1990

Yes Yes Yes No

2.0 Positive Affect

69

Table 4.1 cont.

2.1 Pleasurable

Christie &

Johnsen,

1983; Frost,

1992

Yes No Yes No

2.2 Sense of Humor/Fun

Lieberman,

1977

Yes Yes Yes No

2.3 Joy, Enjoyment

Lieberman,

1977;

Garvey,

1977

Yes Yes Yes No

2.4 Exuberance

Garvey,

1977

Yes Yes Yes No

3.0 Learner Control / Goal-Oriented

3.1 Empower-ment

Lytle, 1998 No No Yes Yes

3.2 Negotiation

Jones, 1990 No No No No

70

Table 4.1 cont.

3.3 Creative risk taking

Perlmutter,

1995

No No No No

4.0 Process-Oriented

4.1 Non-literal what ifs

Huizinga,

1951

No No No No

4.2 Exploratory

Isenberg &

Quisenberry

1988

No No No No

4.3 Spontaneous

Christie &

Johnsen,

1983, Frost,

1992,

Lieberman,

1977

Yes No Yes No

4.4 Absorption

Gitlin-

Weiner,

1998

No No No Yes

71

Table 4.1 cont.

4.5 Non-work

Gitlin-

Weiner,

1998;

Yes No Yes No

4.6 Constructive Illusion – Individual

Gordon,

1961

Yes No No No

4.7 Constructive Illusion -- Group

Gordon,

1961

Yes Yes No No

Totals: Yes: 10 Yes: 5 Yes: 9 Yes: 2

No: 6 No: 11 No: 7 No: 14

Because the indicators led naturally to a categorical arrangement, broad areas

were identified into “macro-codes”, and the relevant indicators matching these macro-

codes were arranged into “micro-codes”. Four macro indicators were identified for the

literature-based indicators, including 1.0 Internal, 2.0 Positive Affect, 3.0 Learner

Control/Goal Oriented, and 4.0 Process Oriented. Under each macro-code are the

corresponding micro indicators of play.

As a macro-code, “Internal” refers to play indicators that refer to the internal

characteristics of the player, such as intrinsic motivation and self-generated activities.

The “Positive Affect” macro-code includes any indicator that produces or increases a

sense of positive emotion or outlook in the player, such as pleasure, sense of humor/fun,

72

joy, or exuberance. The Learner Control/Goal-Oriented macro-code refers to indicators

that are exemplified by an increase in the learner’s ability to control the direction or

influence of the play activity, especially toward something that is goal-directed. Finally,

the Process-Oriented macro-code similarly groups play indicators that reflect a cognitive

or emotional process, such as exploration, spontaneous behavior, or constructive illusion.

Each macro and micro code is defined further in the glossary provided in Appendix I.

After data were collected, new indicators of play not represented in the literature

were discovered through the interviewing data collection activity. These indicators were

grouped under both existing and new macro-codes. Table 4.2 contains these new

indicators and identifies their origin as coming from student, instructor, or practitioner

interviews, or a combination of the three sources of data.

These new indicators of play were grouped into the existing four macro-codes derived

from the literature review, with the addition of two new macro codes: “Lack of Negative

Affect” and “Play Tools”. Because the theme of emotion arose consistently in the

interview data, and because further analysis determined that play is often identified by the

absence of negative emotions, the macro-code of “Lack of Negative Affect” was

established as a major category of play indicators. Micro-codes related to the “lack of

negative affect” include relaxed feelings, lack of boredom, and lack of anger and stress.

An important distinction with this coding category is noted; according to the

interview data, the absence of these affective perspectives does not necessarily promote

play but instead fails to inhibit play, and by being absent provides a fertile environment

for the stimulation of play.

73

Table 4.2

New Indicators of Play Derived from Interviews

Macro Code Indicator of Play & Micro Code

Derived from Student Interview

Derived from Instructor Interview

Derived from Practitioner Interview

Contained in Enjoyment Scale

1.0 Internal1.3 Stimulating

Yes No Yes No

1.4 Focused Attention

Yes Yes Yes Yes

2.0 Positive Affect

2.5 Silliness Yes No Yes No

3.0 Lack of Negative Affect

3.1 Relaxed Yes No Yes No

3.3 Lack of boredom

Yes No No No

3.4 Lack of anger/stress

Yes No Yes No

4.0 Learner Control – Goal Oriented

4.4 Competitive

Yes Yes No No

4.5 Helps Knowledge Acquisition

Yes Yes Yes No

5.0 Process Oriented-Active

5.4 Timelessness

Yes Yes Yes Yes

74

Table 4.2 cont.

5.8 Location-dependent

Yes No No No

5.9 Socially-dependent

Yes Yes Yes No

5.10 Performance

Yes Yes Yes No

5.11 Balance Yes Yes Yes No

5.12 Time on task/focus

Yes No Yes Yes

6.0 Play Tools

6.1 Play Instruments

Yes No Yes No

6.2 Expense Yes No No No

6.3 Fidelity/ simulation

Yes No Yes No

Totals: Yes: 18 Yes: 7 Yes: 13 Yes: 3

No: 0 No: 11 No: 5 No: 15

In addition to affective perspectives, the interview data also yielded new

information regarding “Play Tools”, or the instruments and apparatuses used to create,

stimulate, and participate in play. “Play Tools” includes as micro-codes such things as

specific play instruments, financial expense, and imitation.

Six new micro-codes were derived from interview data that were confirmed by all

three interview groups (students, instructors, and practitioners) indicating that these codes

are consistent indicators of play. These codes are:

75

1.4 Focused Attention

4.5 Helps Knowledge Acquisition

5.4 Timelessness/Flow

5.9 Socially-Dependent

5.10 Performance

5.11 Balance

These new indicators create a new picture of the phenomenon of play not found in

the original literature. According to the interview data, play is linked to a dependence on

others in a social setting as well as a sense of timelessness – time passing without notice.

Additionally, play is viewed as a significant way to help the acquisition of knowledge,

increase the level of attention and concentration, and improve performance. Another

common indicator, balance, indicates that play is viewed both as something to balance

work and fun and as a concept that should be carefully mediated in a learning

environment. In other words, the “balance” micro-code is also used to describe interview

data that cautions against the overuse of play in learning. These six new indicators

common to all interview groups are themselves a new contribution to the study and

understanding of play.

The data presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide clear indicators of play

identified by both a review of the literature and the interview results and begins to answer

Research Question 1, which framed an original inquiry into the indicators of play.

The remainder of this chapter will present reports of the data collected in the

following order:

76

a report of the qualitative data, including detailed interview data obtained

from participants, Navy instructors, and instructional design practitioners;

an overview of the quantitative results – including results of each of the three

measurements with scores by treatment and comparison group; and

patterns emerging from both forms of data.

Student Interviews Coding Process

QSR NUD*IST Nvivo software was used to analyze the interview data and detect

potential patterns of play indicators and categories. An initial look at the data from the

student interviews indicated several things. One, the participants defined play in very

similar terms, and were very concrete in their responses about how play can be defined

and what elements are necessary for the stimulation of play. Two, the participants often

appeared to be uncomfortable talking about how play can be used in learning or training,

as though it were a vague or fuzzy concept that didn’t belong in their organizational

culture or was too difficult to adequately describe. Three, participants often used the

terms “entertainment,” “fun,” and “comedy” to describe and define play, yet when later

asked their perceptions of the play module in the CBT, they contradicted themselves by

using the same terms to describe the opposite of play.

Summary of Student Interview Findings from QSR NVivo Analysis

A total of 32 codes were generated from student interview data using QSR Nvivo.

In student interviews, the most commonly coded descriptors of play were:

2.2 Sense of humor/fun (27);

4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition (27);

5.9 Socially-dependent (27);

77

5.4 Timelessness/flow (26);

2.3 Joy/enjoyment (17); and

3.3 Lack of anger/stress (16).

Compared to the literature data, the student interview data yielded two additional macro-

codes. Code 5.0, “Process-Oriented/Active” and 6.0 “Play Tools” were identified, with

relevant micro-codes grouped underneath them.

Table 4.3 lists the 32 codes derived from student interview data along with their

frequency of occurrence and descriptors from the interview data.

Early in the coding process, the theme of emotion arose frequently from the raw

student interview data. Initially, an “emotion” code was used to identify any data that

referred to an emotional effect of play. Later, as the analysis probed deeper into the data,

emotion was re-coded into the macro-codes of “positive affect” and “absence of negative

affect.”

Table 4.3

Frequency of Student Interview Codes

Macro Code Micro Codes N Descriptors

1.0 Internal

1.1 Self-generated 3 “Now I can have fun when I want

to.”

1.2 Intrinsic motivation

3 “ . . . And see I learned that I

could do stuff I never thought I

could do . . . wouldn’t mind doing

78

it again.”

1.3 Stimulating 2 “Play is something . . . that

catches your eye.”

1.4 Focused attention 5 “I’m more likely to pay attention

if I know I can play.”

2.0 Positive Affect

2.1 Pleasurable 6 “Play is anything that brings good

feelings or happy thoughts.”

2.2 Sense of Humor/Fun

27 “Play is something fun that

everyone enjoys.”

2.3 Joy, Enjoyment 17 “Play is anything you choose to

do for pure enjoyment.”

2.4 Exuberance 11 “Laughing, smiling, being more

positive.”

2.5 Silliness 1 “You play more when you are

relaxed.”

2.6 Entertainment 6 “When you are being entertained,

time flies by.”

2.7 Edu-tainment 15 “If you can learn in a playful

environment, it’s better.”

79

Table 4.3 cont.

5.5 Lack of Negative Affect

3.1 Relaxed 4 “You can play more when you are

relaxed . . . ”

3.2 Lack of boredom 3 “Something that isn’t boring . . . ”

3.3 Lack of anger/stress

16 “No one is mad . . . lack of anger

among those who are playing.”

4.0 Learner Control (goal-oriented)

4.4 Competitive 7 “ . . . I am more competitive, in

games more, playing against

others.”

4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition

27 “If I am having fun, I am more

apt to actually hold on to what I

am learning.”

5.0 Process-Oriented/Active

5.1 Non-literal what if’s

9 “I used to play with my rock

collection, make kings and

queens . . . I was very

imaginative.”

5.3 Spontaneous 1 “Doing things on a whim or spur

of the moment.”

5.4 Timelessness/flow 26 “Time flies by.”

80

Table 4.3 cont.

5.5 Non-work 14 “Play is something other than

work that you enjoy.”

5.6 Constructive Illusion – Individual

2 “When I was little, like

everybody had imaginary friends

and stuff, and so did I.”

5.7 Constructive Illusion – Group

4 “But when you are in a group you

make up games and stuff.”

5.8 Location-dependent

6 “Play happens around carefree

. . . people. And you gotta be in

the right place . . . ”

5.9 Socially-dependent 27 “Play depends on who you’re

with.”

5.10 Performance 6 “What you learn through play has

to be achievable.”

5.11 Balance 11 “I learn not to play in certain

situations; there are

consequences!

5.12 Time on task/focus

10 “All attention is in the activity,

and you are drawn into it

completely.”

6.0 Play Tools

81

Table 4.3 cont.

6.1 Play Instruments 12 “I put away my toys from

childhood and use joysticks or

wrestling.”

6.2 Fidelity/Simulation 8 “ . . . now that I am older, I have

more real-life fun.”

6.3 Expense 8 “Play is more expensive now . . .

play costs money.”

6.4 Imitation 2 “ . . . What do you do when you

play? You mock things.”

A common theme, coded into “lack of anger/stress,” concerned the absence of

negative affect as expressed through a lack of angry or stressful feelings, which was a key

indicator of play. Additionally, students indicated the presence of play most often by the

presence of a sense of humor and fun, timelessness, and the need to be with others in a

social setting. Students also indicated that play helps the acquisition of knowledge in a

learning environment, which is related to another commonly occurring code – that of

“edu-tainment” (15), identified by the presence of play in learning. The code of edu-

tainment was used to express play as a companion to learning that makes the actual

knowledge acquisition process more palatable.

In all cases, the timelessness code described time as slipping by without notice or

awareness. Timelessness can occur during times of focused attention, spontaneous

activity, and edu-tainment – when learning occurs without notice, while the learner is

82

engaged in a playful activity. The code of timelessness is related to the code of

“Absorption” (4.4) contained in Table 4.1, and originally described by Gitlin-Weiner,

1988. These codes are also related to the sensation of flow, originally described by

Csikszentmihayli (1979).

Joy/enjoyment was used to identify play by the presence of basic feelings of

enjoyment, and is closely related to micro-code 2.1, Pleasurable, as well as 2.4,

Exuberance. Additionally, the macro-code 3.0, Lack of Negative Affect, is closely linked

to the macro-code of 2.0, Positive Affect, under which the codes of pleasurable,

joy/enjoyment, and exuberance fall.

Following these common indicators were other codes with high frequencies,

including non-work (14), exuberance (11), balance (11), time on task/focus (10), play

instruments (12), and fidelity/simulation and expense (each 8). Micro-code 5.11,

Balance, was used to describe a metacognitive awareness of when and how play should

be used. One student mentioned that “ . . . we can’t be playing around all the time; at

some point we have to learn.” Another student said that play can “ . . . be a distraction

that can take attention away from what you are doing.” The micro-code of balance

implies that players metacognitively understand when and how play fits into the

environment as a suitable activity.

The student interview data also yielded other useful bits of information regarding

play. One student had difficulty identifying indicators of play, saying that “ . . . There’s

a fine line between playing around and just life and working, maybe it depends on your

personality and type of mood that you’re in.” Relaxation and a freedom from stress were

other common descriptions of play:

83

Not thinking about other things that might worry you. Pleasant mood, in your

own world, free of stress. Relax, let guard down, you’re laughing. No one is

mad. Carefree. There’s a lack of anger among those who are playing. Having fun

but at the same time having no goals. Something you enjoy doing but don’t feel

pressured about.

Again, the student interview data yielded codes that were not found in the literature

review, providing an original perspective from the student group on the phenomenon of

play and how it is experienced.

Participant Observation

In addition to interviews, limited observation of the students was conducted

throughout the implementation of the Late Show and Additional Practice modules of the

Standard Naval Letter CBT. The primary finding of this activity was a significant effect

of disengagement by the treatment group participants during their participation in the

Late Show module. This disengagement was indicated by several common

characteristics: students pulling away from the computer table, placing pens down,

pushing their chairs away, crossing their arms – much like as if they were watching

television. Additionally, students in the treatment group talked with each other during

this portion of the study more often than those in the comparison group.

Instructor Interviews

An initial look at the instructor interview data before it was coded indicated a few

interesting findings, but due to the low number of instructors participating (2), their data

failed to yield any startling new insights. Primarily, both instructors cautioned several

times that play can become a distractor and should be used judiciously within instruction.

84

The Navy Chief, in particular, stated that “…play is useful as long as it is not overused.

There becomes a point when you may miss the point of instruction….” The other

instructor repeatedly classified play as enjoyment, answering almost every question with

some form of enjoyment in his answers. Interestingly, only one of the instructors

mentioned emotions as describing play, and only as part of an answer to one question.

This is a distinctive departure from the student interview data.

Using QSR Nvivo, an analysis of the major themes arising from the interview

data produced 13 codes. Table 4.4 lists these codes, along with their macro-code

groupings, frequencies, and descriptors. Only four macro-codes were derived from

instructor interview data, including 1.0 Internal, 2.0 Positive Affect, 4.0 Learner

Control/Goal-Oriented, and 5.0 Process-Oriented/Active.

Table 4.4

Frequency of Instructor Interview Codes

Macro Code Micro Code N Descriptors

1.0 Internal 1.2 Intrinsic motivation

1 “Play is effective if it

increases the individual’s

interest.”

1.4 Focused attention

3 “Something that holds the

interest of the individual…”

2.0 Positive Affect

2.2 Sense of humor/fun

3 “Play is having fun…”

85

Table 4.4 cont.

2.3 Joy/Enjoyment 7 “Enjoying oneself and

having fun.”

2.4 Exuberance 1 “Play is joy and laughter and

an enthusiastic attitude.”

2.7 Edu-tainment 2 “Students . . . enjoy play

combined with learning.”

4.0 Learner Control/Goal Oriented

4.4 Competitive 3 “Make it a competitive

program.”

4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition

7 “Play should be designed to

assist a student with difficult

learning.”

5.0 Process-Oriented/Active

5.4 Timelessness/flow

2 “When actively involved in

play time moves rapidly.”

5.7 Constructive Illusion/Group

2 “In class I created a baseball

game and if you answered a

question . . . you would get a

hit (single, double, etc).”

5.9 Socially dependent

1 “Play is an enjoyable social

activity.”

86

Table 4.4 cont.

5.10 Performance 1 “What is a trainee expected

to do after the training?”

5.11 Balance 3 “Play can also detract from

learning or training, if an

individual cannot recall an

experience.”

The macro-codes of 6.0 Play Tools and 3.0 Lack of Negative Affect were not

used to describe any of the instructor interview data. Two micro-codes had high

frequencies:

2.3 Joy/Enjoyment (7)

4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition (7)

As mentioned earlier, one instructor repeatedly mentioned enjoyment in his

interview answers, leading to a high frequency of coding of this category. Additionally,

both instructors spoke of play as a means to make learning more effective and easier to

acquire, leading to a high frequency of the micro-code of “Helps Knowledge Acquisition.

The instructors also viewed play as a means to promote competition in groups and

thus promote learning. Both instructors described competitive games they played in the

classroom to increase student learning of a difficult task (i.e. the names of publications).

The competitive code is related to the knowledge acquisition code as well as the codes of

constructive illusion/group and socially-dependent. Fostering competition in the

87

classroom requires conjuring a social illusion of a game, thus linking these constructs

together as a process of stimulating play.

Like the student interview data, the micro-code of “Balance” was an important

way to express play in a more ambivalent sense. Balance was used to describe the

instructor’s hesitance to use play consistently as an instructional method; again, both

expressed that play should be used carefully so that it does not detract from learning.

However, both instructors did express that play can result in more focused attention and

can increase the students’ intrinsic motivation, when used in an appropriate manner

(which was not clearly defined by the instructors).

Although there were only two instructors interviewed, their answers proved to be

a rich source of data. Along with the student interview data, this information contributes

to a broader understanding of the indicators of play from an instructor perspective.

Practitioner Interviews

Like the student interview data, an initial look at the practitioner responses

indicates several interesting findings. The practitioners were clearly identified by their

own educational interests. For instance, one practitioner repeatedly described play as a

strategy for promoting information retention, while another consistently used play as a

metaphor for simulation in learning. Still another practitioner, a former elementary

teacher, spoke often of play as an “activity” that participants could engage in for

relaxation. Interestingly, the graphic artist did not differentiate much from her

educational colleagues regarding play in instruction, despite her interest and training in

art and artistic design and lack of training in instruction.

88

Using QSR Nvivo, an analysis of major themes arising from the interview data

produced 23 codes. These codes, along with their macro and micro-code groupings,

frequencies and descriptors, are listed below in Table 4.5.

All six macro-codes used in the student interview analysis were used to segregate

the practitioner data into meaningful units. Codes with high frequencies were as follows:

4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition (15)

2.2 Sense of humor/fun (8)

2.3 Joy/enjoyment (6)

1.4 Focused attention (6)

5.4 Timelessness (5)

5.11 Balance (5)

3.3 Lack of anger/stress (5)

4.1 Empowerment (4)

Table 4.5

Frequency of Practitioner Interview Codes

Macro Codes Micro Codes N Descriptors

1.0 Internal 1.1 Self-generated 2 “Voluntary action, willingness to

participate . . . ”

1.2 Intrinsic motivation

2 “Play . . . can make a person want to

learn rather than have to learn . . . ”

89

Tabl.e 4.5 cont.

