1. Rich Viviano
ADE 620
Article Critique
The article I selected for review is titled Using Edutainment Software to Enhance Online
Learning written by Mary Green and Mary Nell McNeese from the University of Southern
Mississippi. I was intrigued by the title because I am a part of a distance learning program here at
Buffalo State, so anything relevant to online learning and education could be helpful in my
journey through not only this program but in my future career endeavors. The title also offered
something new, a term that I was not familiar with; “Edutainment.” An obvious combination of
education and entertainment, this caught my attention as a good article title should.
I began by reading the abstract introduction which I hoped would set the foundation and
include a brief explanation of the reasons for writing this piece. What I first notice was a
discrepancy between the title and the introduction. In the title the authors set the stage for the
intended audience to be online students, online instructors, or both. However, in the brief
introduction the online learner is never mentioned. I assumed that because of the title all of the
content in the article would be only relevant to the online audience. This was not the case. Also
lacking in the introduction is a definition of what the term “edutainment” means and how this
directly ties in with online learning.
After reading the article in its entirety, I first attempted to establish a target audience of
the authors. It would seem the authors were trying to raise awareness for the type of learner that
instructors and administrators may encounter with regards to current and future college students.
It is clear in the conclusion that the authors seem to be trying to at least raise the awareness to
educators that unless they accept the fact that interaction with this learner profile is inevitable,
they may struggle to keep interest of particular students. This is evident in the statement

2. “Educators can ignore the trend or they can harness the great learning potential of digital games,
allowing students to learn by exploring virtual worlds, collaborating with each other, and solving
problems without realizing they are learning” (Green & McNesse, 2007, p.14). This statement
also provides better evidence that the authors are trying to really make a strong point to
policymaker, educators and administrators that educational evolution is necessary for success.
Because the title references online learning, one can assume the audience would be higher
education instructors, however the trends of learning with the use of education software and
computer programs transcends all learning ages, not only online learners. I feel the authors could
have better stated their intended audience. This would have helped me and other readers
understand their intentions and why the argument for the need for educational gaming is
necessary and relevant.
Despite the disconnect early on between the title of the article and the content, the authors
main point seems clear. It would appear that the authors are attempting to convey the message to
instructors or school administrators that the newer generation, or the current college age
generation (by my estimation ages 17-25, however this is never made clear in the article) are part
of an evolving learning community that was raised in an environment where gaming was a large
part of the learning experience. I can attest to this being fact, I am twenty-eight years old and
since I can remember gaming systems like Atari, Nintendo and Playstation consumed much of
my youth. This learning occurred in school as well with the use of early computer games such as
Number Munchers, Oregon Trail and Where in the World is Carmen San Diego. I can relate to
what the authors are saying in that software based games are a large part of the learning
experience of the generation X and Y (or “Mellennials”), and that it is important for educators to
be aware of the learning behavior associated with this type of stimulated learner.

3. The authors begin the main focus of the article by defining the sections in which they
state the arguments for and against digital game use in education settings. They begin with a
simple structure, blatantly pointing out the first and second arguments against the use of gaming
in educational settings by included reasons of culture, affordability, using technology for a “just
because” reason and the safety issues surrounding gaming and young children. The conclusion
and the introduction in the article would make one think that the authors are in favor of education
gaming, however stating strong arguments against the use of this type of software and
technology contradicts what appears to be their intention. They use one argument stating that
“Educators, business executives, and the general public are concerned that technology is
sweeping through education without their input on shaping or restraining it. There is
apprehension that control is in the hands of those who stand to profit most from it (Green &
McNeese, 2007, p.7). They also mention challenges in using education software in the classroom
by stating “Another challenge to the teacher is that games can be housed on the hard drive of the
computer or online where students can play when they should be doing other classwork. This can
become an added discipline problem for the teacher. In a multi-user setting, teachers need to act
as monitors, because discipline issues such as inappropriate use of language or sexual harassment
that teachers have in the classroom will also occur in a virtual environment” (Green & McNeese,
2007, p.9). This is an important statement because it is one of the few times in the article that the
mention of an online setting is mentioned. More of the conversation with regards to the for and
against argument for education gaming is in reference to the classroom environment, not the
online setting. This is further evidence that the authors used a title which referenced material
related to online learning, but the content of the article reflected more of a focus on tradition,
face to face classroom.