1.3 Stimulating 2 “Play . . . intrigues/stimulates the

mind/body in a way that provokes the

person to continue.

1.4 Focused attention

6 “During play, they might have furrowed

brows as if concentrating . . . ”

2.0 Positive Affect

2.1 Pleasurable 5 “Play is anything you do that is pleasurable.”

2.2 Sense of humor/fun

8 “Play is fun interaction . . . ”

2.3 Joy/enjoyment 6 “Play is any activity that I find enjoyable and that relaxes me.”

2.4 Exuberance 3 “Play is excitement, laughter, sometimes competition, enjoyment . . . ”

2.5 Silliness 3 “Play is . . . feeling comfortable acting silly.

3.0 Lack of Negative Affect

3.1 Relaxed 5 “Play is any activity that I find enjoyable and that relaxes me.”

3.3 Lack of anger/stress

5 “You should feel no pressure to be doing something else.”

4.0 Learner Control/Goal Oriented

4.1 Empowerment 4 “The “play” must include learner control to be effective.”

90

Table 4.5 cont.

4.4 Competitive 2 “Play is sometimes competition…”

4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition

15 “Play can make learning more fun…if the student loses himself in the learning, he is more likely to retain the information.”

5.0 Process Oriented/Active

5.3 Spontaneous 1 “Play is a correct attitude, not serious, spontaneity.”

5.4 Timelessness/flow

5 “ . . . you lose track of time.”

5.5 Non-work 3 “I define play as any activity not feeling like work.”

5.9 Socially-dependent

2 “In groups, play usually involves laughter and camaraderie.”

5.10 Performance 4 “ . . . I can say that I learn well when I do the activity, rather than just hear about it.”

5.11 Balance 5 “ . . . you must balance the play so that the play itself is not so engaging that the message is lost.”

5.12 Time on task/focus

2 “They might also have furrowed brows if concentrating . . . ”

6.0 Play Tools

6.1 Play instruments

3 “The things you are going to use for play, whether a game, book, or movie.”

6.2 4 “Immersion of the student in a

91

Fidelity/simulation simulation that is both entertaining, interactive, and instructive is difficult.”

These practitioners, who are accustomed to designing instruction on a regular

basis, regularly described play as a means to make learning easier, more effective, or

more fun. Like the instructors and the students, they cautioned that play must not

become a distracter and that a sense of balance between play as learning and play as

distraction must be achieved. Resultingly, the micro-code of balance was again used to

describe segments of the practitioner interview data.

Additionally, the practitioners concurred with both the students and instructors by

identifying play with a sense of timelessness and a sense of humor and fun. The concept

of “play tools” was also echoed by the practitioners as an element important for the

stimulation of play: “ . . . the things you are going to use for play, whether a game, book,

movie, players, etc. must be there.”

The practitioners also agreed with the students by describing play as occurring in

the absence of anger and stress. The practitioners described play as helping students to

“ . . . lighten up so learning can occur in a less pressureful (my word) situation. In

that kind of atmosphere, I think learning is accomplished more easily and fully.”

By describing play in this way, the practitioners linked the concept of lack of negative

affect directly to the process of helping knowledge acquisition. To the practitioners, play

was viewed as a means to increase the ability of the learner to acquire information by

removing negative affective aspects of the environment. The increased presence of play

equates to a decreased presence of negative affect.

92

Unlike the other interview groups, the practitioners also used play in a sense of

empowerment, stating that play must include learner control to be effective. The themes

of empowerment and learner control also surfaced in relationship to the consistent

depiction of play as simulation by one practitioner, in which learners must be in control

to effectively complete a simulated activity.

Emerging Patterns Across all 3 Interview Groups

Further analysis of the interview data from students, instructors, and practitioners

yielded interesting similarities and differences. Both the students and practitioners

identified emotional constructs as the key indicator of play. The student interview data

resulted in 16 codes for “Lack of Anger/Stress” (3.3) and 17 codes for “Joy/Enjoyment”

(2.3). This is almost an even split in their depictions of play as identified by either form

of positive or negative emotion. In complete contrast, the instructor interview yielded

few specific descriptions of play as emotion – and all were coded as the presence of

positive affect, with no coding in the lack of negative affect macro-code.

Additionally, all participants, whether student, instructor, or practitioner, cited the

timelessness as another key indicator of play. Specifically, they cited a complete lack of

time awareness as the indicator that play is occurring. Phrased in ways like “time just

passes by” or “the awareness of time is all but forgotten,” participants in all interview

groups were unanimous in this description.

The students and practitioners included the category of “non-work” as an

indicator of play, but the instructors did not. The practitioners included “balance” and

“empowerment” in their descriptions of play, but these codes were not used to describe

any material from the student or instructor data. Additionally, the students frequently

93

cited “expense” as an indicator of play, describing their “play tools” as becoming more

and more expensive with age. This descriptor did not surface in either the instructor or

practitioner interviews.

Table 4.6 contains a listing of the combined indicators of play for all three

interview groups, including the macro and micro-codes and frequencies per interview

group.

As mentioned earlier, the interview data across all three groups resulted in 6 new

codes not found in the original literature reviewed for this study. These codes, along with

the total times they were used to code data, are as follows:

1.4 Focused Attention (14)

4.5 Helps Knowledge Acquisition (49)

5.4 Timelessness/Flow (33)

5.9 Socially-Dependent (30)

5.10 Performance (11)

5.11 Balance (19)

Table 4.6

Combined Indicators of Play and their Frequencies

Macro Code Micro Code Student N Instructor N Practitioner N

1.0 Internal1.1 Self generated 3 -- 2

1.2 Intrinsic motivation

3 1 2

1.3 Stimulating 2 -- 2

94

Table 4.6 cont.

1.4 Focused attention

5 3 6

2.0 Positive Affect

2.1 Pleasurable 6 -- 5

2.2 Sense of humor/fun

27 3 8

2.3 Joy/enjoyment 17 7 6

2.4 Exuberance 11 1 32.5 Silliness

2.6 Entertainment 6 -- --

2.7 Edutainment 15 2 --

3.0 Lack of Negative Affect

3.1 Relaxed 4 -- 5

3.2 Lack of boredom

3 -- --

3.3 Lack of anger/stress

16 -- 5

4.0 Learner Control/Goal Oriented

4.1 Empowerment -- -- 4

4.4 Competitive 7 3 2

4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition

27 7 15

5.0 Process Oriented/Active

95

Table 4.6 cont.

5.1 Non-literal what ifs

9 -- --

5.3 Spontaneous 1 -- 15.4 Timelessness/flow 26 2 5

5.5 Non-work 14 -- 3

5.6 Constructive illusion – individual

2 -- --

5.7 Constructive illusion – group

4 2 --

5.8 Location-dependent

6 -- --

5.9 Socially-dependent

27 1 2

5.10 Performance 6 1 4

5.11 Balance 11 3 5

5.12 Time on task/focus

10 -- 2

6.0 Play Tools6.1 Play instruments

12 -- 3

6.2 Fidelity/simulation

8 -- 4

6.3 Expense 8 -- --

6.4 Imitation 2 -- --

Play was viewed by all three groups as a significant way to make learning easier,

with micro-code 4.5, Helps Knowledge Acquisition, coded the highest number of times.

96

Following that was micro-code 5.4, Timelessness/Flow, indicating that play was

unanimously viewed as an activity that causes time to pass without notice, and which

relates to the original code of 4.4, Absorption, found in the literature (Gitlin-Weiner,

1988). Additionally, all three interview groups believed play to be dependent upon the

participation of others, and in fact that play itself is a socially-driven phenomenon, as

indicated by micro-code 5.9, Socially-Dependent, with a total coding frequency of 30

times. Finally, the micro-codes of 5.10 Performance and 5.11 Balance were also

common across groups, indicating that the ambivalence about how and why play can and

should be used is related to the desire to evaluate play (in learning) based on the later

performance that the play activity should improve.

The interview data provided answers to Research Question 1 regarding the

original inquiry into the indicators of play. Existing indicators were found in the

literature, and new indicators were added through the interviewing data collection

activity. Both the existing and new indicators provide a comprehensive answer to this

research question and represent a contribution to the field of study regarding play.

Quantitative Results

As described in Chapter 2, previous research suggested that play can be an

effective tool for increasing procedural learning as well as learner enjoyment (Frost,

1992; Christie & Johnsen, 1983; Lieberman, 1977). This study used a mixed-method

design to evaluate whether play, as an instructional strategy, was more effective in

helping participants in a treatment group acquire and retain procedural information and

increase enjoyment than those in a comparison group. Research question one framed an

inquiry into identifying the indicators of play, as well as searching for understanding of

97

how play promotes acquisition of skills in a procedural context. Research question two

asked whether play impacts enjoyment for learning. Two subsequent hypotheses were

proposed. Hypothesis one stated that play, used as an instructional strategy, would aid

participants in a treatment group to score higher on post-instruction tests than participants

in a comparison group who received instruction that did not include play. Hypothesis

two stated that the participants in the treatment group would report greater enjoyment of

the instruction than those in the comparison group.

Description of the Participants and Environment

The Holding Company at the Naval Technical Training Center onboard Corry

Station, Pensacola, Florida, made the participants available for the quantitative portion of

this study. The Holding Company assigned participants to the study based on availability,

up to 12 at a time, between December 1-15, 1999. On six days, all 12 assigned

participants did not report for the assignment, for various reasons unknown to the

researcher. A total of 67 usable participants were obtained over 8 different days of

testing.

Sixty-eight people participated in the study originally, but one student was a

recent graduate of the Navy CT “A” school, in which he learned expert use of Standard

Naval Letter formatting rules and procedures. To avoid biasing the results, his scores

were dropped from the analysis, leaving 67 participants. Of the 67 participants assigned,

44 were white, 18 were black, and 5 were of Hispanic origin. Sixty-three participants

were male and 4 were female. All participants were in the age range of 18-23. All were

high school graduates and were enrolled in Navy “A” School basic cryptology training.

These participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: a treatment group (titled “Late

98

Show”) and a comparison group (titled “Additional Practice”). The treatment group

totaled 32 participants, and the comparison group totaled 35 participants.

The quantitative portion of the study was designed to investigate hypothesis one.

This part of the study was conducted just before Christmas. The study was conducted in

the Curriculum and Instructional Standards Office (CISO) Beta Testing Lab onboard

Corry Station. The lab contains 16 computers, of which 14 are in good working order.

Sessions were held almost daily over a two-week period (based on lab availability) with

an average attendance of 8-12 participants. Participants, based on random assignment,

were directed to sit at computers labeled for either the treatment or comparison group.

Because participants worked at an individual pace, I decided to segregate and stagger the

computer assignments within groups by assigning them to computers labeled either “LS”

(for Late Show” – the name for the treatment group) or “AP” (for “Additional Practice” –

the name for the comparison group), with six computers available in each group. These

designations helped me to keep track of each group.

I conducted a brief orientation at the beginning of each session, explaining the

purpose of the study and the tasks they would be given, along with an estimation of how

much time the tasks would take. On several occasions, at least two participants arrived

late after the other participants had already started the study. To avoid interruption to the

participants already working, I gave them a private orientation. The orientation script is

contained in Appendix G. Participants were given the option of taking a break at any

time throughout the process, but most did so at specific stopping points (such as after

completing the CBT session). Participants were allowed to report back to Holding

Company when they had completed the CBT and the 3 measurement instruments.

99

Average time of completion for Version A (Late Show) was 57 minutes and Version B

(Additional Practice) averaged 47 minutes to complete.

Observations detected behavioral patterns in the participants that were interesting

for several reasons. First, almost all of the participants appeared fatigued. Many were

waiting for their Christmas holiday leave to begin so that they could go home -- for some,

the first trip home in months. Others were frustrated because they had been assigned to

the Holding Company for a long time, waiting on a change in status. Almost all

expressed a willingness to stay in the Beta Testing Lab all day, since typical Holding

Company duties usually consisted of cleaning, furniture moving, or maintaining green

areas on the base. While completing the CBT, participants rarely asked questions or

made verbal comments, although many appeared to be interested in the subject matter.

Several participants were visibly ill with a cough and/or cold, causing other participants

to express a desire to sit elsewhere in the lab, which was accommodated, based on

computer availability and random assignment groupings.

I explained my role as the investigator to the participants as they arrived to

participate in the study. I felt accepted by them, and felt that my presence there was

unobtrusive enough for them to feel comfortable with me there. Many of them had

participated in CBT training earlier in their Navy training, and thus were accustomed to

the convention of learning from the computer with an “instructor-type person” present in

the room.

Hypothesis One

The study of the effects of play on student performance was undertaken to

investigate hypothesis one, that play would aid participants in a treatment group to score

100

higher on post-instruction tests than participants in a comparison group who received

instruction that did not include play. Results of the effects of play on post-CBT

measurements did not support this hypothesis.

As an instructional strategy, play only showed a significant effect on the

performance of the participants on one of the 3 dependent variables (i.e. the CBT Test).

In all cases, the mean score of the comparison group was higher than the mean score of

the treatment group, resulting in an effect in an opposite direction from what was

expected. This was a surprising finding.

As already mentioned, hypothesis one was not supported by the results of the

study. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine if the observed difference

between the two group means was statistically significant. The two different dependent

variables used were the CBT Test and the Letter-Writing Test.

Table 4.7

Results of the CBT and Letter-Writing Tests

CBT Test

Letter-Writing Test

Play Mean

72.9

-42.59

Non-Play Mean

81.3

-35.71

p-value

.008

.569

Examining the CBT Test, the Non-Play Comparison Group scored higher than the

Play Treatment Group (Non-Play Comparison Group, m=81.2571; Play Treatment

Group, m=72.9355). The p-value was below my selected alpha level o f.05 (p=.008), so

the differences between the two groups was statistically significant. The mean scores are

101

notable because since the comparison group obtained a higher mean score than the

treatment group.

Examining the Letter-Writing Test, the Non-Play Comparison group scored

higher than the Play Treatment Group (Non-Play Comparison Group, m=-35.7143; Play

Treatment Group, m=-42.5862). The p-value was higher than .05 (p=.569), so the

differences were not found to be statistically significant. Despite the lack of statistical

significance, it is again notable that the comparison group obtained a higher mean score

than the treatment group.

Hypothesis Two

The second hypothesis, which proposed that the treatment group would score

significantly higher on enjoyment of the instructional unit than the comparison group,

was also not supported by the results of the study. Statistical tests did not yield statistical

significance at the alpha =.05 level, but further tests with more participants are

recommended to determine if the play intervention did not have any significant effect on

enjoyment scores.

The internal reliability of the questions on the Enjoyment Scale was established

by using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The summated rating scale had an alpha

coefficient of .7983, which indicates a fairly high degree of reliability for the scale.

All seven Enjoyment Scale questions were summed and averaged, and an

independent samples t-test was used to compare these averages. Again, the Non-Play

Comparison Group scored higher than the Play Treatment group (Non-Play Comparison

Group, m=81.9118, Play Treatment Group, m=77.0323). The p-value was greater

102

than .05 (p=.106), so the difference was not found to be significant. If alpha is set at the

p=.10 level, then this result is statistically significant.

In addition to the averages of the question answers, an independent samples T-test

was used for each of the seven Enjoyment Scale questions to determine if significant

differences existed between the two groups in the study on the individual questions.

Table 4.8 contains the mean scores and p-values for each item by group, along with an

identification of the item content.

For the first posttest question, “I found myself challenged to optimal levels,” the

treatment group had a higher mean score than the comparison group (Play Treatment

Group, m=3.4194, Non-Play Comparison Group, m=3.1471). The p-value was greater

than .05 (p=.346), so the difference was not found to be statistically significant. This was

the only question on the scale in which the treatment group scored higher than the

comparison group.

For the second posttest question, “My attention was completely absorbed in this

course,” the comparison group had a higher mean score than the treatment group (Non-

Play Comparison Group, m=3.8235, Play Treatment Group, m=3.7097). The p-value

was greater than .05 (p=.893), so the difference was not found to be statistically

significant.

For the third posttest question, “This course had clear goals,” the comparison

group had a higher mean score than the treatment group (Non-Play Comparison Group,

m=4.5588, Play Treatment Group, m=4.2258). The p-value was greater than .05

(p=.555), so the difference was not found to be statistically significant.

103

Table 4.8

Group Means of Enjoyment Scale Items

Enjoyment Scale Item

Treatment Group Mean

Comparison Group Mean

Mean Difference (Treatment minus Comparison)

p-value

Item 1

(challenge)

3.4194 3.1471 .2723 .346

Item 2

(attention)

3.7097 3.8235 -.1138 .893

Item 3 (clear

goals)

4.2258 4.5588 -.3333 .555

Item 4 (clear

feedback)

4.0645 4.3824 -.3179 .644

Item 5 (free

from worry)

3.7742 4.2647 -.4905 .471

Item 6 (control) 3.9355 4.5882 -.6527 .518

Item 7 (lack of

time awareness)

3.8387 4.1471 -.3084 .637

Composite

Mean Scores

3.8534 4.1303 -.3555

For the fourth posttest question, “This course had clear and consistent feedback

and helped me to know if I was meeting the right goals,” the comparison group had a

higher mean score than the treatment group (Non-Play Comparison Group, m=4.3824,

104

Play Treatment Group, m=4.0645). The p-value was greater than .05 (p=.644), so the

difference was not found to be statistically significant.

For the fifth posttest question, “During the course, I felt free from other worries or

distractions,” the comparison group had a higher mean score than the treatment group

(Non-Play Comparison Group, m=4.2647, Play Treatment Group, m=3.7742). The p-

value was greater than .05 (p=.471), so the difference was not found to be statistically

significant.

For the sixth posttest question, “I felt completely in control of my learning during

this course,” the comparison group had a higher mean score than the treatment group

(Non-Play Comparison Group, m=4.5882, Play Treatment Group, m=3.9355). The p-

value was greater than .05 (p=.518), so the difference was not found to be statistically

significant.

For the seventh posttest question, “While in the course, time passed without my

notice,” the comparison group had a higher mean score than the treatment group (Non-

Play Comparison Group, m=4.1471, Play Treatment Group, m=3.8387). The p-value

was greater than .05 (p=.637), so the difference was not found to be statistically

significant.

Summary

This chapter presented results of both the quantitative and qualitative portions of

the study, including the results of the one-way analysis of variance and independent

samples t-tests used to quantify the CBT measurements. Statistical tests did not support

either of the two hypotheses, although one test was statistically significant at the .10

level.

105

Additionally, expansive documentation of the qualitative data in the form of

interview analysis was provided. This resulted in the identification of the key indicators

of play from both the literature review and the interviewing data collection activity.

Finally, selected excerpts from the interview data were provided to round out the results

and to provide a human perspective to the issue of play and learning.

106

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

This chapter provides an interpretation of the findings in light of the research

questions and will present a discussion of each research question and accompanying

hypotheses with respect to the findings. Conclusions related to both quantitative and

qualitative results in general will then be presented. Interpretations and recommendations

relevant to the continued study of play, especially play as an instructional strategy, will

then be offered. The chapter will end with a section exploring future research

possibilities.

The Purposes and Study Findings

The dual purposes of this study outlined in Chapter 1 were to investigate the

indicators of play from student, instructor, and instructional design practitioner

perspectives. Additionally, the study sought to learn how play promotes the acquisition

of skills within a procedural context, how play impacts enjoyment of learning, and how

play acts as a bridge from cognitive experience to affective experience by engaging

emotion and interest. During the course of the study, several patterns emerged that

provided answers for the original questions as well as insights into a potential model

using play in instruction.

107

The Research Questions and the Study Findings

Research Question 1.

The first research question concerns the indicators of play, or how one knows that

play is occurring, and seeks this information from student, instructor, and instructional

design practitioner perspectives. During the course of this study, several patterns

emerged that provided answers for the original question as well as yielded information

beyond that which was originally expected, and which has served to further expand my

understanding of both the indicators and elements of play, how it is used in learning, and

the results of using play.

First, an expanded set of core indicators of play was established between students,

instructors, and practitioners that added to the indicators originally found in the literature

review. The leading indicators discovered were micro-codes 2.2, Sense of Humor/Fun

(27), 4.5, Helps Knowledge Acquisition (27), 5.4, Timelessness/Flow (26), and 5.9,

Socially-Dependent (27). These were surprising findings, given that the literature

reviewed in Chapter 2 did not heavily emphasize any of these indicators. While play,

especially in adults, was described by Gitlin-Weiner (1998) as pleasurable and an overt

expression of wishes and hopes, the depiction of play as being reliant upon an emotional

or affective component such as a sense of humor or fun or a lack of anger and stress is

not recorded in the major literature of the field.

Interestingly, the leading indicators span only four of the six macro-codes. Not

included were macro-codes 3.0, Lack of Negative Affect, and 6.0, Play Tools. Though

108

these codes were important categories to the overall summary of play indicators, they did

not produce high frequencies of responses by students, instructors, or practitioners, and

thus were not able to produce any “leading indicators” like those preceding.

Additionally, play as a means to increase learning or make knowledge acquisition

easier was also not indicated by the literature. A common theme in the literature cast

play as a means of preparing for adult performance (Garvey, 1977; Lieberman, 1977;

Bruce, 1993; Manning & Boals, 1987). The preparation for adult performance, which

involves imitation, practice, and adaptation (Gordon, 1961) can be remotely linked to the

concept of play as an aid to knowledge acquisition, though this link is not explicit. A link

that is supported by the literature and also the interview data is the concept that play is

related to performance, and can increase performance of the player over time (Lentz,

1982).

Additionally, the instructors saw play as a key means to promote competition.

While the spirit of competition can be linked to preparation for adult performance,

especially in the writings of Garvey, 1977 and Gordon, 1961, this link is not explicit.

More fitting, though, is the concept of competition in the military training environment,

in which trainees are taught through gaming, simulation, and scenario-based instructional

environments in which victory over the enemy is a key goal. Thus it is understandable

that competition was perceived as an indicator of play by Navy instructors but not by

instructional design practitioners. Again, the importance of the instructional and cultural

context of play is underscored by this observation.

Singer (1995) issued an interesting viewpoint in his description of play as a

method to enhance positive affect and reduce negative affect. Play, in his perspective,

109

was used to reduce large objects to manageable proportions by assimilating novel

material to established schemas. Perhaps there is some connection between play’s ability

to enhance positive affect and reduce negative affect along with the presence of positive

emotion and the absence of negative emotion, as demonstrated in this study.

Additionally, Christie and Johnsen (1983) state that play behavior should be

pleasurable and connected with positive affect in the absence of highly anxious

conditions. While not specifically addressing the lack of negative affect, this description

of play also comes close to the results revealed by the interview data.

Other indicators of play included in the literature, such as Levy’s (1978)

descriptions of novelty, incongruity, and surprisingness, and Christie and Johnsen’s

(1983) descriptions of intrinsic motivation, spontaneity, self-generation, pleasure, and

non-literal pretense and fantasy were not heavily supported by the interview data.

Additionally, locus of control, indicated first in Lieberman’s (1977) writings regarding

feelings of empowerment brought about in the learner through play, was also not

supported by the interview data. Instead, other frequently described indicators by the

participants included balance, play tools, and performance.

Upon further analysis, these indicators identified by the study can be partitioned

further into concepts more applicable for the creation of an instructional strategy

involving play. The indicators themselves naturally fall into categories more usable for

strategy-building, such as internal indicators, environmental elements, ways to use play,

and the results of using play. For example, an internal indicator of play is intrinsic

motivation; rather than being an instructional outcome or effect, evidence that players are

intrinsically motivated is an identifier that play is occurring. Also, the concept of play as

110

being dependent upon location or social engagement by others may also indicate play, but

is more appropriately described as an environmental element necessary for play to occur.

Additionally, constructive illusion may indicate the presence of play, but is more

specifically defined as a way to use play in a daydreaming, imaginative sense. Finally,

the concept of play as a means to promote knowledge acquisition says more about

knowledge acquisition as a potential result of using play rather than a leading indicator of

the occurrence of play. Thus, while the indicators explained in Chapter 4 do indeed

indicate the presence of play, they each can be further defined into concepts more useful

for application in an instructional setting. All are broad indicators of play, but all

accomplish more than just reflecting the presence of play; some can actively be applied to

further stimulate play and capitalize on the ability of play to make learning more

palatable for the learner.

Table 5.1 displays the indicators of play further categorized into the indicators,

elements, ways to use play, and results of using play. These categorizations can be

conveniently summed up into an acronym titled W-I-R-E: W = ways to use play, I =

indicator of play, R = results of using play, E = elements necessary for play to occur.

Since we already know some of the indicators of play, defined earlier in Chapter

4, let me begin by further describing the environmental elements necessary for the

stimulation of play. Much of the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 described play in terms

of indicators or characteristics, and failed to establish a clear environmental protocol for

stimulating the occurrence of play. Perhaps the only consistent environmental issue

described in the literature was that of social negotiation (Jones, 1990).

111

Table 5.1

Play Codes Listed by W-I-R-E Categories

Way to Use Play (W)

Indicator of Play(I)

Result of Using Play(R)

Element of Play(E)

2.7 Edu-tainment 1.1 Self-Generated 1.4 Focused Attention

3.1 Relaxed

3.2 Lack of Boredom

5.6 Constructive-Illusion, Individual

1.2 Intrinsic Motivation

4.1 Empowerment

3.3 Lack of anger/stress

5.7 Constructive-Illusion, Group

1.3 Stimulating 4.5 Helps Knowledge Acquisition

5.8 Location-Dependent

6.1 Play Instruments

2.1 Pleasurable 5.4 Timelessness / Flow

5.9 Socially-Dependent

6.2 Fidelity/Simulation

2.2 Sense of Humor / Fun

5.10 Performance 5.11 Balance

5.12 Time on task / focus

2.3 Joy/Enjoyment6.3 Expense

6.4 Imitation 2.4 Exuberance

2.5 Silliness

2.6 Entertainment

4.4 Competitive

5.1 Non-literal what ifs

5.3 Spontaneous

5.5 Non-work / Goal-free

112

These social elements of play were clearly identified in the interview data, often

cited by participants as “having the right people around you” or play being “dependent

upon who you are with.” Other elements can be found in the micro codes of 3.1,

Relaxed; 3.2, Lack of Boredom; 3.3, Lack of Anger/Stress; 5.8, Location-Dependent; 5.9,

Socially-Dependent; and 5.11, Balance.

In addition to indicators and elements, interview data revealed two other useful

categorizations, including ways play can be used and the results of play. The interview

data revealed five ways to use play, expressed by the micro-codes of 2.7, Edu-tainment,

5.6 and 5.7, Constructive Illusion-Individual and Group, 6.1, Play Instruments (noted in

the interview data as anything used to accomplish play), and 6.2, Fidelity-Simulation.

Expected results of using play can be identified through the micro-codes of 1.4, Focused

Attention; 4.1, Empowerment; 4.5, Helps Knowledge Acquisition; 5.4,

Timelessness/Flow; 5.10, Performance; 5.12, Time on Task/Focus, and 6.3, Expense.

An interesting parallel is that the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 is rife with

explicit ways to use play along with the anticipated results of play. Piaget (1962), for

example, writes extensively about the use of play as a device to encourage assimilation

and accommodation. Maria Montessori (Practical Applications of Research, 1982)

believed play to be a primary means of social adaptation, and Erik Erikson and Lev

Vygotsky both viewed play as a means to prepare for adult life (Bruce, 1993). Sigmund

Freud (Practical Applications of Research, 1982) saw play as a means to express primary

needs.

The categorizations of ways to use play and expected results of play were the less

frequent findings of the interview data, but were the primary findings of the literature

113

review. Perhaps this is a turning point in my understanding of play as a phenomenon that

can be understood better by its indicators and elements rather than actual uses and results.

Since play has historically not been well understood, often the motive in stimulating play

is to set in motion a set of behavioral or cognitive events in order to reach a certain

outcome. Instead of attempting to capture play as a method, means, or mode of behavior

with an underlying motive, perhaps play can be better understood simply by how it is

identified. The results of this study reveal clear indicators of play, with subsequent

implications for the design of play and play behavior.

Research Question 2.

The second research question queried whether play could be a viable instructional

strategy to accomplish the outcome of procedural learning. This question also asked how

play impacts the enjoyment of learning and how play acts as a bridge from cognitive

experience to affective experience by engaging emotion and interest. The data answering

Research Question 1 also partially answers Research Question 2 in relationship to

strategy-building for instruction. However, before this data is applied to Research

Question 2, the immediate findings from the quantitative portion of the study must first

be explained to set the stage for how play can be used as an effective instructional

strategy.

The study of the effects of play on student performance was undertaken to

investigate hypothesis one, that play would aid participants in a treatment group to score

higher on post-instruction tests than participants in a comparison group who received

instruction that did not include play. In addition, the study was undertaken to address

hypothesis two, that the participants in the treatment group would report greater

114

enjoyment of the instruction those in the comparison group. Results of the effects of play

on post-CBT measurements did not support either hypothesis. However, one enjoyment

scale item did reflect a higher mean score for the treatment group than the comparison

group – that of challenge.

I have thought exhaustively about this issue. The quantitative findings came as a

surprise and did not at all support the initial hypothesis, given that the comparison group

– the one not receiving instruction with play – performed better on every measure than

the treatment group. Based on subsequent findings from the interview data, I have

concluded that my initial design of the instructional strategies using play in the treatment

group module was flawed and did not adequately capture play into its instructional

sequences. I designed the play module as a metaphoric spoof of the David Letterman

show. Levy’s (1978) characteristics of play were used as a basis for design, and included

novelty, surprisingness, and incongruity. These characteristics were represented by the

module’s reliance on surprising graphics and audio, and by the complete incongruity

between the lesson’s very dry presentation of Standard Naval Letter procedural

formatting rules and the sudden change to the fun and entertaining David Letterman

module. On paper, my design followed the characteristics of play as documented in the

literature.

In reality, however, the Letterman module, which supposedly stimulated play,

instead stimulated disengagement by the students. Participant observation, in almost

every case, indicated that the participants would physically disengage at the point of

reaching the Letterman module. This disengagement was represented by physical

manifestations such as pulling away from the computer table, leaning away from the

115

screen, crossing their arms, putting down their pencils, and removing their hands from the

computer mouse. Contrastingly, the treatment group participants scored the enjoyment

item of “challenge” higher than the comparison group participants, a finding at odds with

the physical observation data.

At the same time, the participants in the comparison group remained observably

engaged while completing the Additional Practice module, leaning into the computer and

keeping their hands on the mouse. After the Letterman module was completed, no

student spontaneously described it as play, but instead characterized as “fun”,

“entertainment”, “corny”, or “humorous.” Additionally, the treatment group participants

took an average of 57 minutes to complete the Late Show module, while the comparison

group participants needed only 47 minutes. The time-to-complete data may indicate that

the Late Show module contained more information and actually took more time to

complete, or it may indicate that the treatment group participants replayed screens more

than those in the comparison group completing the Additional Practice module.

Further, later analysis of interview data revealed that the key indicators of play, at

least as described by students, instructors, and instructional design practitioners, are not

at all novelty, incongruity, and surprisingness, but instead are focused attention, a sense

of timelessness, balance, social dependence, joy/enjoyment, lack of anger and stress, and

a sense of humor and fun. The description of the module by the students as “fun” and

“entertainment” is the lone descriptor matching later interview data. The design of this

module did not make any attempt to incorporate any strategies to capitalize on or

encourage a lack of anger or stress, or particularly the presence of positive emotion or the

absence of negative emotion. While it did attempt to stimulate enjoyment, results of the

116

enjoyment scale indicate that the comparison group, who completed a module of text-

based practice questions, reported greater enjoyment than the treatment group who

completed the Letterman module. Additionally, the comparison group agreed with the

statement that “while in this course, time passed without my notice” at a greater rate than

did the treatment group, indicating that the Letterman module did nothing to cause a

sense of timelessness– another key indicator of play. In hindsight, separating the two

student groups in the qualitative interview collection activity would have allowed for

further probing of these findings, leading to a more detailed understanding of the group

differences.

So, I surmise that the design of the instructional strategies used in the Letterman

module was fatally flawed in relation to the attempt to stimulate play or playfulness

among the participants. Later interview data revealed specific indicators, elements, ways

to use play, and expected results of play that could have been used to design instruction

that better stimulated the occurrence of play and created an instructional environment in

which the subsequent effects of play could be measured. If the design of the module had

come after the qualitative portion of the study, the design would have been based on more

reliable data and the subsequent measurements might have resulted in different results.

In fact, the indicators revealed by this study can easily be incorporated into the context

analysis and needs assessment phases of design.

To better accomplish the purposes of this study, my recommendation is to

redesign the module and incorporate the key indicators of play, using the W-I-R-E model

of embedding play into the instruction. Once redesigned, the same measurements could

be used to determine if play makes a difference in procedural learning. For example,

117

rather than using the Letterman spoof, the play module could incorporate actual examples

of Standard Naval Letters that describe important occasions in Navy life, such as

reassignment or separation from the Navy. If these letters have errors that may impact

the occasions described, the practice of finding the errors could stimulate cognitive

engagement (leading to a sense of timelessness) and arouse emotion, since these

situations are close to the heart of every sailor. The act of finding and revising the errors

could both increase positive affect and decrease negative affect.

Additionally, since location, social dependence, attention, and simulation were

also listed as elements of play, these elements could be embedded into both the

instruction and the instructional environment to better stimulate play. Actions like

making the training course a shared experience among the students, rather than isolated

learning, along with creating a goal for completion, could be used as environmental

elements designed to increase the occurrence of play. A simulation exercise in which

students choose the best letter for a given situation could be used, as well as adding

challenge to the instruction. Use of these elements would base the instruction more

soundly on identified characteristics of play and would provide a more definitive test of

the effectiveness of the W-I-R-E model for building instructional strategies.

The Use of the W-I-R-E Model for Instructional Strategy-Building

Now that the data relationships to Research Question 2 have been explained, the

stage has been set to use the data for Research Question 1 – the indicators, and the

subsequent categories of elements, ways to use play, and results of play – to build

instructional strategies. With clear implications for instructional designers, the results of

this study can be used to frame play as a potential strategy to deliver instruction in order

118

to accomplish a pre-defined learning outcome. Vivid prescriptions for instructional

strategies are an on-going need in the field of instructional design, especially for

psychological constructs such as play that are hard to define and even harder to prescribe.

In 1981, Briggs & Wager defined instructional strategies as:

…an actual product that can be used (1) as a prescription to develop instructional

materials, (2) as a set of criteria to evaluate existing materials, (3) as a set of

criteria and a prescription to revise existing materials, or (4) as a framework from

which class lecture notes, interactive group exercises, and homework assignments

can be planned.

Further, Briggs & Wager list steps to create an instructional strategy, including the

identification of:

objectives

prerequisite knowledge

sequence for presenting instruction

content

appropriate test items for each objective

Similarly, David Merrill (2000, not yet published) writes that the design of an

instructional strategy must include a number of important decisions, including:

selecting content segments

sequencing content segments

selecting appropriate instructional transactions

sequencing instructional transactions

configuring instructional transactions for a given student

119

In Chapter 2 of this study, a goal was described to either identify play as an

instructional strategy or to identify the “conditions of play” so that instructional designers

would understand more about how to incorporate play into instructional design. I believe

that a complete instructional strategy is broader in scope than the analysis of the results of

this study regarding play can provide. In fact, Merrill (1996) states that:

A complete instructional strategy consists of knowledge structure consistent with,

and appropriate for, the knowledge and skill being taught, a presentation

consistent with, and appropriate for the kind of knowledge or skill being taught,

an opportunity for exploration of the ideas being taught, practice with feedback

consistent with, and appropriate for, the knowledge or skill being taught, and

learner guidance consistent with, and appropriate for, the knowledge and skill

being taught.

Along with my understanding of play, my understanding of instructional

strategies has evolved throughout the results of this study. I now understand that play

itself may not be a comprehensive enough vehicle to serve as a full instructional strategy.

Yet given the above specifications by Merrill, at the very least the results of this study

can capture enough data to include play as a more systematic and manageable part of an

instructional strategy. In fact, the major themes of the interview data can serve as a

beginning model of play as an instructional tactic within a larger instructional strategy.

For example, the W-I-R-E categories described in Chapter 4 provide a concise

shell in which the indicators (“I”) of play can be identified, the environmental elements

(“E”) necessary for the stimulation of play can be embedded, and the prescriptions or

120

ways to use play (“W”) can be specified. Additionally, this beginning model can also

attempt to predict expected results (“R) of play.

After more specific testing under multiple learning outcomes and instructional

contexts to prove its effectiveness, the W-I-R-E model can be used in a more prescriptive

manner by instructional designers. For example, as a metaphor, this model can be used

by instructional designers as a way to “WIRE” their instruction with play, embedding

elements into the environment that will stimulate the indicators of play, while at the same

time providing designers with specific tactics (ways) to deliver instruction through play.

In this way, the components of play are interwoven throughout every aspect of

instruction. Then, expected results can be predicted through this prescriptive approach. A

graphical depiction of the W-I-R-E model appears below.

Figure 2. The W-I-R-E Model of Play.

Another parallel of the W-I-R-E model exists with David Merrill’s (1998)

description of “knowledge objects.” As described in Chapter 2, Merrill is cited as

121

describing knowledge objects as a framework or way to organize a database of content

resources so that a predesigned instructional strategy can be used to teach a mixture of

different content. Merrill states that knowledge objects have five components:

the entity (some device, person, creature, place, symbol, object, or thing)

parts of the entity

properties of the entity

activities associated with the entity

processes associated with the entity

These components, with the exception of the “entity” itself, are strikingly similar to the

W-I-R-E categories of play. While the content “entity” must remain intact as a

component of knowledge to be acquired, the “parts and properties of the entity” could be

easily identified with the indicators and elements of play. Additionally, the “activities

associated with the entity” can be placed with the ways to use play. Finally, the

“processes associated with the entity” can also be associated with the expected results of

play.

Given these comparisons, yet another way to begin to classify play for

instructional design is to make a similar framework for organizing a database of strategy

resources, using play itself as a sample strategy of instruction. In this way, just like

Merrill classifies knowledge objects by their parts, properties, activities, and processes,

play can be classified by the same components using the WIRE model. And beyond

play, almost any instructional strategy or tactic can be classified in the same way.

Instructional Design Cautions Using the W-I-R-E Model

122

This study concentrated on the investigation of play in a procedural learning

outcome within a military context. No data exists regarding play as an instructional

strategy under different learning outcomes. Until further research yields more data about

play and its effect on learning under different conditions, instructional designers should

be cautious concerning the deployment of play as part of an instructional strategy by

considering the expected learning outcomes, the model under which the instruction is

designed, and the context in which the learning will occur.

In summary, this study (and this researcher) initially proposed that enough data

regarding play could be captured to frame it as a complete instructional strategy. In fact,

this goal was one of the underlying purposes of this study. I now understand that this

finding was not possible within the scope of this study. On the other hand, enough data

were obtained to formulate a workable model of the major components of play in relation

to instructional design (particularly for procedural learning tasks), and can be used to

frame play as an instructional tactic or a “strategy object”, based loosely upon the work

of David Merrill. These findings cast play as a usable means of improving and enhancing

instructional delivery.