4. The authors continue the content of the article by providing examples of how education
gaming or “Edutainment” would benefit a certain generational learner. The differences between
the author’s arguments for educational gaming and against are evident in the structure of the text.
The authors clearing define the arguments against, while the arguments for are imbedded in the
text, never being obvious to the reader. The arguments against are clearly define by language
such as, “the first argument against” and “the second argument against.” However, the in-favor
arguments are not easily discovered and are overshadowed by other arguments against the use of
education gaming. They speak of a learners having fun and being motivated which enhances the
learning experiences thus providing a better environment for learning. They state “When
students are motivated, they spend more time on the activity, and learning becomes an incidental
part of the activity. It would seem that the longer one spends on an activity, the more they will
learn” (Green & McNeese, 2007, p.9). This is a logical argument in favor, but it is quickly
contradicted by a statement about technology that is not only detrimental to the argument of the
benefit of educational gaming, but also in my personal opinion not factual and strongly based in
opinion; “Technology, although motivating, often diminishes the need to review prior
knowledge, to strategize, to analyze, to make new connections, or engage in other high level
learning activities” (Green & McNeese, 2007, p.9). If the intention of the authors was to argue in
favor of using educational gaming, this statement written in their own words, strongly
contradicts that sentiment. The statement not only attacks the use of edutainment, but also the
use of technology as a learning tool. If there true intent is of indifference to educational gaming,
then the above statement is not a logical argument and does not speak to empirical evidence on
either side of the argument. I feel a statement such as this discredits the authors in many ways.
Designing, engineering, and using technology in several dimensions calls upon proior knowledge

5. and experiences to enhance learning. Much of technology using a building block format, where
one piece is learned then another and so on in order to use and master the skill. Prior knowledge
is essential to furthering the understanding and use of technology.
The most informative section of the article and perhaps the most logically constructed is
the section highlighting the cognitive effects of digital game playing. This section speaks more
about the characteristics of a gaming learner. The authors take the time to use evidence and the
ability of generation Y learners to multitask and understand complex and fast paced learning
challenges. “Game players are required to figure out the game rules through trial and error,
observation and hypothesis testing, which are skills necessary in mathematics and the sciences.
As a result, game players are not afraid to make mistakes and they have a strong orientation
toward problem solving” (Green & McNeese, 2007, p.10). Green and McNeese also point out
how the use of interactive educational gaming can enhance teamwork and communication skills
and can also excel on different learning levels. “Students are now more connected synchronically
and asynchronically, providing them with instant access to information through experts, friends
and families and offering interactivity with fellow students, friends and strangers in multi-user
games. As a result of this interactivity, players tend to develop and participate within a network
of players who share ideas, experiences and strategies. They learn to work well together or play
alone when a partner is not available” (Green & McNeese, 2007, p.10). I noticed much of the
cognitive learning section of the article could have also been used as supporting arguments for
the benefit of using education gaming. However that did not seem to be the goal of the authors.
The article concludes with a section that outlined some current issues surrounding digital
gaming and how the development of academic based games on the rise. The authors give some
information about specific gaming conferences and universities departments that focus on the

6. development and study of academic gaming. This information is beneficial for instructors that
seek to use education software as part of the learning environment.
After reading the article in full a few times over, I really cannot say Green and McNeese
did an excellent job conveying the relationship between online learning and education gaming as
the title would suggest. The arguments against educational gaming were for the most part clear
and well structured, but the arguments for education gaming were scattered, loosely constructed
and largely hidden. In so far as the actual construct of the language and content; I would give the
opinion that for a scholarly article, the authors’ own language was unpolished, basic, and even
elementary at times. The content of the article was heavily weighted with quotations and
excerpts from sources which showed the authors may not have command of the overall message
they were trying to convey; which was also confusing at times. Sources should be used to
supplement a thought or opinion, and should not be as the majority of content of a written work;
doing this can give the appearance of lack of original knowledge about the subject matter. The
audience was never clearly defined, and much of the context made reference to a traditional
classroom and little was mentioned about the online learning environment, which again one
would have expected from the title of the article.
Overall, there was some good content in the article and probably worth reading if one
was interested in the material. They made clear for the most part what effects gaming have on a
learner, the skills gained by the “gaming generation,” and how educators should be aware of the
positive and negatives associated with such a stimulated learner. The authors could have done a
better job in organizing the arguments for and against digital education gaming. They also could
have made clear whether or not they were in favor, against, or simply trying to raise awareness
about the issue. They also could have made clearer the audience they were directing the

7. information to as well as the audience of learners they were referring to in the article. This could
have been easily done by mentioning an age range or generation name such as X or Y. Much was
left up the previous knowledge of the readers or assumptions made by the reader, neither of
which should be assumed by an author. Although there may have been organizational issues,
heavy uses of quotes form other sources and sometimes murky direction, the basic notion that the
evolution of learners in turn must involve the evolution of educators is a message that is relevant
and can be used with any educational audience.
Reference:
Green, M., & McNeese, M. (2007). Using edutainment software to enhance online learning.
International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 5-16.