Findings Related to Mixed-Method Research

What I have learned as an investigator in the process of conducting this mixed-

method study is that quantitative data alone does not provide an adequate depiction of the

effectiveness of any instructional intervention. In fact, this study proves that quantitative

data, used without any qualitative support, yields much less usable data in the larger

perspective of understanding why a certain instructional intervention works or does not

work. Quantitatively, I learned that the play module was not effective. Qualitatively, I

123

learned why as well as was able to explore the conditions for possible improvement of

the instructional design strategy.

Linn & Erickson (1990) describe the distinctions between quantitative and

qualitative data, and then state that these boundaries between the two forms of research

sometimes get blurred. In this study, the boundaries became intertwined; without either

the quantitative or qualitative results, the data would have been mostly much more

difficult to interpret. Together, they formed an interlocking picture that yielded much

more connected data about play and when and how it can work as an instructional

method.

Suggestions for Future Research

While the findings of this study have implications for the use of play by

instructional designers, they have even more implications for future research using better

prototypes of instructional play with adults. If anything, this study has yielded data more

clearly illuminating some of the real indicators of play and how they might be used to

structure an instructional intervention using play.

To know more about the process of learning through play, the methods employed

in this study need further replication and refinement, given the simultaneous retooling of

the instructional intervention based upon the study data. The relationship between play

and instructional strategies, conditions of learning, and knowledge and/or strategy objects

needs further enhancement. As Levy (1978) stated, while there are many theories

attempting to define play, none discuss the actual structure or characteristics of play

behavior. Levy goes on to state that the establishment of a clear and universal taxonomy

of play behavior would contribute greatly to the expansion of research in psychology,

124

recreation, and other fields. Presumably, further research using data derived from this

study could work toward the specification of such a taxonomy or instructional strategy.

Another recommendation for continued study regards the environment in which

play occurs, especially as related to instruction. Based on this study, we now know some

of the environmental elements identified by students, instructors, and practitioners. Yet

we do not know more about how to create an environment by embedding these elements

into the climate of instruction. Further research could help define this need in more detail

and provide a greater understanding for instructional designers of how to not only design

play, but also how to structure the environment to best facilitate the occurrence of play.

Finally, I have other questions regarding the use of play within an instructional

strategy that future research can address. First, learning how play operates under

different instructional outcomes and contexts is important. Does play operate the same

way for principle-based learning as it does for procedural learning? Does the design or

stimulation of play happen differently when teaching concrete concepts versus synthesis

of abstract content? Additionally, this study investigated play in a military training

context, which is markedly different from training in a corporate setting or educational

environment. Learning the differences in how play can be deployed in those settings will

be valuable for instructional designers. Also, understanding how or if play fits into

different instructional design models is important for instructional designers to specify

the appropriate use and placement of play.

In conclusion, the use of play within instruction is a viable practice for

instructional designers. The knowledge gained from this study and from future

investigations into the nature and application of play offers great opportunities for

125

expanding the repertoire of instructional strategies and tactics. Much research needs to

be done regarding play as an overlooked component of instructional design and learning.

126

References

Agar, M.H. (1980). The professional stranger. An informal introduction to

ethnography. New York: Academic Press.

Barell, J. (1980). Playgrounds of our minds. New York, NY: Teacher's College

Press.

Beach, F.A. (1945). Current concepts of play in animals. American Naturalist,

79, 523-541.

Berlyne, D.E. ( 1968). Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson

(Eds.) Handbook of social psychology. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Bodrova, El, & Leong, D.J. (1998). Adult influences on play. In D.P. Fromberg

& D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and

Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Bogdan, R.C., and Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: an

introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bowman, J. R. (1978). The organization of spontaneous adult play. In M. A.

Salter (Ed.), Play: Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 239-250). West Point, NY: Leisure

Press.

Briggs, L.J, & Wager, W.R. (1981). Handbook of procedures for the design of

instruction. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

127

Bruce, T. (1993) The role of play in children's lives. Childhood Education,

Summer, pp. 237-238.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap

Press.

Burns, S.M., and Brainerd, C.J. (1979). Effects of constructive and dramatic play

on perspective taking in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 512-521.

Cheska, A.T. (1978). The study of play from five anthropological perspectives.

In M. A. Salter (Ed.), Play: Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 17-35). West Point, NY:

Leisure Press.

Cheska, A.T. (Ed.). (1979). Play as context. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Christie, J.F., and Wardle, F. (1992) How much time is needed for play? Young

Children, March, pp. 28-31.

Christie, J.F., and Johnsen, E.P. (1983). The role of play in social intellectual

development Review of Educational Research, 53, 93-115

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Csikszentmihayli, M. (1979). The concept of flow. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.),

Play and Learning (pp. 257-274). New York, NY: Gardner Press.

Csikszentmihayli, M. (1979). Overview: Play or flow? In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.),

Play and Learning (pp. 275-294). New York, NY: Gardner Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New

York: Harper & Row.

128

Craik, F.I.M., Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for

memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Dansky, J.L. (1980). Make-believe: a mediator of the relationship between play

and associative fluency. Child Development, 51, 576-579

Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological

methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dinwiddie, S.A. (1993) Playing in the gutters: enhancing children's cognitive and

social play. Young Children, September, pp. 70-73.

Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Implications for the design and

delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.) Handbook of research for educational

communications and technology. p. 170-198.

Ellis, M.J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs: NJ. Prentice-Hall.

Fein, G.G., & Wiltz, N.W. (1998). Play as children see it. In D.P. Fromberg &

D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond: context, perspectives, and

meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Flake-Hobson, C., Skeen, P., and Robinson, B.E. (1982). Learning to read

through play. Dimensions, July., pp. 103-105.

Fromberg, D.P., & Bergen, D. (Eds.). (1998). Play from birth to twelve and

beyond: context, perspectives, and meanings. NY: Garland Publishing.

Gagne, R.M, Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992). Principles of instructional

design. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

129

Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Golumb, C., & Cornelius, C. (1977). Symbolic play and its cognitive

significance. Developmental Psychology, 13, 246-252.

Gooler, D., & Stegman, C. (1994). A scenario of education in cyber city. Paper

Presented to the Japan-United States Teacher Education Consortium (JUSTEC) meeting,

Hiroshima, Japan.

Gordon, W.J.J. (1961). Synectics: the development of creative capacity. New

York: Harper.

Gredler, M. (1996). Educational games and simulations: a technology in search

of a paradigm. In Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational

communications and technology, p. 521-540.

Guilmette, A. M., and Duthie, J.H. (1979). Play: a multiparadoxical

phenomenon. In A. T. Cheska (Ed.), Play as Context (pp. 36-41). West Point, NY:

Leisure Press.

Guilmette, A.M., & Duthie, J.H. (1982). Playing to grow and growing to play. In

Loy, J.W. (Ed.), The Paradoxes of Play. New York: Leisure Press.

Gulick, L. H. (1972). Philosophy of play. New York: C. Scribner’s Son’s.

Harris, J. C. (1979). Beyond Huizinga: relationships between play and culture. In

A. T. Cheska (Ed.), Play as Context (pp. 26-35). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Herron, R.E., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). Child’s play. New York: Wiley.

Honebein, P.C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning

environments. In Wilson, B.G. (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments: case studies

in instructional design. p. 11-18.

130

Huizinga, J. (1955) Homo-ludens: a study of the play element in culture. Boston:

Beacon Press.

Isenberg, J. (1998). Play among education professionals. In D.P. Fromberg & D.

Bergen (Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and

Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Isenberg, J, and Quisenberry, N.L. (1988) Play: a necessity for all children.

Childhood Education February, pp 138-145.

Johnson, J.E., & Ershler, J. (1982). Sex differences in preschool play as a

function of classroom program. In Loy, J.W. (Ed.), The Paradoxes of Play. New York:

Leisure Press.

Johnson, R.B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research.

Education, 118 (2), 282-292.

Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L.B. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative

and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research for educational

communications and technology. NY: Macmillan.

Jones, E. (1990). Playing is my job. Thrust for Educational Leadership, pp. 10-

13.

131

Jones, Marshall G. (1997). Learning to play; playing to learn: lessons learned

from computer games. [WWW document] URL http://intro.base.org/docs/mjgames/.

Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in play: computer game design as a context for

children’s learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Designing, thinking, and learning in a

digital world. New Jersey: Erlbaum

Kerr, J.H., and Apter, M.J. (eds) (1991). Adult play: a reversal theory approach.

Berwyn, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger.

LeCompte, M.D. & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in

educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lentz, K. (1982) Mastery through play. Dimensions, April, pp. 68-71.

Lepper, M.R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: conflicting views on

the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational

Psychologist, 20 (4), 217-230.

Leshin, C.B., Pollock, J., Reigeluth, C.M. (1992). ID strategies and tactics.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Ed Tech Publications.

Levy, J. (1978). Play behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Lieberman, J.N. (1977) Playfulness: in relationship to imagination and creativity.

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Linn, R.L, & Erickson, R. (1990). Quantitative methods, qualitative methods.

Research in Teaching and Learning, Volume 2. Macmillan Publishing, New York.

Loy, J.W. (Ed.). (1982). The paradoxes of play. NY: Leisure Press.

132

Manning, M.L, and Boals, B.M. In defense of play. Contemporary Education, 58

(4), Summer 1987, pp. 206-209.

Merriam, S.B. (1993) An update on adult learning theory. New Directions for

Continuing Education, (57), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Merrill, M.D. (1997). Instructional strategies that teach. CBT Solutions,

November/December, 1-11.

Merrill, M.D. (1998). Knowledge analysis for effective instruction. CBT

Solutions, March/April, 1-11.

Merrill, M.D. (2000). Instructional strategies and learning styles: which takes

precedence? In Reiser, R., and Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.) (In Press). Trends and issues in

instructional technology. NY: Prentice Hall.

Miller, S.N. (1973). The playful, the crazy, and the nature of pretense. American

Anthropological Association Meetings, New Orleans, LA.

Monighan-Nourot, P. , Scales, B., Van Hoorn, J and Almy, M.( 1987) Looking at

children's play: a bridge between theory and practice. New York, NY: Teacher's College

Press.

Morris, S.R. (1998). No learning by coercion: paidia and paideia in Platonic

philosophy. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve and

Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Moyles, J (1994). Excellence of play. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Neuman, S.B., Roskos, K.. (1990) Play, print, and purpose: enriching play

environments for literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 44, (3), pp. 214-221.

133

Papert, S Kafai, Y. (1996). A word for learning. In Constructionism in Practice:

Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World, (eds) Yasmin Kafai, Mitchel

Resnick. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the

computer. New York: Basic Books.

Papert, S. and Harel, I. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance:

issues and educational applications. In Papert & Harel (Eds.)., Constructionism:

research reports and essays 1985-1990. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Papert, S. & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1994). Constructionism: research reports and

essays 1985-1990. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Kafai & Resnick (Eds.). Designing,

thinking, and learning in a digital world. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Patton, M.M., and Mercer, J. (1996) Hey, where's the toys? Play and literacy in

first grade. Childhood Education, Fall. pp. 10-16.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury

Park: Sage Publications.

Paivio (1997). Dual coding theory [WWW document]. URL

http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/paivio.html

Pellegrini, A., and Galda, L (1982). Effects of thematic-fantasy play training on

the development of children's story comprehension. American Educational Research

Journal, 19, (3).

134

Pellegrini, A.D. (Ed.). (1995). Future of play theory: a multidisciplinary inquiry

into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Perlmutter, J.C., and Burrell, L.(1995) Learning through "play" as well as "work"

in the primary grades. Young Children, July pp. 14-21

Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.

Post, D.L. (1978). Piaget’s theory of play: a review of the critical literature. In

M. A. Salter (Ed.), Play: Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 36-41). West Point, NY:

Leisure Press.

Provenzo, E.F. (1998). Electronically mediated playscapes. In D.P. Fromberg &

D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and

Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Reigeluth, C.M.. (1983). ID theories and models: an overview of their current

status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rieber, L.P., Smith, L & Noah, D. (1988). The value of serious play. Educational

Technology, Nov/Dec 98 pp 29-37.

Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning

environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 44, (2) pp. 43-58.

Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (2000). Trends and issues in instructional

technology. NY: Prentice Hall.

135

Rubin, K.H., Maioni, T.L., and Hornung, M. (1976). Freeplay behaviors in

middle and lower class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 47,

414-419.

Rubin, K.H., Watson, K.S., and Jambor, T.W. (1978). Freeplay behavior in

preschool and kindergarten children. Child Development, 49, 534-536

Rubin, K.H., Fein, G. and Vandenburg, B. (1983). Play. in Handbook of child

psychology: socialization, personality, and social development, 4, pp. 693-774

Saracho, O.N. (1986). Play and young children's learning. Today's Kindergarten.

Sawyers, J.K., & Horm-Wingerd, D.M. (1993). Creative problem solving. . In

Aronson, J. (Eds.). Therapeutic Powers of Play, Northvale, NJ, pp. 81-105.

Schwandt, T.A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human

inquiry. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). Landscape of qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 221-259.

Schwartzman, H.B. (1982). Play and metaphor. In Loy, J.W. (Ed.), The

Paradoxes of Play. New York: Leisure Press.

Seefeldt, C. (1985). Tomorrow's kindergarten: pleasure or pressure? Principal,

May, pp10-15.

Singer, J.L.(1973) The child's world of make-believe: experimental studies of

make-believe play. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Stone, S.J. (1995/96). Integrating play into the curriculum. Childhood Education,

Winter 95/96. pp. 104-107.

Stone, S.J.(1995) Wanted: advocates for play in the primary grades. Young

Children, September, pp. 45-54.

136

Strother, D.B. editor (1992 Dec) Practical Applications of Research, Newsletter

5(2), pp. 1-4. Phi Delta Kappan Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research.

Bloomingon, Indiana.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1979). Play and learning. New York, NY: Gardner Press.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New

York, NY: HarperCollins.

VanderVen, K. (1998). Play, proteus, and paradox: education for a chaotic and

supersymmetric world. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.)., Play from birth to twelve

and beyond: context, perspectives, and meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Van Patten, J., Chao, C. & Reigeluth, C.M . (1986). A review of strategies for

sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 437-471.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1990). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Soviet

Psychology, 28, p. 4-96.

Wilson, B.G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: case studies in

instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Wolfe, C.R., Cummins, R.H., & Myers, C.A. (1998). Dabbling, discovery, and

dragonflies: scientific inquiry and exploratory representational play. In D.P. Fromberg &

D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond: context, perspectives, and

meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

137

Appendix A

Interview Protocol Form – Pilot Version A

Protocol for Interview

Play InterviewStudents _______________________________ Time: _________ to _____________Date ____________________ Code: _________________________

Introduction: This study is investigating the nature of play and its impact on play and learning. All responses and responders will be kept anonymous. All data collected will be used for the purposes of this study only and will be discarded at the end of the study.

Descriptive Notes Reflective Notes

1. How do you describe play?

2. How do you describe play that you have experienced:-- by yourself-- with others

-- in a structured group, like a class or team?

3. How do you know when you are playing?3a. What are the indicators to you that you are in a playful situation?

3b. What helps you recognize play in yourself or in groups?

138

4. Describe a recent time (in the last year) that you experienced or participated in play during learning that was unofficial or unstructured -- like in a type of informal learning, when you taught yourself how to do

something, or when in a group you learned something that was unplanned.

5. Describe a recent time (in the last year) that you experienced or participated in play during learning that was official or structured -- like in a classroom or military training.

6. How, if at all, has play changed through these phases of your life: childhood, adolescence, and adulthood?

7. How do you expect your playing to change, if at all, in the next five years?

8. How do you think play fits into learning or training?

9. What elements need to be present for play to occur?

139

10. When you are playing, what happens to the passage of time and/or your awareness of time?

11. If play is involved in learning, how does the play activity make you feel about the concept or skill to be learned?

140

Appendix B

Interview Protocol Form – Version B (revised)

Protocol for Interview

Play InterviewStudents _______________________________ Time: _________ to _____________Date ____________________ Code: _________________________

Introduction: This study is investigating the nature of play and its impact on play and learning. All responses and responders will be kept anonymous. All data collected will be used for the purposes of this study only and will be discarded at the end of the study.

Descriptive Notes Reflective Notes

1. How do you define play?

2. How do you know when you are playing?2a. What are the indicators to you that you are in a playful situation?

2b. What helps you recognize play in yourself or in groups?

3. How, if at all, has play changed for you since you were a child?

4. How do you expect your playing to change, if at all, in the next five years?

141

5. How do you think play fits into learning or training?

6. What elements need to be present for play to occur?

7. Describe differences in play that happens in a group versus in an individual.

8. Describe a recent time (in the last year) that you experienced or participated in play that was unofficial or unstructured -- like when you taught yourself how to do something, or when in a group you learned

something that you weren’t planning to learn.

9. Describe a recent time that you experienced or participated in play during learning that was official or structured, like in a classroom or military training.

10. When you are playing, what happens to the passage of time and/or your awareness of time?

142

11. If play is involved in learning, how does the play activity make you feel about the concept or skill to be learned?

12. How can technology stimulate play?12a. How can you play while learning with a computer?

143

Appendix C

Instructor and Practitioner Interview Protocol

Interview Protocol

Name _______________________________ Date ____________________

Introduction: This study is investigating the nature of play and its impact on play and learning. All responses and responders will be kept anonymous. All data collected will be used for the purposes of this study only and will be discarded at the end of the study.

1. As a person – not a professional – describe how you define play.

2. What are the indicators of play? (What helps you recognize play in yourself or in groups?)

3. What elements need to be present for play to occur?

4. How do you think play fits into learning or training?

5. Describe a recent time (in the last year) that you experienced or participated in play that was unofficial or unstructured -- like when you taught yourself how to do something, or when in a group you learned

something that you weren’t planning to learn. Tell me how it happened.

144

6. Describe a recent time that you used play during learning or training, or designed playful activities into learning or training. How did you do it?

7. When play is involved in instruction, what happens to the passage of time and/or the awareness of time?

8. If play is involved in learning, how does the play activity make you feel about the concept or skill to be learned?

9. If you are designing play into instruction, how does it make you feel about the content you are working with?

10. How can play be designed into learning or training? What elements must be involved in the learning or training event?

11. How can play be designed into computer-based training, when students are learning in isolation from one another?

145

12. What is the overall role of play in learning or training – how can it be used and what should it do for the learner?

146

Appendix D

Student Enjoyment Scale

During the Letter-Man module of this course:1. I found myself challenged to optimal levels

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Not at all Completely

2. My attention was completely absorbed in this activity.(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Not at all Completely

3. This module had clear goals.(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Not at all Completely

4. This module had clear and consistent feedback and helped me to know if I was meeting the right goals.(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Not at all Completely

5. During the module, I felt free from other worries or distractions.(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Not at all Completely

6. I felt completely in control of my learning during this module.(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Not at all Completely

7. While in the Letter-Man module, time passed without my notice.(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Not at all Completely

8. Any comments regarding this computer-based course?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Adapted from:Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. ETR&D 44(2), 43-58.

147

TRAINEE GUIDE A - 510 - 0015B Page 1 of 3

Appendix E

Standard Naval Letter Job Sheet

148

JOB SHEET 8-4-3

STANDARD NAVAL LETTER

A. IntroductionThis Job Sheet will help you become proficient in preparing a Standard Naval Letter using applicable references.

B. Equipment The following equipment is required:

1. PC Workstation

2. Printer

C. References

1. OPNAV P09B2-105(94), Standard Navy Distribution List Parts 1 and 2

2. SECNAVINST 5210.11D, Department of the Navy, Standard Subject Identification Codes

3. SECNAVINST 5216.5D, Correspondence Manual

D. Safety Precautions

1 . None

E. Job Steps

1. Before you start to prepare any correspondence, carefully look over the rough draft (job Step 8) to ensure that all elements that are needed have been provided.

2. Make any corrections to "FORMAT" items that the writer may have incorrectly entered on the rough draft (i.e., leaving off reference letters or using abbreviations in the "To" line, etc.).

3. Prepare a Standard Naval Letter using the attached rough draft (Job Step 8) in the prescribed format as outlined in SECNAVINST 5216.5D.

4. Run your letter through SPELL CHECK for errors.

5. Proofread your letter for spelling and grammatical errors.

FOR TRAINING USE ONLY149

150

TRAINEE GUIDE A - 510 - 0015B Page 2 of 3

JOB SHEET 8-4-3

7.Upon completion of this job sheet turn in your completed letter and this sheet to your instructor for review and continue on with Job Sheet 8-4-4.

8.Use the following information (rough draft) to prepare your letter:Originator: Commanding Officer, Naval Security Group Activity, Norfolk, Virginia 32511-5000

Originator's Code: N7

Ser 148

SSIC: 1610

TEXT

1. Ref a describes the personnel exchange policy between Naval Security Group Activity, Norfolk and Naval Station, Norfolk. Naval Security Group Activity, Norfolk provides 10 personnel at any given time to assist the Security Department and the Supply Department.

2. 2. CTO1(SW) William Campbell has been holding the Leading Petty Officer position at the Security Station onboard Naval Station, Norfolk for 11 months out of the evaluation cycle due to the incumbent having to be reassigned to another station due to severe family problems. Normally, NSGA Norfolk would evaluate the member, but due to the length of time away from the command, it is

FOR TRAINING USE ONLY151

Use today's dateSubject: Enlisted Performance Evaluations on Naval Security Group Activity, Norfolk PersonnelAddressee: Commanding Officer, Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia

Via Addressees: Commander, Naval Security Group CommandReference 1) Host Tenant Agreement between NSGA Norfolk and Naval Station Norfolk

152

TRAINEE GUIDE A - 510 - 0015B Page 3 of 3

JOB SHEET 8-4-3

requested that NAVSTA Norfolk submit a concurrent evaluation on Petty Officer Campbell.

3. Please address any comments to CTACM(SW) R. Bogosian at commercial phone number (804) 544-5328.Signed by CW04 Karen N. Myers, Admin Officer

I

FOR TRAINING USE ONLY

153

Appendix F

Orientation Script

Thank you for participating today. I am conducting a study to determine which of two types of instructional strategies is more effective for helping you learn procedural information. You will need to stay for about 2 or maybe 3 hours this morning, and I’m going to assign each of you to two groups. First, I’m going to assign you a number which will indicate which group you are in. When I’m done assigning you to a group, you may sit at the computer labeled by the name of your group.

(After random assignment)You should have 2 documents in front of you: an Enjoyment Scale and a Student Job Sheet. Go ahead and fill in your name, rank, and the other information requested on both forms. When you are finished, put your pencil down.

(After everyone completes his or her forms)Thanks. Now, put the documents away in the blue folder in front of you. You should see a blue screen on the computer asking for your initials and the first 4 numbers of your social security number. Please type in this information. When you are done, look up at me.

(After everyone completes the entry screen)Next, you will complete the CBT titled “Standard Naval Letter.” This course was created for the CT “A” school and it teaches you the proper formatting rules for writing Standard Naval Letters. Two different versions of the course were created. Each group will receive a different versions, but the differences are slight and are not noticeable until you reach the end of the course. When you complete the course, please fill out the Enjoyment Scale. Once everyone finishes, I will explain how to complete the Job Sheet.

(After everyone completes the CBT; during the break, I opened Microsoft Word on each machine)

Take out your Standard Naval Letter Job Sheet. Take a moment to read over it. Now, let’s look at each step together. (I read over each step with the students). Using

Microsoft Word, I need you to complete this Job Sheet by writing the letter described in the Job Sheet. When you are done, save it using your last name as the file name.

154

Appendix G

QSR NVivo Summary of Student Interview Coding Report

NVivo revision 1.0.118 Licensee: Codone

Project: Revised User: Codones Date: 2/21/00 - 2:10:50 PMDOCUMENT CODING REPORT

Document: summaryCreated: 2/20/00 - 9:32:31 AMModified: 2/20/00 - 11:25:44 AMDescription:

Interview 12-17-99 (4 students); 12-16-99, (5 students); 12-15-99, (5 students); 12-14-99 (6 students);

Nodes in Set: All Free NodesNode 1 of 36 BalancePassage 1 of 11 Section 0, Para 100, 33 chars.

100: Now I have more responsibility. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 11 Section 0, Para 101, 66 chars.

101: I learn not to play in certain situations; there are consequences!————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 11 Section 0, Para 115, 96 chars.

115: My interests have changed, now I have more responsibilities, more consequences for things I do. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 11 Section 0, Para 155, 61 chars.

155: I think I’ll be tired more, and have less time to do things.156: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 11 Section 0, Para 171, 23 chars.

171: Work now and play later————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 11 Section 0, Para 174, 67 chars.

174: When I reach my goals I’m going to sit around and do what I want to————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 11 Section 0, Para 184, 76 chars.

184: But we can’t be playing around all the time; at some point we have to learn.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 11 Section 0, Para 189, 73 chars.

155

189: It can be a distraction can take attention away from what you are doing.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 11 Section 0, Para 237, 186 chars.

237: Like, say you’re in a real working environment and you have to be serious. I mean like, okay, so if the President of the United States is there, you’re not going to start playing games.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 11 Section 0, Para 266, 61 chars.

266: That was serious stuff, you couldn’t really like play around.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 11 Section 0, Paras 313 to 314, 459 chars.

313: When you’re younger, the time, I don’t know, it just, I remember when I was younger I remember the whole year revolved around Christmas and the time went so slow, but now the older you get, the time goes really fast. When you’re little you don’t have any conception of time. It seems like forever when you’re little.314: Now we have to manage our time now, we don’t have as much fun as we did when we were smaller. It’s like you have to plan out your fun now.315: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 2 of 36 CompetitivePassage 1 of 7 Section 0, Para 62, 12 chars.

62: Competition.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 7 Section 0, Para 114, 102 chars.

114: Now I am more competitive, in games more, playing against others. That’s different than when I was a ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 7 Section 0, Para 256, 110 chars.

256: Once we played word games, and the teacher split the class into groups, and each group had topics to figure ou————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 7 Section 0, Paras 279 to 280, 85 chars.

279: Captain’s Cup, Battlestation280: Battlestation competition, lot of fun, lasted all night————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 7 Section 0, Para 350, 211 chars.

350: For example we had this individual who had a hard time getting past this certain stage; it was a game, but he had to play it over and over and you can’t play if you really get frustrated; then it turns into work————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 7 Section 0, Para 351, 29 chars.

351: Still trying to beat the game————————————————————————————————————————

156

Passage 7 of 7 Section 0, Para 364, 201 chars.

364: If there is a time restriction, it isn’t fun it’s more like work. With time restrictions, at a certain point you stop playing and working to finish, and then all the fun is gone and it becomes work. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 3 of 36 Constructive Illusion IndividualPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 73, 77 chars.

73: When I was little, like everybody had imaginary friends and stuff, and I did,————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 75, 358 chars.

75: I used to play with rocks and stuff; when I got in trouble and my mom would send me to my room, I used to play and stuff and I would never like learn my lesson, so she took everything out of my room, like all my toys, and left like a rock collection, and I used to play with my rock collection, make kings and queens, it was awesome. I was very imaginative.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 4 of 36 Constructive Illusion~GroupPassage 1 of 4 Section 0, Para 73, 133 chars.

73: hen when, but when you’re little and in a group you make up lots of games on your own and play make believe and like house and stuff.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 4 Section 0, Para 256, 73 chars.

256: We’ve done skits and situational things where we learned while playing. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 4 Section 0, Paras 269 to 270, 125 chars.

269: It’s where we fought fires, and learned how to get people out of burning buildings, 270: It’s 12 hours of learning, 2:00 to 2:00.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 4 Section 0, Para 277, 1066 chars.

277: n high school, here’s a good one, in high school I remember that we did this…it started off as a game and we didn’t think we were going to learn anything from it. Um, we were studying like Hitler and everything, during the time of Hitler, so the teacher like pulled us aside and like gave a couple people tags that went on, you know, and you had to wear the tag around. Now, they got people…the people with the tags you couldn’t talk to, and so if you talked to them, the people with the tags, you got a tag put on you. Then they started… and if you turned somebody in, if you said I saw that person, then they’d get the tag and you’d get bonus points. So it showed, you know, how like everybody started turning each other in and everything like that, and it showed how Hitler started the rules. It started off as a game, but by the time when everybody had tags for like doing things and everything,

157

and you saw how the people were like, you know, it showed what people will do. You learned that everybody turned against it. I don’t know how to explain it….278: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 5 of 36 Edu-tainmentPassage 1 of 15 Section 0, Para 97, 181 chars.

97: Now I am challenged more, when thinking, I am challenged, but as a child challenge wasn’t part of it. Like now I can have fun and play in an argument or debate, because I am older.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 15 Section 0, Para 121, 52 chars.

121: When you’re younger playing is a learning experience————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 15 Section 0, Para 124, 318 chars.

124: Play when you’re younger, when you started out, like that’s how you learned. Like when you play with toys as your younger, you pick up eye hand coordination. What do you do when you play? You mock things. Not like mock as in being sarcastic, but like you’re playing house, you’re like, you’re playing what you see.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 15 Section 0, Para 126, 153 chars.

126: You’re learning about life when you’re little and you’re playing, like Barbies and stuff, it’s just because you’re learning. It’s a learning experience.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 15 Section 0, Para 180, 85 chars.

180: If I am having fun, I am more apt to actually hold on to it to what I am learning. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 15 Section 0, Para 183, 53 chars.

183: Play makes training not so dry, at least to a degree.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 15 Section 0, Para 186, 68 chars.

186: If you can learn in a playful environment, the play makes it better.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 15 Section 0, Para 193, 35 chars.

193: You are entertained while learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 15 Section 0, Para 194, 74 chars.

194: You can learn more if it is fun, and it is easier to relate to the lesson.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 15 Section 0, Para 198, 108 chars.

158

198: And if you have to learn something, it’s a lot better to learn it while having fun. You pay more attention.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 15 Section 0, Para 199, 117 chars.

199: I always fall asleep in this class until we start having fun, and then I’m like, I’m awake, which isn’t very often. 200: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 15 Section 0, Para 275, 94 chars.

275: Our class here started out serious, we have to learn things and whatever, but we have fun at t————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 15 Section 0, Para 276, 260 chars.

276: Our instructors are really good, like they’re strict, they have their ways of doing things, they know what they’re doing, you know, but they have a really good attitude and their positive and they never make us feel stupid or anything. They joke around a lot.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 15 Section 0, Para 328, 42 chars.

328: Play makes the learning more lighthearted.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 15 Section 0, Para 342, 168 chars.

342: Oh, I think it does. I think you associate the fun time with whatever subject you are learning, then whenever you think about it you have a positive attitude about it.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 6 of 36 EntertainmentPassage 1 of 6 Section 0, Para 15, 11 chars.

15: Recreation.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 6 Section 0, Para 22, 14 chars.

22: Entertainment.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 6 Section 0, Para 38, 45 chars.

38: Something to keep you active, not being bored————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 6 Section 0, Para 111, 44 chars.

111: Now it takes more to amuse or entertain you.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 6 Section 0, Para 117, 104 chars.

117: It’s almost like, uh, the media gets to you a lot, as you get older the media has a big influence on you————————————————————————————————————————

159

Passage 6 of 6 Section 0, Para 309, 46 chars.

309: When you are being entertained, time flies by.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 7 of 36 ExpensePassage 1 of 8 Section 0, Para 70, 39 chars.

70: Play is more expensive as you get older————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 8 Section 0, Para 102, 24 chars.

102: Toys are more expensive.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 8 Section 0, Para 105, 28 chars.

105: Toys are more expensive now.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 8 Section 0, Para 110, 27 chars.

110: Play is more expensive now.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 8 Section 0, Para 132, 27 chars.

132: More expensive, bigger toys————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 8 Section 0, Para 136, 14 chars.

136: Costs too much————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 8 Section 0, Para 157, 23 chars.

157: It gets more expensive.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 8 Section 0, Para 170, 100 chars.

170: Play costs money and we have too many things to pay for; we’ll have time to play when we finish our ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 8 of 36 ExuberancePassage 1 of 11 Section 0, Para 44, 8 chars.

44: Laughter————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 11 Section 0, Para 49, 15 chars.

49: Goofing around.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 11 Section 0, Para 50, 9 chars.

50: Laughing.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 11 Section 0, Para 60, 39 chars.

160

60: Laughing, smiling, being more positive.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 11 Section 0, Para 69, 72 chars.

69: On the beach its like you can be goofy and be your natural, natural self————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 11 Section 0, Paras 77 to 78, 165 chars.

77: You’re like giggling, like we’re playing right now! You’re not being serious, you’re letting some stress out.78: There’s a fine line between playing around and just ….————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 11 Section 0, Para 79, 65 chars.

79: It’s laughing, it’s coming together as a group, playing together.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 11 Section 0, Para 81, 110 chars.

81: You’re like giggling, like we’re playing right now! You’re not being serious, you’re letting some stress out.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 11 Section 0, Para 83, 65 chars.

83: It’s laughing, it’s coming together as a group, playing together.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 11 Section 0, Para 86, 5 chars.

86: Laugh————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 11 Section 0, Para 253, 108 chars.

253: Once in class the teacher put in fake teeth as a surprise, and it was funny and helped me to remember more.254: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 9 of 36 Fidelity~SimulationPassage 1 of 8 Section 0, Para 98, 128 chars.

98: When you are young, you can play with anything and have more abstract fun, but now that I am older, I have more real-life fun. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 8 Section 0, Paras 269 to 270, 125 chars.

269: It’s where we fought fires, and learned how to get people out of burning buildings, 270: It’s 12 hours of learning, 2:00 to 2:00.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 8 Section 0, Para 274, 262 chars.

274: Battlestation was like, everything we did in battlestation we had already done it once, in class, they made it like an all night thing and we redone everything we did. The first time was like the training experience, and in battlestation it was the actual plan.

161

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 4 of 8 Section 0, Paras 281 to 282, 224 chars.

281: Simulate things that actually happen 12 events, put out a fire, mass casualty, save people,282: Loud, sound effects, with your friends running late at night, yelling; have a lot more freedom, what you want but still get it done————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 8 Section 0, Para 283, 62 chars.

283: We learned what battlestation was about; done in a fun manner;————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 8 Section 0, Paras 284 to 286, 324 chars.

284: When you’re in training you learn what to do, in battlestations you’re in a group and you’re told this is what you have to do. You’re goal is to figure out your way to do it. You are told what the job is and what has to be done and you figure out your own way to do it.285: Lots of fidelity286: Freedom to shout, yell, cuss, swear————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 8 Section 0, Para 287, 51 chars.

287: Very realistic, we learned how to handle situations————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 8 Section 0, Para 288, 283 chars.

288: If it’s raining there you’re actually rained on; it’s just like real life; you can get hurt doing it. We learned how to handle situations like this; learned how to handle stress; best way to learn it. Very long night, too. If you didn’t do well you didn’t get out of boot camp. 289: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 10 of 36 Focused AttentionPassage 1 of 5 Section 0, Para 9, 35 chars.

9: Something that keeps you interested————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 5 Section 0, Para 25, 83 chars.

25: Something that isn’t boring, or that catches your eye. Something that is humorous.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 5 Section 0, Para 38, 45 chars.

38: Something to keep you active, not being bored————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 5 Section 0, Para 325, 54 chars.

325: I’m more likely to pay attention if I know I can play.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 5 Section 0, Para 336, 30 chars.

162

336: Play keeps me more interested.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 11 of 36 Helps Knowledge AcquisitionPassage 1 of 27 Section 0, Para 180, 85 chars.

180: If I am having fun, I am more apt to actually hold on to it to what I am learning. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 27 Section 0, Para 181, 55 chars.

181: I can learn things without realizing I am learning it.182: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 27 Section 0, Para 183, 53 chars.

183: Play makes training not so dry, at least to a degree.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 27 Section 0, Para 186, 68 chars.

186: If you can learn in a playful environment, the play makes it better.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 27 Section 0, Para 188, 30 chars.

188: Play makes it easier to learn.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 27 Section 0, Para 192, 37 chars.

192: You can learn more from your actions.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 27 Section 0, Para 194, 74 chars.

194: You can learn more if it is fun, and it is easier to relate to the lesson.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 27 Section 0, Para 196, 53 chars.

196: I think every time you play you do learn. Everytime.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 27 Section 0, Para 197, 37 chars.

197: Everything’s a learning experience. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 27 Section 0, Para 198, 108 chars.

198: And if you have to learn something, it’s a lot better to learn it while having fun. You pay more attention.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 27 Section 0, Para 199, 117 chars.

199: I always fall asleep in this class until we start having fun, and then I’m like, I’m awake, which isn’t very often. 200: ————————————————————————————————————————

163

Passage 12 of 27 Section 0, Para 201, 128 chars.

201: It depends. You know if you type on a computer and you’re playing a game, learning and playing and having fun at the same time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 27 Section 0, Para 203, 67 chars.

203: Sometimes if you play you pick something up and don’t even know it.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 27 Section 0, Para 254, 57 chars.

254: During PT (physical training), we can play, and we learn.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 27 Section 0, Para 264, 122 chars.

264: We had a Captain’s Cup which was like a big Olympics thing, taught us about teamwork, and that was fun, learning teamwork.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 16 of 27 Section 0, Para 324, 88 chars.

324: When we play while learning, we can look more forward to how we will use that knowledge.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 17 of 27 Section 0, Para 325, 54 chars.

325: I’m more likely to pay attention if I know I can play.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 18 of 27 Section 0, Para 326, 43 chars.

326: I’m more likely to go in with an open mind.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 19 of 27 Section 0, Para 328, 42 chars.

328: Play makes the learning more lighthearted.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 20 of 27 Section 0, Para 329, 29 chars.

329: It helps me to remember more.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 21 of 27 Section 0, Para 339, 70 chars.

339: It’s easier to remember things I learn if I can play at the same time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 22 of 27 Section 0, Para 340, 62 chars.

340: I have an easier time relating and understanding what I learn.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 23 of 27 Section 0, Para 344, 325 chars.

344: A lot of people learn better when they’re not so serious. Like in this atmosphere I can learn a lot better than in boot camp. In boot camp you are so stressed out and they talk in a monotone and you’re tired the whole time. Like when you’re here, even if you’re tired, we have fun in class and you’re willing to be here.

164

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 24 of 27 Section 0, Para 346, 28 chars.

346: Makes it easier if it is fun————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 25 of 27 Section 0, Para 347, 85 chars.

347: If it is challenging and fun at the same time, people will learn better and do better————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 26 of 27 Section 0, Para 348, 33 chars.

348: It will set in their minds better————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 27 of 27 Section 0, Para 352, 31 chars.

352: Easier to memorize through play————————————————————————————————————————

Node 12 of 36 ImitationPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 124, 318 chars.

124: Play when you’re younger, when you started out, like that’s how you learned. Like when you play with toys as your younger, you pick up eye hand coordination. What do you do when you play? You mock things. Not like mock as in being sarcastic, but like you’re playing house, you’re like, you’re playing what you see.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 125, 34 chars.

125: Yeah, you’re imitating your mom. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 13 of 36 Intrinsic motivationPassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 47, 28 chars.

47: Wouldn’t mind doing it again————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 271, 370 chars.

271: See, when I went to boot camp, I didn’t think I was ever going to make it through boot camp. I couldn’t do one push up, I couldn’t do one situp, and I could never study. And so I never thought I was going to make it through boot camp, I thought I was going to be ASMODED (kicked out) anytime. And see I learned that I could do stuff that I never thought I could do. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 272, 26 chars.

272: It’s all about motivation.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 14 of 36 Joy~EnjoymentPassage 1 of 17 Section 0, Para 6, 21 chars.

165

6: Activity done for fun————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 17 Section 0, Para 8, 44 chars.

8: Anything you choose to do for pure enjoyment————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 17 Section 0, Para 11, 36 chars.

11: Something fun that everybody enjoys.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 17 Section 0, Para 16, 41 chars.

16: Something other than work that you enjoy.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 17 Section 0, Para 24, 43 chars.

24: Something you enjoy doing, like basketball.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 17 Section 0, Para 32, 39 chars.

32: Anything besides work that’s enjoyable.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 17 Section 0, Para 37, 19 chars.

37: Something you enjoy————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 17 Section 0, Para 39, 14 chars.

39: Self-enjoyment————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 17 Section 0, Para 47, 28 chars.

47: Wouldn’t mind doing it again————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 17 Section 0, Para 52, 9 chars.

52: Carefree.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 17 Section 0, Para 55, 59 chars.

55: Something you enjoy doing but don’t feel pressured about. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 17 Section 0, Para 61, 10 chars.

61: Enjoyment.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 17 Section 0, Para 190, 57 chars.

190: Play makes it more enjoyable, keeps me from being sleepy.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 17 Section 0, Para 213, 18 chars.

213: Enjoyment, friends————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 17 Section 0, Para 249, 128 chars.

166

249: The good teachers I had weren’t so serious, and you could joke with them, and they made learning fun by being playful in class.250: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 16 of 17 Section 0, Para 302, 68 chars.

302: You have enjoyment, meaning you don’t pay attention to other things.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 17 of 17 Section 0, Para 331, 29 chars.

331: Play makes it more enjoyable.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 15 of 36 Lack of Anger~StressPassage 1 of 16 Section 0, Para 51, 14 chars.

51: No one is mad.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 16 Section 0, Para 52, 9 chars.

52: Carefree.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 16 Section 0, Para 53, 42 chars.

53: Lack of anger among those who are playing.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 16 Section 0, Para 55, 59 chars.

55: Something you enjoy doing but don’t feel pressured about. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 16 Section 0, Para 64, 40 chars.

64: Attitude you have to be not so serious.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 16 Section 0, Para 81, 110 chars.

81: You’re like giggling, like we’re playing right now! You’re not being serious, you’re letting some stress out.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 16 Section 0, Para 89, 52 chars.

89: Not thinking about other things that might worry you————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 16 Section 0, Para 90, 48 chars.

90: Pleasant mood, in your own world, free of stress————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 16 Section 0, Para 162, 254 chars.

162: Also its more stressful and we have more things to be stressed out about and more responsibilities and its not always, when we’re goofing off we’re like, oh, man, I’ve got all this stuff to do. When you’re little you don’t think about stuff like that.

167

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 10 of 16 Section 0, Para 220, 12 chars.

220: No pressure.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 16 Section 0, Para 234, 118 chars.

234: Tension cannot be there at all. No pressure, if you feel pressure or tension in a room you’re not gonna learn much. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 16 Section 0, Para 242, 50 chars.

242: Be with friends, attitude, no rules, no timelines ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 16 Section 0, Para 243, 37 chars.

243: No stress, comfortable environments, ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 16 Section 0, Para 295, 35 chars.

295: When I’m playing I have no worries.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 16 Section 0, Para 303, 49 chars.

303: Your mind is temporarily blank, off other things.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 16 of 16 Section 0, Para 344, 325 chars.

344: A lot of people learn better when they’re not so serious. Like in this atmosphere I can learn a lot better than in boot camp. In boot camp you are so stressed out and they talk in a monotone and you’re tired the whole time. Like when you’re here, even if you’re tired, we have fun in class and you’re willing to be here. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 16 of 36 Lack of boredomPassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 21, 24 chars.

21: Better than being bored.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 25, 83 chars.

25: Something that isn’t boring, or that catches your eye. Something that is humorous.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 38, 45 chars.

38: Something to keep you active, not being bored————————————————————————————————————————

Node 17 of 36 Location-DependentPassage 1 of 6 Section 0, Para 69, 72 chars.

69: On the beach its like you can be goofy and be your natural, natural self

168

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 2 of 6 Section 0, Para 135, 99 chars.

135: Can’t go outside; like when your parents told you to go outside and play, you can’t do that anymore————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 6 Section 0, Para 144, 145 chars.

144: In the next five years my play will be more like recreation, like camping or skiing. Or maybe it will be scheduled play, like having a tee time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 6 Section 0, Para 205, 262 chars.

205: Sometimes we have fun with our PT sometimes. Like when we’re playing a game, and you know you try to beat people, and your environment you might be PT’ing and going a long ways but if you’re with your friends you might be laughing and playing at the same time206: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 6 Section 0, Para 233, 127 chars.

233: There needs to be no set environment, because play can happen anywhere, like sports. It depends on what type of play there is.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 6 Section 0, Para 236, 128 chars.

236: Around carefree, easy going people. And you gotta be in the right place, like sometimes it’s just not the right place at all. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 18 of 36 Non-literal~What ifsPassage 1 of 9 Section 0, Para 64, 40 chars.

64: Attitude you have to be not so serious.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 9 Section 0, Para 66, 44 chars.

66: It’s not serious, and you have fun doing it.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 9 Section 0, Para 73, 212 chars.

73: When I was little, like everybody had imaginary friends and stuff, and I did, then when, but when you’re little and in a group you make up lots of games on your own and play make believe and like house and stuff.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 9 Section 0, Para 75, 358 chars.

75: I used to play with rocks and stuff; when I got in trouble and my mom would send me to my room, I used to play and stuff and I would never like learn my lesson, so she took everything out of my room, like all my toys, and left like a rock collection, and I used to play with my rock collection, make kings and queens, it was awesome. I was very imaginative.

169

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 5 of 9 Section 0, Paras 77 to 78, 165 chars.

77: You’re like giggling, like we’re playing right now! You’re not being serious, you’re letting some stress out.78: There’s a fine line between playing around and just ….————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 9 Section 0, Para 81, 110 chars.

81: You’re like giggling, like we’re playing right now! You’re not being serious, you’re letting some stress out.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 9 Section 0, Para 119, 164 chars.

119: You can’t really play the same way you do as a kid when you get older, like I know everybody played doctor when they were little, right? Yes, yeah, I played house.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 9 Section 0, Para 124, 318 chars.

124: Play when you’re younger, when you started out, like that’s how you learned. Like when you play with toys as your younger, you pick up eye hand coordination. What do you do when you play? You mock things. Not like mock as in being sarcastic, but like you’re playing house, you’re like, you’re playing what you see.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 9 Section 0, Para 128, 544 chars.

128: It’s like when you’re little you’re innocent about like, uh, like where the media comes in, I took a media class in high school that was really cool and interesting, and when you’re younger you’re not really affected by all of that stuff because you don’t really know, and then when you get older there’s like a whole lot of sex in the media and and all that stuff and it really has an influence on you. You know, like when you mature and everything then you have other feelings and then it takes away the simplicity of when you were younger.129: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 19 of 36 Non-Work~Goal FreePassage 1 of 14 Section 0, Para 16, 41 chars.

16: Something other than work that you enjoy.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 14 Section 0, Para 17, 33 chars.

17: Leaving base in civilian clothes.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 14 Section 0, Para 18, 25 chars.

18: Anything extracurricular.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 14 Section 0, Para 32, 39 chars.

32: Anything besides work that’s enjoyable.

170

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 5 of 14 Section 0, Para 55, 48 chars.

55: Having fun but at the same time having no goals.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 14 Section 0, Para 75, 358 chars.

75: I used to play with rocks and stuff; when I got in trouble and my mom would send me to my room, I used to play and stuff and I would never like learn my lesson, so she took everything out of my room, like all my toys, and left like a rock collection, and I used to play with my rock collection, make kings and queens, it was awesome. I was very imaginative.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 14 Section 0, Para 80, 139 chars.

80: There’s a fine line between playing around and just life and working, maybe it depends on your personality and type of mood that you’re in.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 14 Section 0, Para 209, 271 chars.

209: Work is not play; we think it is more intense. Work is like something we don’t want to do. Work is serious. To me it is “I have to go to work”, but play is fun. When you play you can quit anytime you want; work is meeting deadlines. Working is a duty, not an option.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 14 Section 0, Para 217, 8 chars.

217: Freedom.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 14 Section 0, Para 221, 8 chars.

221: No work.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 14 Section 0, Para 222, 31 chars.

222: Anything that is not mandatory.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 14 Section 0, Para 223, 36 chars.

223: Something I can have a choice over.224: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 14 Section 0, Para 242, 50 chars.

242: Be with friends, attitude, no rules, no timelines ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 14 Section 0, Para 344, 325 chars.

344: A lot of people learn better when they’re not so serious. Like in this atmosphere I can learn a lot better than in boot camp. In boot camp you are so stressed out and they talk in a monotone and you’re tired the whole time. Like when you’re here, even if you’re tired, we have fun in class and you’re willing to be here.

171

————————————————————————————————————————

Node 20 of 36 OtherPassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 21, 24 chars.

21: Better than being bored.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 25, 83 chars.

25: Something that isn’t boring, or that catches your eye. Something that is humorous.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 38, 45 chars.

38: Something to keep you active, not being bored————————————————————————————————————————

Node 21 of 36 PerformancePassage 1 of 6 Section 0, Para 47, 28 chars.

47: Wouldn’t mind doing it again————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 6 Section 0, Para 274, 262 chars.

274: Battlestation was like, everything we did in battlestation we had already done it once, in class, they made it like an all night thing and we redone everything we did. The first time was like the training experience, and in battlestation it was the actual plan.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 6 Section 0, Para 288, 283 chars.

288: If it’s raining there you’re actually rained on; it’s just like real life; you can get hurt doing it. We learned how to handle situations like this; learned how to handle stress; best way to learn it. Very long night, too. If you didn’t do well you didn’t get out of boot camp. 289: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 6 Section 0, Para 332, 33 chars.

332: It makes me able to do it better.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 6 Section 0, Para 349, 48 chars.

349: What you learn through play has to be achievable————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 6 Section 0, Para 364, 201 chars.

364: If there is a time restriction, it isn’t fun it’s more like work. With time restrictions, at a certain point you stop playing and working to finish, and then all the fun is gone and it becomes work. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 22 of 36 Play toolsPassage 1 of 12 Section 0, Para 103, 93 chars.

172

103: I put away my toys from childhood and now my toys are different, like joysticks or wrestling.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 12 Section 0, Para 107, 86 chars.

107: The things you play with also mature as you do; it’s like you play with older things.108: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 12 Section 0, Para 109, 31 chars.

109: I don’t play with toys anymore.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 12 Section 0, Para 113, 42 chars.

113: The toy pieces got smaller as I got older.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 12 Section 0, Para 118, 61 chars.

118: You do different things, like you get a car when you’re older————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 12 Section 0, Para 127, 134 chars.

127: When you’re smaller, like just simple things are things you can have fun with, like blocks and stuff, and now we’re playing with cars.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 12 Section 0, Para 130, 21 chars.

130: I threw my LEGO’s out————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 12 Section 0, Para 131, 12 chars.

131: No more toys————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 12 Section 0, Para 132, 27 chars.

132: More expensive, bigger toys————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 12 Section 0, Para 144, 145 chars.

144: In the next five years my play will be more like recreation, like camping or skiing. Or maybe it will be scheduled play, like having a tee time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 12 Section 0, Para 214, 45 chars.

214: Some form of toys, or something to play with.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 12 Section 0, Para 247, 225 chars.

247: Play was used as a relaxer. We played board games to learn things, like jeopardy in boot camp. Or we used to make a board game, or a video of what we were learning. Or sometimes we had a simulation, like a mock government.

173

————————————————————————————————————————

Node 23 of 36 PleasurablePassage 1 of 6 Section 0, Para 87, 25 chars.

87: You’re having a good time————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 6 Section 0, Para 90, 48 chars.

90: Pleasant mood, in your own world, free of stress————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 6 Section 0, Para 215, 54 chars.

215: Anything that brings good feelings or happy thoughts.216: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 6 Section 0, Para 227, 28 chars.

227: Something that is desirable.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 6 Section 0, Para 235, 35 chars.

235: You have to be in the right mood. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 6 Section 0, Para 243, 37 chars.

243: No stress, comfortable environments, ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 24 of 36 RelaxedPassage 1 of 4 Section 0, Para 67, 89 chars.

67: You play more when you are more relaxed, like when you are being really happy and silly.68: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 4 Section 0, Para 91, 21 chars.

91: Relax, let guard down————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 4 Section 0, Para 232, 23 chars.

232: You need to be relaxed.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 4 Section 0, Para 247, 225 chars.

247: Play was used as a relaxer. We played board games to learn things, like jeopardy in boot camp. Or we used to make a board game, or a video of what we were learning. Or sometimes we had a simulation, like a mock government.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 25 of 36 Self-generatedPassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 56, 45 chars.

174

56: Doing things on a whim or spur of the moment.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 73, 212 chars.

73: When I was little, like everybody had imaginary friends and stuff, and I did, then when, but when you’re little and in a group you make up lots of games on your own and play make believe and like house and stuff.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 96, 39 chars.

96: Toys now I can have fun when I want to————————————————————————————————————————

Node 26 of 36 Sense of humor~FunPassage 1 of 27 Section 0, Para 11, 36 chars.

11: Something fun that everybody enjoys.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 27 Section 0, Para 12, 35 chars.

12: Having fun with what you are doing.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 27 Section 0, Para 14, 11 chars.

14: Having fun.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 27 Section 0, Para 20, 14 chars.

20: Something fun.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 27 Section 0, Para 21, 24 chars.

21: Better than being bored.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 27 Section 0, Para 25, 83 chars.

25: Something that isn’t boring, or that catches your eye. Something that is humorous.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 27 Section 0, Para 33, 11 chars.

33: Having fun.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 27 Section 0, Para 34, 20 chars.

34: Anything that’s fun.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 27 Section 0, Para 36, 10 chars.

36: Having fun————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 27 Section 0, Para 55, 48 chars.

55: Having fun but at the same time having no goals.

175

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 11 of 27 Section 0, Para 66, 44 chars.

66: It’s not serious, and you have fun doing it.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 27 Section 0, Para 120, 54 chars.

120: When you’re younger you think different things are fun————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 27 Section 0, Para 147, 52 chars.

147: Play will be like having fun, but on a serious note.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 27 Section 0, Para 194, 74 chars.

194: You can learn more if it is fun, and it is easier to relate to the lesson.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 27 Section 0, Para 199, 117 chars.

199: I always fall asleep in this class until we start having fun, and then I’m like, I’m awake, which isn’t very often. 200: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 16 of 27 Section 0, Para 201, 128 chars.

201: It depends. You know if you type on a computer and you’re playing a game, learning and playing and having fun at the same time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 17 of 27 Section 0, Para 205, 262 chars.

205: Sometimes we have fun with our PT sometimes. Like when we’re playing a game, and you know you try to beat people, and your environment you might be PT’ing and going a long ways but if you’re with your friends you might be laughing and playing at the same time206: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 18 of 27 Section 0, Para 226, 4 chars.

226: Fun.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 19 of 27 Section 0, Para 231, 6 chars.

231: Humor.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 20 of 27 Section 0, Para 275, 94 chars.

275: Our class here started out serious, we have to learn things and whatever, but we have fun at t————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 21 of 27 Section 0, Para 276, 260 chars.

276: Our instructors are really good, like they’re strict, they have their ways of doing things, they know what they’re doing, you know, but

176

they have a really good attitude and their positive and they never make us feel stupid or anything. They joke around a lot.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 22 of 27 Section 0, Para 283, 62 chars.

283: We learned what battlestation was about; done in a fun manner;————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 23 of 27 Section 0, Para 338, 31 chars.

338: Play makes it more funner (sp.)————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 24 of 27 Section 0, Para 342, 168 chars.

342: Oh, I think it does. I think you associate the fun time with whatever subject you are learning, then whenever you think about it you have a positive attitude about it.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 25 of 27 Section 0, Para 343, 72 chars.

343: You’re more willing to learn as long as there is fun involved with it. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 26 of 27 Section 0, Para 346, 28 chars.

346: Makes it easier if it is fun————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 27 of 27 Section 0, Para 347, 85 chars.

347: If it is challenging and fun at the same time, people will learn better and do better————————————————————————————————————————

Node 27 of 36 SillinessPassage 1 of 1 Section 0, Para 67, 89 chars.

67: You play more when you are more relaxed, like when you are being really happy and silly.68: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 28 of 36 Socially-DependentPassage 1 of 27 Section 0, Para 71, 26 chars.

71: Depends on who you’re with————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 27 Section 0, Para 72, 156 chars.

72: If you’re with a really cute guy you’ll be sucking in your stomach and sticking out your chest, but if you’re with your friend you’ll act totally different.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 27 Section 0, Para 73, 212 chars.

73: When I was little, like everybody had imaginary friends and stuff, and I did, then when, but when you’re little and in a group you make up

177

lots of games on your own and play make believe and like house and stuff.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 27 Section 0, Para 79, 65 chars.

79: It’s laughing, it’s coming together as a group, playing together.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 27 Section 0, Para 83, 65 chars.

83: It’s laughing, it’s coming together as a group, playing together.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 27 Section 0, Para 114, 102 chars.

114: Now I am more competitive, in games more, playing against others. That’s different than when I was a ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 27 Section 0, Para 160, 47 chars.

160: You have to find the right person to play with.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 27 Section 0, Para 205, 262 chars.

205: Sometimes we have fun with our PT sometimes. Like when we’re playing a game, and you know you try to beat people, and your environment you might be PT’ing and going a long ways but if you’re with your friends you might be laughing and playing at the same time206: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 27 Section 0, Para 213, 18 chars.

213: Enjoyment, friends————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 27 Section 0, Para 218, 63 chars.

218: Being comfortable with people around you so that you can play.219: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 27 Section 0, Para 225, 32 chars.

225: People who you enjoy being with.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 27 Section 0, Para 228, 64 chars.

228: A comfort zone you have to know the people around you a little.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 27 Section 0, Para 230, 14 chars.

230: A fun teacher.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 27 Section 0, Para 236, 128 chars.

236: Around carefree, easy going people. And you gotta be in the right place, like sometimes it’s just not the right place at all. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 27 Section 0, Para 239, 7 chars.

178

239: Friends————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 16 of 27 Section 0, Para 240, 21 chars.

240: Interact with friends————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 17 of 27 Section 0, Para 242, 50 chars.

242: Be with friends, attitude, no rules, no timelines ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 18 of 27 Section 0, Para 249, 128 chars.

249: The good teachers I had weren’t so serious, and you could joke with them, and they made learning fun by being playful in class.250: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 19 of 27 Section 0, Paras 253 to 254, 165 chars.

253: Once in class the teacher put in fake teeth as a surprise, and it was funny and helped me to remember more.254: During PT (physical training), we can play, and we learn.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 20 of 27 Section 0, Para 256, 110 chars.

256: Once we played word games, and the teacher split the class into groups, and each group had topics to figure ou————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 21 of 27 Section 0, Para 256, 73 chars.

256: We’ve done skits and situational things where we learned while playing. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 22 of 27 Section 0, Para 257, 102 chars.

257: We played during Battlestation and Captain’s Cup there were incentives, like getting more phone time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 23 of 27 Section 0, Para 264, 122 chars.

264: We had a Captain’s Cup which was like a big Olympics thing, taught us about teamwork, and that was fun, learning teamwork.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 24 of 27 Section 0, Paras 269 to 270, 125 chars.

269: It’s where we fought fires, and learned how to get people out of burning buildings, 270: It’s 12 hours of learning, 2:00 to 2:00.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 25 of 27 Section 0, Para 275, 94 chars.

275: Our class here started out serious, we have to learn things and whatever, but we have fun at t————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 26 of 27 Section 0, Para 277, 1066 chars.

179

277: n high school, here’s a good one, in high school I remember that we did this…it started off as a game and we didn’t think we were going to learn anything from it. Um, we were studying like Hitler and everything, during the time of Hitler, so the teacher like pulled us aside and like gave a couple people tags that went on, you know, and you had to wear the tag around. Now, they got people…the people with the tags you couldn’t talk to, and so if you talked to them, the people with the tags, you got a tag put on you. Then they started… and if you turned somebody in, if you said I saw that person, then they’d get the tag and you’d get bonus points. So it showed, you know, how like everybody started turning each other in and everything like that, and it showed how Hitler started the rules. It started off as a game, but by the time when everybody had tags for like doing things and everything, and you saw how the people were like, you know, it showed what people will do. You learned that everybody turned against it. I don’t know how to explain it….278: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 27 of 27 Section 0, Paras 279 to 280, 85 chars.

279: Captain’s Cup, Battlestation280: Battlestation competition, lot of fun, lasted all night————————————————————————————————————————

Node 29 of 36 SpontaneousPassage 1 of 1 Section 0, Para 56, 45 chars.

56: Doing things on a whim or spur of the moment.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 30 of 36 StimulatingPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 21, 24 chars.

21: Better than being bored.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 25, 83 chars.

25: Something that isn’t boring, or that catches your eye. Something that is humorous.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 31 of 36 Time on Task~FocusPassage 1 of 10 Section 0, Para 146, 65 chars.

146: In the future, my play will be more serious play-like activities.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 10 Section 0, Para 147, 52 chars.

147: Play will be like having fun, but on a serious note.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 10 Section 0, Para 152, 98 chars.

152: I’ll have more authority and be in charge, more serious and responsible, don’t mean any less play.

180

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 4 of 10 Section 0, Para 153, 73 chars.

153: Then I’ll know my limits, and know when to be serious and when not to be.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 10 Section 0, Para 198, 108 chars.

198: And if you have to learn something, it’s a lot better to learn it while having fun. You pay more attention.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 10 Section 0, Para 310, 71 chars.

310: All attention is in the activity, and you are drawn into it completely.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 10 Section 0, Para 320, 63 chars.

320: When you’re working you might look at the clock every 5 minutes————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 10 Section 0, Para 325, 53 chars.

325: ’m more likely to pay attention if I know I can play.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 10 Section 0, Para 333, 23 chars.

333: My mind doesn’t wander.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 10 Section 0, Para 334, 28 chars.

334: I can pay attention better.335: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 32 of 36 Timelessness~FlowPassage 1 of 26 Section 0, Para 46, 16 chars.

46: No sense of time————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 26 Section 0, Para 57, 81 chars.

57: Reactionary; play happens when you don’t have to think about it, it just happens.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 26 Section 0, Para 58, 14 chars.

58: Time flies by.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 26 Section 0, Para 63, 33 chars.

63: Time going by faster than normal.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 26 Section 0, Para 88, 49 chars.

88: You might lose track of time if you’re having fun

181

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 6 of 26 Section 0, Para 89, 52 chars.

89: Not thinking about other things that might worry you————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 26 Section 0, Para 90, 48 chars.

90: Pleasant mood, in your own world, free of stress————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 26 Section 0, Para 293, 20 chars.

293: Time is transparent.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 26 Section 0, Para 294, 31 chars.

294: It’s gone, you don’t notice it.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 26 Section 0, Para 295, 35 chars.

295: When I’m playing I have no worries.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 26 Section 0, Para 296, 18 chars.

296: Time is shortened.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 26 Section 0, Para 298, 22 chars.

298: You don’t notice time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 26 Section 0, Para 299, 18 chars.

299: Time just goes by.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 26 Section 0, Para 301, 14 chars.

301: Time flies by.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 26 Section 0, Para 302, 68 chars.

302: You have enjoyment, meaning you don’t pay attention to other things.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 16 of 26 Section 0, Para 305, 19 chars.

305: Time goes by quick.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 17 of 26 Section 0, Para 307, 18 chars.

307: Time goes by fast.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 18 of 26 Section 0, Para 308, 28 chars.

308: There is no concept of time.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 19 of 26 Section 0, Para 309, 46 chars.

182

309: When you are being entertained, time flies by.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 20 of 26 Section 0, Para 310, 71 chars.

310: All attention is in the activity, and you are drawn into it completely.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 21 of 26 Section 0, Para 312, 215 chars.

312: It flies. You’re not aware of time at all. I think people get in trouble, miss curfew. When you are a child, you don’t realize that time is going by, but when it’s over, you’re exhausted and ready to go to sleep.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 22 of 26 Section 0, Paras 313 to 314, 459 chars.

313: When you’re younger, the time, I don’t know, it just, I remember when I was younger I remember the whole year revolved around Christmas and the time went so slow, but now the older you get, the time goes really fast. When you’re little you don’t have any conception of time. It seems like forever when you’re little.314: Now we have to manage our time now, we don’t have as much fun as we did when we were smaller. It’s like you have to plan out your fun now.315: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 23 of 26 Section 0, Para 316, 10 chars.

316: It goes by————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 24 of 26 Section 0, Para 317, 8 chars.

317: Flies by————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 25 of 26 Section 0, Para 318, 14 chars.

318: Not noticeable————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 26 of 26 Section 0, Para 319, 11 chars.

319: Nonexistent————————————————————————————————————————

No other nodes in this set code this document.

183

Appendix H

QSR NVivo Summary of Instructor Interview Coding Report

NVivo revision 1.0.118 Licensee: Codone

Project: Revised User: Codones Date: 2/20/00 - 11:05:31 AMDOCUMENT CODING REPORT

Document: instructor summaryCreated: 2/20/00 - 11:01:30 AMModified: 2/20/00 - 11:05:23 AMDescription:

Instructor Summary

Nodes in Set: All Free NodesNode 1 of 36 Intrinsic motivationPassage 1 of 1 Section 0, Para 22, 73 chars.

22: Play is effective if it increases or motivates the individuals interest, ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 2 of 36 Focused AttentionPassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 15, 134 chars.

15: Those that appeal to the participant or individual, something that holds the interest of the individual, or may appeal to that person.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 22, 73 chars.

22: Play is effective if it increases or motivates the individuals interest, ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 52, 102 chars.

52: For the most part, if you capture someone’s interest by using play they want to participate and learn.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 3 of 36 Joy~EnjoymentPassage 1 of 7 Section 0, Para 4, 32 chars.

4: Enjoying oneself and having fun.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 7 Section 0, Para 5, 108 chars.

5: The act of play to me will be defined as enjoying oneself with an interesting activity of a physical nature.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 7 Section 0, Para 9, 26 chars.

9: Enjoyable social activity.

184

————————————————————————————————————————Passage 4 of 7 Section 0, Para 17, 43 chars.

17: Joy and laughter and enthusiastic attitude.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 7 Section 0, Para 24, 104 chars.

24: If something is enjoyable and fun, which is a direct indicator of play, it will be excepted more freely.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 7 Section 0, Para 54, 113 chars.

54: I feel confident because I know the students are learning and if they are enjoying it, they will learn it better.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 7 Section 0, Para 61, 245 chars.

61: Play is useful as long as its not over used. There becomes a point when you may miss the point of instruction. Play if used must be used for difficult areas of instruction. Students, depending on age, I feel enjoy play combined with learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 4 of 36 ExuberancePassage 1 of 1 Section 0, Para 17, 43 chars.

17: Joy and laughter and enthusiastic attitude.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 5 of 36 CompetitivePassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 34, 187 chars.

34: In the classroom, we used magnetic cards with the names of pubs on them and made a game of it. Upon the completion of the game, the class was able to recall a vast amount of information.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 36, 139 chars.

36: In class I created a baseball game and if you answered a question (depending on the difficulty) you would get a hit (single, double, etc).37: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 79, 77 chars.

79: Make it a competitive program, example trivia will have to beat a high score.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 6 of 36 Helps Knowledge AcquisitionPassage 1 of 7 Section 0, Para 24, 104 chars.

24: If something is enjoyable and fun, which is a direct indicator of play, it will be excepted more freely.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 7 Section 0, Para 34, 187 chars.

185

34: In the classroom, we used magnetic cards with the names of pubs on them and made a game of it. Upon the completion of the game, the class was able to recall a vast amount of information.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 7 Section 0, Para 36, 139 chars.

36: In class I created a baseball game and if you answered a question (depending on the difficulty) you would get a hit (single, double, etc).37: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 7 Section 0, Para 52, 102 chars.

52: For the most part, if you capture someone’s interest by using play they want to participate and learn.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 7 Section 0, Para 54, 113 chars.

54: I feel confident because I know the students are learning and if they are enjoying it, they will learn it better.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 7 Section 0, Para 69, 235 chars.

69: Play should be designed to assist a student with difficult learning. Training must be measurable. What is the trainee expected to do after the training? Elements when written or implied must have behavior, conditions, and standards.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 7 Section 0, Para 77, 52 chars.

77: As a tool to encourage or motivate student learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 7 of 36 Timelessness~FlowPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 43, 147 chars.

43: When actively involved in play time moves rapidly. Individuals are more involved because you have their attention, rather than watching the clock.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 45, 100 chars.

45: Passage of time goes quickly if the play is interesting, the awareness of time is all but forgotten.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 8 of 36 Constructive Illusion~GroupPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 34, 187 chars.

34: In the classroom, we used magnetic cards with the names of pubs on them and made a game of it. Upon the completion of the game, the class was able to recall a vast amount of information.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 36, 139 chars.

186

36: In class I created a baseball game and if you answered a question (depending on the difficulty) you would get a hit (single, double, etc).37: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 9 of 36 Socially-DependentPassage 1 of 1 Section 0, Para 9, 26 chars.

9: Enjoyable social activity.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 10 of 36 PerformancePassage 1 of 1 Section 0, Para 69, 235 chars.

69: Play should be designed to assist a student with difficult learning. Training must be measurable. What is the trainee expected to do after the training? Elements when written or implied must have behavior, conditions, and standards.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 11 of 36 BalancePassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 23, 95 chars.

23: play can also detract from learning or training, if an individual cannot recall an experience.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 61, 245 chars.

61: Play is useful as long as its not over used. There becomes a point when you may miss the point of instruction. Play if used must be used for difficult areas of instruction. Students, depending on age, I feel enjoy play combined with learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 71, 137 chars.

71: You must have the right concept of play. That will probably be based on age, gender, etc. It must enhance the training, not replace it.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 12 of 36 Edu-tainmentPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 54, 113 chars.

54: I feel confident because I know the students are learning and if they are enjoying it, they will learn it better.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 61, 245 chars.

61: Play is useful as long as its not over used. There becomes a point when you may miss the point of instruction. Play if used must be used for difficult areas of instruction. Students, depending on age, I feel enjoy play combined with learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 13 of 36 Sense of humor~Fun

187

Passage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 4, 32 chars.

4: Enjoying oneself and having fun.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 8, 75 chars.

8: Having fun, participating in an event, acting or behaving in a certain way.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 24, 104 chars.

24: If something is enjoyable and fun, which is a direct indicator of play, it will be excepted more freely.————————————————————————————————————————

No other nodes in this setcode this document.

188

Appendix I

QSR NVivo Summary of Practitioner Interview Coding Report

NVivo revision 1.0.118 Licensee: Codone

Project: Revised User: Codones Date: 2/20/00 - 11:21:23 AMDOCUMENT CODING REPORT

Document: practitionersummaryCreated: 2/20/00 - 11:07:32 AMModified: 2/20/00 - 11:21:16 AMDescription:

Interview Protocol

Nodes in Set: All Free NodesNode 1 of 36 Self-generatedPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 27, 21 chars.

27: Desire to participate————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 28, 44 chars.

28: Voluntary action willingness to participate————————————————————————————————————————

Node 2 of 36 Intrinsic motivationPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 65, 386 chars.

65: As part of a developmental team, I used interactive games and scenario interaction as part of basic living skills training for learners with under educated, low motivational learners with success. I will say that the level of interaction was not to a level I would go for today because our (the company I was with then) development technology (i.e. programming) was at too low a level.66: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Paras 134 to 135, 338 chars.

134: Play is extremely important in learning; it can make a person want to learn, rather than have to learn.135: Play can change the whole atmosphere of learning it can make students “lighten up” so learning can occur in a less pressureful (my word) situation. In that kind of atmosphere, I think learning is accomplished more easily and fully.136: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 3 of 36 StimulatingPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 8, 150 chars.

189

8: Play is fun interaction with another person, animal, or object. It intrigues/stimulates the mind/body in a way that provokes the person to continue. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 37, 675 chars.

37: I think it’s incredibly important. The mind needs stimulation and learns best when stimulated in a variety of ways: visual, aural, etc. The things we remember best are those that stand out to us in some unusual way. For example, it could be something negative or traumatic, such as witnessing a car accident. Or it could be something we think is incredibly funny. Those are the things we remember. We remember them because we found them in some way remarkable. So, if one goal of training is retention of the information, if we make it remarkable in some way, it only stands to reason that the mind will more likely store that info over less remarkable information. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 4 of 36 Focused AttentionPassage 1 of 6 Section 0, Para 14, 172 chars.

14: They might also have furrowed brows as if concentrating, indicating a mild frustration or confounding, but not crossing the level to where they want to quit or are angered.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 6 Section 0, Para 15, 56 chars.

15: The people involved usually have a focus of some sort. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 6 Section 0, Para 16, 104 chars.

16: Individual play has that focus, also. You should feel enjoyment in what you are doing and relaxation.17: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 6 Section 0, Para 25, 20 chars.

25: Activity of interest————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 6 Section 0, Para 40, 565 chars.

40: I think "play" is an integral part of training, particularly for young or low motivational learners. I am a big advocate of learning by simulation of events/tasks. A flight simulator, for instance, can give a learner many of the same scenarios that they would face in a real world event and still carry the feel of play. The learner is being conditioned to react to real world events, in other words being trained, while having fun. It should be noted that the training and the play can be incidental, contingent, or non-existent dependent upon the design of the ma————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 6 Section 0, Para 62, 138 chars.

190

62: We added kind of goofy looking graphics (rotating eyes, madmen, mice) to topics, or elements of surprise to break up a sort of dry topic.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 5 of 36 PleasurablePassage 1 of 5 Section 0, Para 10, 44 chars.

10: Play is anything you do that is pleasurable.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 5 Section 0, Para 30, 74 chars.

30: Correct attitude, not serious; spontaneity. An activity to participate in————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 5 Section 0, Para 70, 132 chars.

70: It makes everything more bearable!!! Time passes quickly and you leave with a good feeling, even when you are still glad it’s over.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 5 Section 0, Para 83, 118 chars.

83: I think the feelings are usually positive or at least more positive than it would be if it weren’t taught using play.84: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 5 Section 0, Paras 134 to 135, 338 chars.

134: Play is extremely important in learning; it can make a person want to learn, rather than have to learn.135: Play can change the whole atmosphere of learning it can make students “lighten up” so learning can occur in a less pressureful (my word) situation. In that kind of atmosphere, I think learning is accomplished more easily and fully.136: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 6 of 36 Joy~EnjoymentPassage 1 of 6 Section 0, Para 11, 55 chars.

11: Any activity that I find enjoyable and that relaxes me.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 6 Section 0, Para 16, 104 chars.

16: Individual play has that focus, also. You should feel enjoyment in what you are doing and relaxation.17: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 6 Section 0, Para 19, 84 chars.

19: Excitement, laughter, sometimes competition, enjoyment, being silly, being outdoors.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 6 Section 0, Para 20, 295 chars.

191

20: "Play" for me doesn't necessarily need to be a physical activity. For me, if I am enjoying what I am doing, be it reading a book, playing a sport, or simply watching a movie with my wife, the indicators are usually the same… just a feeling of enjoyment… and would meet my definition of "play". 21: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 6 Section 0, Para 31, 375 chars.

31: I think the indicators are much the same as the elements for me. I think enjoyment without accountability for my time is a good indicator. I "enjoy" my job but I am accountable for the hours I am here so that would not qualify whereas I may be doing much the same thing at home on my personal computer and call it play because I am accountable only to myself for that time. 32: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 6 Section 0, Para 132, 188 chars.

132: The overall role of play in learning or training is to aid in the learning process by helping retention AND providing a positive environment that the learner looks forward to returning to!————————————————————————————————————————

Node 7 of 36 ExuberancePassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 14, 113 chars.

14: People who are engaged in the activity might be recognized by smiles, laughter, or discussion with one another. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 15, 139 chars.

15: In groups, play usually involves laughter and camaraderie, a sense of working together to achieve something as a group or a side on a team.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 19, 84 chars.

19: Excitement, laughter, sometimes competition, enjoyment, being silly, being outdoors.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 8 of 36 SillinessPassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 10, 132 chars.

10: To me, play is that childlike ability to just lose yourself in whatever you are doing. You should feel comfortable acting silly. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 19, 84 chars.

19: Excitement, laughter, sometimes competition, enjoyment, being silly, being outdoors.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 29, 271 chars.

192

29: You need to be relatively free from distractions and interruptions. You shouldn’t be too pressed for time. You need to be in the mood for play --- if you are crabby, that fun, happy kid-like feeling is not likely to occur. You need to be open to childlike silliness. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 9 of 36 RelaxedPassage 1 of 5 Section 0, Para 11, 55 chars.

11: Any activity that I find enjoyable and that relaxes me.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 5 Section 0, Para 16, 104 chars.

16: Individual play has that focus, also. You should feel enjoyment in what you are doing and relaxation.17: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 5 Section 0, Para 85, 249 chars.

85: It makes it more fun. It also seems to take some of the pressure off, as if the learning can proceed in a more light-hearted fashion. I think you would learn things more easily in a more casual setting --- lees pressure to interfere with learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 5 Section 0, Paras 134 to 135, 338 chars.

134: Play is extremely important in learning; it can make a person want to learn, rather than have to learn.135: Play can change the whole atmosphere of learning it can make students “lighten up” so learning can occur in a less pressureful (my word) situation. In that kind of atmosphere, I think learning is accomplished more easily and fully.136: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 5 Section 0, Para 139, 611 chars.

139: Play can be utilized to enhance the level of knowledge taken away from a training event by adding a level of immediacy to the training (i.e. using the skills being developed in real time rather than at a later time) and by taking the pressure of standard educational training away and introducing a more relaxed learning environment. I feel that this more relaxed learning environment is more conducive to better, more comprehensive learning of the desired skill. The caveat is, as always, is that the training MUST be skillfully developed to ride the fine line between "training play" and "mindless play". 140: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 10 of 36 EmpowermentPassage 1 of 4 Section 0, Para 14, 184 chars.

14: The continuation of the activity itself (such as a game of tag) also indicates play (unless play is forced unlikely at that point it’s no longer play, so add voluntary to the list!).————————————————————————————————————————

193

Passage 2 of 4 Section 0, Para 51, 430 chars.

51: I can’t think of anything unstructured I have learned, other than work related things. Learning to use Flash has been fun, though. The challenge of trying to accomplish something I wasn’t sure I could do is fun. The challenge of being able to create something new and cool looking is fun. Being given a challenging task, and having to find a way to work my way through it is what pushed me to learn how to use a new program..52: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 4 Section 0, Para 53, 200 chars.

53: I was trying to teach my fellow band member a song (rhythym) I wrote and my keyboardist told me he hated 6/8 time. I didn’t even realize that I wrote it in that time signature. He couldn’t keep up!————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 4 Section 0, Para 114, 341 chars.

114: Immersion of the student in a simulation that is both entertaining, interactive, and instructive is a difficult development process. The "play" must include learner control of events to be effective. Everything from screen design and navigation strategy to types of multimedia utilized can influence the level effectiveness of the training. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 11 of 36 CompetitivePassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 19, 84 chars.

19: Excitement, laughter, sometimes competition, enjoyment, being silly, being outdoors.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 63, 170 chars.

63: To aid in learning multiplication facts, I had the students roll two dice, multiply the faces and call out the correct answer. If they got it right, they got the points.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 12 of 36 Helps Knowledge AcquisitionPassage 1 of 15 Section 0, Para 37, 675 chars.

37: I think it’s incredibly important. The mind needs stimulation and learns best when stimulated in a variety of ways: visual, aural, etc. The things we remember best are those that stand out to us in some unusual way. For example, it could be something negative or traumatic, such as witnessing a car accident. Or it could be something we think is incredibly funny. Those are the things we remember. We remember them because we found them in some way remarkable. So, if one goal of training is retention of the information, if we make it remarkable in some way, it only stands to reason that the mind will more likely store that info over less remarkable information. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 15 Section 0, Para 38, 331 chars.

194

38: Play can make learning more fun. If play can make learning so fun, so engrossing that the student loses him of herself in the learning, I think the student would be much more likely to retain the information. It would probably make that person want to continue to learn more, also something to look forward to rather than dread. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 15 Section 0, Para 40, 565 chars.

40: I think "play" is an integral part of training, particularly for young or low motivational learners. I am a big advocate of learning by simulation of events/tasks. A flight simulator, for instance, can give a learner many of the same scenarios that they would face in a real world event and still carry the feel of play. The learner is being conditioned to react to real world events, in other words being trained, while having fun. It should be noted that the training and the play can be incidental, contingent, or non-existent dependent upon the design of the ma————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 15 Section 0, Para 47, 154 chars.

47: I also learn well by using dirty mnemonics, etc., to help me remember. I think they are amusing in and of themselves, so that’s probably why they work. 48: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 15 Section 0, Para 53, 200 chars.

53: I was trying to teach my fellow band member a song (rhythym) I wrote and my keyboardist told me he hated 6/8 time. I didn’t even realize that I wrote it in that time signature. He couldn’t keep up!————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 15 Section 0, Para 55, 326 chars.

55: I can remember learning bits and pieces of French when my wife's family was here from Canada. It was both fun and instructive but by no means organized or structured learning. I found myself starting to pick out one or two words at a time and being able to follow the flow of conversation despite my not knowing the language. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 15 Section 0, Para 60, 624 chars.

60: How ‘bout when I was designing/developing the Mail Ops topic. I needed to teach a list of items that could indicate that a package was a mail bomb. Rather than trying to memorize 7 items, I found a way to string them together into a mnemonic to aid in retention: RIDE Wire Ticks to Safety. I won’t bore you with what each part stood for, but using this mnemonic in conjunction with humorous related graphic should make this list memorable to the learner. The SME still brings this up to me months later, so the mnemonic stuck. We will have to see through beta tests whether what the mnemonic represented was retained.61: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 15 Section 0, Para 62, 138 chars.

195

62: We added kind of goofy looking graphics (rotating eyes, madmen, mice) to topics, or elements of surprise to break up a sort of dry topic.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 9 of 15 Section 0, Para 88, 197 chars.

88: I believe the skill being acquired becomes secondary (in feel) to the interactive activity. In other words the training is not necessarily on a conscious level until after the activity is complete.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 10 of 15 Section 0, Para 94, 340 chars.

94: It makes me excited about the instruction because I feel that I am helping the learner and not just presenting page after page of information. I feel like I’m communicating with the learner, even though we may never meet. I also feel that the play and humor I interject into topics might be the only fun or quasi-fun he may have all day.95: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 11 of 15 Section 0, Paras 96 to 97, 274 chars.

96: It makes it more fun. It’s challenging to try to think of things that will make a topic more fun for students. It’s probably more fun to try to come up with fun ideas than the final lesson. It makes work more interesting, too. 97: You become more excited about the content.98: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 12 of 15 Section 0, Para 99, 168 chars.

99: I'm not sure what you mean. I guess it makes me feel like the chance of this being successful training will be enhanced if the learner is immersed in a fun activity. 100: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 13 of 15 Section 0, Para 132, 188 chars.

132: The overall role of play in learning or training is to aid in the learning process by helping retention AND providing a positive environment that the learner looks forward to returning to!————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 14 of 15 Section 0, Paras 134 to 135, 338 chars.

134: Play is extremely important in learning; it can make a person want to learn, rather than have to learn.135: Play can change the whole atmosphere of learning it can make students “lighten up” so learning can occur in a less pressureful (my word) situation. In that kind of atmosphere, I think learning is accomplished more easily and fully.136: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 15 of 15 Section 0, Para 139, 611 chars.

196

139: Play can be utilized to enhance the level of knowledge taken away from a training event by adding a level of immediacy to the training (i.e. using the skills being developed in real time rather than at a later time) and by taking the pressure of standard educational training away and introducing a more relaxed learning environment. I feel that this more relaxed learning environment is more conducive to better, more comprehensive learning of the desired skill. The caveat is, as always, is that the training MUST be skillfully developed to ride the fine line between "training play" and "mindless play". 140: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 13 of 36 SpontaneousPassage 1 of 1 Section 0, Para 30, 74 chars.

30: Correct attitude, not serious; spontaneity. An activity to participate in————————————————————————————————————————

Node 14 of 36 Timelessness~FlowPassage 1 of 5 Section 0, Para 10, 97 chars.

10: t is engrossing enough that you lose yourself in whatever you are doing; you lose track of time. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 5 Section 0, Para 70, 132 chars.

70: It makes everything more bearable!!! Time passes quickly and you leave with a good feeling, even when you are still glad it’s over.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 5 Section 0, Para 72, 65 chars.

72: You lose track of time --- and it speeds by before you know it.73: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 5 Section 0, Para 74, 77 chars.

74: When engaged in play, time seems to speed up and awareness of time decreases.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 5 Section 0, Para 76, 361 chars.

76: The time accountability requirement I mentioned above becomes a non-factor in the equation if the learner doesn't perceive accountability. In other words, someone going into flight school for the Air Force might play on a simulator at home whereas for someone in Flight School, the same simulator play looses it's playful feel and becomes work or work related. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 15 of 36 Non-Work~Goal FreePassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 9, 90 chars.

197

9: define play as any activity not "feeling" like work or required for everyday subsistence.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 10, 35 chars.

10: Play is freedom from adult worries.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 31, 375 chars.

31: I think the indicators are much the same as the elements for me. I think enjoyment without accountability for my time is a good indicator. I "enjoy" my job but I am accountable for the hours I am here so that would not qualify whereas I may be doing much the same thing at home on my personal computer and call it play because I am accountable only to myself for that time. 32: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 16 of 36 Socially-DependentPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 15, 139 chars.

15: In groups, play usually involves laughter and camaraderie, a sense of working together to achieve something as a group or a side on a team.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 15, 56 chars.

15: The people involved usually have a focus of some sort. ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 17 of 36 PerformancePassage 1 of 4 Section 0, Para 15, 139 chars.

15: In groups, play usually involves laughter and camaraderie, a sense of working together to achieve something as a group or a side on a team.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 4 Section 0, Para 45, 263 chars.

45: I can’t recall a specific instance, but I can say that I learn well when I can DO the activity, rather than just hear about it. I have a difficult time retaining for the long term a list of steps unless they are reinforced by the actual activity or a simulation.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 4 Section 0, Para 51, 429 chars.

51: I can’t think of anything unstructured I have learned, other than work related things. Learning to use Flash has been fun, though. The challenge of trying to accomplish something I wasn’t sure I could do is fun. The challenge of being able to create something new and cool looking is fun. Being given a challenging task, and having to find a way to work my way through it is what pushed me to learn how to use a new program..————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 4 Section 0, Para 86, 114 chars.

198

86: It’s not as meaningful until you use it a more serious situation. Then you feel as though you learned something.87: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 18 of 36 Time on Task~FocusPassage 1 of 2 Section 0, Para 14, 172 chars.

14: They might also have furrowed brows as if concentrating, indicating a mild frustration or confounding, but not crossing the level to where they want to quit or are angered.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 2 Section 0, Para 32, 218 chars.

32: This example can be inconsistent and still remain correct. For instance, a learner may be involved in learning/training of such a nature that the learning becomes play but still remains instructive (i.e. simulations).33: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 19 of 36 BalancePassage 1 of 5 Section 0, Para 39, 123 chars.

39: It allows you to clear your mind before facing tough concepts to learn. It allows for practice or application of concepts.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 5 Section 0, Paras 106 to 108, 712 chars.

106: I also believe you must balance the play so that the play itself is not so engaging that the message is lost. An example of this might be if you were playing musical chairs with 5-year olds. The goal is to get a seat, but let’s say you’ve got the kids so wound up and excited perhaps the music is over-stimulating them, that they are dancing around and acting so wild that when the music stops they are oblivious to that fact and the fact that they are supposed to sit.107: 108: The same applies with adults. My goal in using humor is to make the person have a good chuckle or a smile. I do NOT want them to hysterically laugh or get side stitches. At that point, whatever is supposed to be taught is lost on them.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 5 Section 0, Para 110, 320 chars.

110: Play can be a part of training by making it more interactive the actual getting to be “part of” something makes it more fun. Also, funny things or elements of surprise also could add play to training. But you still have to make sure to get the point of the training across the student must actually learn something. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 5 Section 0, Para 137, 63 chars.

137: It makes for good breaks or transitions between major concepts.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 5 Section 0, Para 139, 611 chars.

199

139: Play can be utilized to enhance the level of knowledge taken away from a training event by adding a level of immediacy to the training (i.e. using the skills being developed in real time rather than at a later time) and by taking the pressure of standard educational training away and introducing a more relaxed learning environment. I feel that this more relaxed learning environment is more conducive to better, more comprehensive learning of the desired skill. The caveat is, as always, is that the training MUST be skillfully developed to ride the fine line between "training play" and "mindless play". 140: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 20 of 36 Fidelity~SimulationPassage 1 of 4 Section 0, Para 40, 565 chars.

40: I think "play" is an integral part of training, particularly for young or low motivational learners. I am a big advocate of learning by simulation of events/tasks. A flight simulator, for instance, can give a learner many of the same scenarios that they would face in a real world event and still carry the feel of play. The learner is being conditioned to react to real world events, in other words being trained, while having fun. It should be noted that the training and the play can be incidental, contingent, or non-existent dependent upon the design of the ma————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 4 Section 0, Para 45, 263 chars.

45: I can’t recall a specific instance, but I can say that I learn well when I can DO the activity, rather than just hear about it. I have a difficult time retaining for the long term a list of steps unless they are reinforced by the actual activity or a simulation.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 4 Section 0, Para 114, 341 chars.

114: Immersion of the student in a simulation that is both entertaining, interactive, and instructive is a difficult development process. The "play" must include learner control of events to be effective. Everything from screen design and navigation strategy to types of multimedia utilized can influence the level effectiveness of the training. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 4 Section 0, Para 126, 271 chars.

126: Training doesn't necessarily need groups of learners interacting across a network to be effective. The same simulators that use network activity can be designed to utilize computer-generated interaction, which duplicate outsider interaction or environmental conditions. 127: ————————————————————————————————————————

Node 21 of 36 Sense of humor~FunPassage 1 of 8 Section 0, Para 8, 150 chars.

200

8: Play is fun interaction with another person, animal, or object. It intrigues/stimulates the mind/body in a way that provokes the person to continue. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 8 Section 0, Para 38, 331 chars.

38: Play can make learning more fun. If play can make learning so fun, so engrossing that the student loses him of herself in the learning, I think the student would be much more likely to retain the information. It would probably make that person want to continue to learn more, also something to look forward to rather than dread. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 8 Section 0, Para 85, 249 chars.

85: It makes it more fun. It also seems to take some of the pressure off, as if the learning can proceed in a more light-hearted fashion. I think you would learn things more easily in a more casual setting --- lees pressure to interfere with learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 8 Section 0, Paras 96 to 97, 274 chars.

96: It makes it more fun. It’s challenging to try to think of things that will make a topic more fun for students. It’s probably more fun to try to come up with fun ideas than the final lesson. It makes work more interesting, too. 97: You become more excited about the content.98: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 8 Section 0, Para 99, 168 chars.

99: I'm not sure what you mean. I guess it makes me feel like the chance of this being successful training will be enhanced if the learner is immersed in a fun activity. 100: ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 6 of 8 Section 0, Para 104, 116 chars.

104: I think you must have a good sense of humor and a willingness to put yourself on the line because many will scoff. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 7 of 8 Section 0, Para 110, 320 chars.

110: Play can be a part of training by making it more interactive the actual getting to be “part of” something makes it more fun. Also, funny things or elements of surprise also could add play to training. But you still have to make sure to get the point of the training across the student must actually learn something. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 8 of 8 Section 0, Paras 123 to 124, 198 chars.

123: Make training more interactivemake them “join in” the lesson. Add humor and fun.124: Puzzles, drag and drop, coloring, rearrange in funny ways. Kid-like activities simulate play without losing focus.125:

201

————————————————————————————————————————

Node 22 of 36 Lack of Anger~StressPassage 1 of 5 Section 0, Para 10, 106 chars.

10: You should feel no pressure to be doing something else. It should be stress free or reduce stress, even.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 5 Section 0, Para 10, 35 chars.

10: Play is freedom from adult worries.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 5 Section 0, Para 14, 172 chars.

14: They might also have furrowed brows as if concentrating, indicating a mild frustration or confounding, but not crossing the level to where they want to quit or are angered.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 4 of 5 Section 0, Para 29, 271 chars.

29: You need to be relatively free from distractions and interruptions. You shouldn’t be too pressed for time. You need to be in the mood for play --- if you are crabby, that fun, happy kid-like feeling is not likely to occur. You need to be open to childlike silliness. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 5 of 5 Section 0, Para 85, 249 chars.

85: It makes it more fun. It also seems to take some of the pressure off, as if the learning can proceed in a more light-hearted fashion. I think you would learn things more easily in a more casual setting --- lees pressure to interfere with learning.————————————————————————————————————————

Node 23 of 36 Play toolsPassage 1 of 3 Section 0, Para 10, 105 chars.

10: It can be anything active play, or passive, such as reading,, painting, or watching a really good movie.————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 2 of 3 Section 0, Para 29, 86 chars.

29: The things you are going to use for play, whether a game, book, movie, players, etc. ————————————————————————————————————————

Passage 3 of 3 Section 0, Para 112, 178 chars.

112: Role play is great for synthesis of information and ideas. Games are better for skills practice. Even in play situations, evaluation (tests or situations) must be administered.————————————————————————————————————————

No other nodes in this setcode this document.

202

Appendix J

Code Glossary

1.0 InternalConcerns indicators of play that affect the player internally, in the areas of emotion, attention, or motivation.

1.1 Self-generated – indicates that the play activity is initiated by the player.1.2 Intrinsic motivation – indicates that the player is motivated by internal desires1.3 Stimulating – indicates that the play activity stimulates other emotions1.4 Focused attention – indicates that the play activity promotes sustained concentration

2.0 Positive AffectConcerns indicators of play that stimulate positive emotion or feelings, such as happiness, pleasure, fun, humor, enjoyment, or silliness.

2.1 Pleasurable – indicates that the play activity promotes a sense of pleasure2.2 Sense of humor/fun – indicates that the play activity promotes humorous feelings, leading to a

description of fun2.3 Joy/Enjoyment – indicates that the play activity promotes joy and an overall sense of enjoyment in the

player2.4 Exuberance – indicates that the play activity promotes joyous unrestrained response in the player.2.5 Silliness – indicates that the play activity promotes feelings of happiness and uninhibited laughter or

humor.2.6 Entertainment – indicates that the play activity is responsible for diverting or engaging the player from

reality.2.7 Edu-tainment – indicates that the play activity promotes learning while at the same time humorously

or positively engaging the player.

3.0 Lack of Negative AffectConcerns indicators of play that prohibit or inhibit negative emotions or feelings, such as anger, stress, or boredom.

3.1 Relaxed – indicates that the play activity promotes feelings of rest or the lack of stress.3.2 Lack of boredom – indicates that the play activity engages the student and prohibits boredom.3.3 Lack of anger/stress – indicates that the play activity prohibits or inhibits angry or stressful feelings.

4.0 Learner Control/Goal-OrientedConcerns indicators of play that orient the learner toward knowledge acquisition or exploration, allowing the learner to maintain control throughout the process.

4.1 Empowerment – indicates that the play activity promotes a new sense of control or management in the player.

4.2 Negotiation – indicates that the play activity involves interchanges between players, such as bartering.4.3 Creative risk-taking – indicates that the play activity promotes risk taking beyond what the player has

done before.4.4 Competitive – indicates that the play activity is composed of striving for an objective, often against

another player4.5 Helps knowledge acquisition – indicates that the play activity makes acquiring new knowledge more

palatable to the player

203

5.0 Process Oriented/ActiveConcerns indicators of play that promote attention or dedication to process or routines, such as time passing without n otice, spontaneity, or constructive illusion.

5.1 Non-literal/what ifs – indicates that the play activity is composed of fantasy or imagined components.5.2 Exploratory – indicates that the play activity promotes investigation and exploration.5.3 Spontaneous – indicates that the play activity occurs without planning.5.4 Timelessness/flow – indicates that the play activity causes the player to become completely engaged

in the activity, losing track of outside events, especially the passage of time5.5 Non-work – indicates the play activity is perceived by the player as being opposite from work5.6 Constructive illusion/individual – indicates the play activity promotes fantasy or daydreams in the

individual player5.7 Constructive illusion/group – indicates the play activity promotes group-oriented pretend scenarios5.8 Location-dependent – indicates the play activity is dependent upon geographic location5.9 Socially-dependent – indicates the play activity is dependent upon the group of players involved in the

activity5.10Performance – indicates the play activity promotes achievement of a goal or objective5.11Balance – indicates that the player desires the play activity to be balanced with reality, especially in a

learning situation5.12Time on task/focus – indicates that the play activity promotes an adherence to detail or attention to the

task at hand

6.0 Play Tools Concerns indicators of play that describe the implements or objects used to initiate, stimulate, or carry out play activities.

6.1 Play instruments – indicates actual tools involved in or necessary for the stimulation of play, such as toys

6.2 Fidelity/simulation – indicates that the play activity simulates or reflects real-life scenarios 6.3 Expense – indicates that play is judged by how much the play tools cost6.4 Imitation – indicates that the play activity consists of mocking or copying another’s actions

204

Appendix K

VITA

Susan Codone was born in Birmingham, Alabama, on September 18, 1967. She

graduated from the University of Montevallo, Montevallo, Alabama, cum laude with a

B.S. in Social Science and Secondary Education in 1989. At Montevallo, Susan attended

all four years on the Valedictorian scholarship. In 1992, Susan graduated from the

University of West Florida with an M.B.A, and was awarded a renewable graduate

fellowship in her first semester. Susan is married to George Codone of Pensacola,

Florida. Together, they have two children: Erin, age 5, and Brynn, age 19 months.

Susan is expecting her third child in October of 2000.

205