Outlining the Digital Education Games Ecosystem in Finnish Basic Education

Mea Matero OUTLINING THE DIGITAL EDUCATION GAMES ECOSYSTEM IN FINNISH BASIC EDUCATION JYVÄSKYLÄN YLIOPISTO INFORMAATIOTEKNOLOGIAN TIEDEKUNTA 2024 TIIVISTELMÄ Matero, Mea Outlining the Digital Education Games Ecosystem in Finnish Basic Education Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto, 2024. 97 s. Tietojärjestelmätiede, pro gradu -tutkielma Ohjaajat: Riekkinen, Janne & Perälä, Piia Digitaalisten opetuspelien käytön suosio on kasvussa kouluissa. Tämän tutkimuksen päätavoitteena oli hahmottaa ja analysoida digitaalisten oppimispelien ympärille rakentuvaa ekosysteemiä (Digital Education Games Ecosystem, DEGE) Suomen perusopetuksessa tarkastelemalla sidosryhmiä ja komponentteja aikaisemman kirjallisuuden sekä opettajien haastattelujen avulla. Tutkimuksessa käytettiin kvalitatiivista lähestymistapaa opettajien näkökulmien selvittämiseksi. Opettajat voidaan nähdä olevan ekosysteemin keskiössä ja haastattelujen avulla selvitettiin tutkimukseen mukaan valittujen opettajien näkemyksiä sidosryhmien ja komponenttien välisestä vuorovaikutuksesta. Keskeiset löydökset osoittivat, että opettajat pitävät oppimispelejä ja digitaalisia välineitä yleisesti trendikkäinä työkaluina opetuksessa, erityisesti matematiikan ja kielten oppiaineissa. Kuitenkin erilaiset haasteet, kuten rajallinen koulutus, aikarajoitteet, taitojen tai tiedon vajavuus sekä infrastruktuuripuutteet, vaikuttavat olevan esteenä laajemmalle käyttöönotolle. Opettajien uskomukset ja itsevarmuus teknologian käytössä havaittiin tärkeiksi tekijöiksi, jotka vaikuttavat oppimispelien hyödyntämisessä opetuksen aikana. Oli myös huomattavissa eroja sidosryhmien keskinäisessä vuorovaikutuksessa, jota voitaisiin hyödyntää jatkotutkimuksissa tiedon puutteen tai infrastruktuuriongelmien selvittämisessä. Tutkimustyön päätteeksi saadut havainnot tukevat aiempia tutkimuksia, jotka korostavat pedagogisten asenteiden ja osaamisen merkitystä teknologian käytössä kouluissa sekä ymmärrystä ekosysteemin ja sen rakentumisen tärkeydestä digitaalisten oppimispelien ympärille. Asiasanat: oppimispelit, opettaja, ekosysteemi, digitaalisuus, opetusteknologia, tietojärjestelmät opetuksessa ABSTRACT Matero, Mea Outlining the Digital Education Games Ecosystem in Finnish Basic Education Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2024. 97 pp. Information Systems, Master’s Thesis Supervisors: Riekkinen, Janne & Perälä, Piia Digital Education Games are growing in popularity in classroom settings. The main objective of this study was to outline and analyse the Digital Education Games Ecosystem (DEGE) in Finnish Basic Education by studying the stakeholders and components of education games based on previous literature and teachers’ views. Using a qualitative approach, the study explored teachers’ perspectives as central stakeholders within the ecosystem and examined through interviews how the interviewed teachers saw the interplay between these entities. Key findings revealed that teachers consider educational games and digital tools in general as trendy teaching tools, especially for teaching mathematics and languages. However, challenges such as limited training, time constraints, lack of skills or knowledge, and infrastructure deficiencies were identified as barriers to broader integration. Teachers’ beliefs and confidence in using technology were also found to be critical factors influencing their willingness to incorporate educational games into teaching. Differences in interaction rates between stakeholders were also detected and could be studied in the future to overcome challenges like lack of knowledge and infrastructure. The findings support previous research emphasizing the importance of pedagogical attitudes in the use of technology in schools and understanding how the ecosystem can be constructed on Digital Education Games. Keywords: Digital Education Games, Teacher, Digital Ecosystems, Education Technology, Information Systems in Education FIGURES Figure 1 - Stakeholders and Components ................................................................ 25 Figure 2 – Demographic of Interviewees ................................................................. 44 Figure 3 – General Thoughts on Devices and Games in Classrooms .................. 51 Figure 4 – E-Book and Educational Game Usage by Subject ................................ 52 Figure 5 – Scale of Presumed Influence .................................................................... 59 Figure 6 – Education Game Usage by Interviewees ............................................... 64 Figure 7 – Views on Developers and Policies .......................................................... 67 Figure 8 – Digital Education Games Ecosystem...................................................... 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS TIIVISTELMÄ ABSTRACT FIGURES AND TABLES 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................ 8 1.2 Research questions and motivation .......................................................... 9 1.3 Scope and limitations ................................................................................ 10 1.4 Structure of Thesis ..................................................................................... 10 2 DIGITAL EDUCATION GAMES ECOSYSTEM............................................. 12 2.1 Short History of Ecosystems .................................................................... 12 2.2 Digital Education Games Ecosystem ...................................................... 14 2.3 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................ 16 2.4 Approach with Educational Theories ..................................................... 18 2.5 Defining Stakeholder and Component Roles ........................................ 21 2.5.1 Stakeholders ...................................................................................... 23 2.5.2 Components ...................................................................................... 24 3 DIGITAL EDUCATION GAMES...................................................................... 27 3.1 A Brief History of Digital Education Games ......................................... 27 3.2 Types and Classification of Education Games ...................................... 28 3.3 Pedagogical Theories and Game-Based Learning ................................ 32 3.4 The Usage of Education Games and Gamification ............................... 34 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 38 4.1 Research Design ......................................................................................... 38 4.1.1 Qualitative vs. Quantitative Approach ......................................... 40 4.2 Data Collection methods .......................................................................... 41 4.3 Participant Profiles and Selection ............................................................ 42 4.4 Data Analysis Techniques ........................................................................ 45 4.5 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................. 46 5 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 48 5.1 Categorization of Interview Questions ................................................... 48 5.2 Preliminary Stakeholder Perceptions of Digital Education Games Ecosystem.................................................................................................... 49 5.2.1 Use of Devices and Games in Classrooms .................................... 50 5.2.2 Present Attitudes and Knowledge ................................................. 53 5.3 Teachers’ Influence on Digital Educational Game Integration ........... 57 5.4 Perceived Functionality of Digital Education Game Ecosystem ........ 61 5.5 Challenges in Using Digital Education Games ..................................... 65 5.6 Research Questions Outcomes ................................................................. 69 6 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 72 6.1 Reflections on Understanding of the DEGE .......................................... 73 6.2 Teachers’ Influence in DEG Integration ................................................. 74 6.3 Challenges in the DEGE ............................................................................ 76 6.4 How Teachers View Their Position ......................................................... 77 6.5 Policy Implications and Recommendations ........................................... 80 7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 82 7.1 Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................ 82 7.2 Limitations of the Study ........................................................................... 84 7.3 Suggestion for Future Research ............................................................... 85 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 86 APPENDIXIES .............................................................................................................. 95 Play is the highest form of research. - Albert Einstein Education games in their barest are a form of play that is teaching the player something. The study of play, games, learning, and how they are all connected has been analysed in different fields, such as psychology, education, technology, and economics. In information systems, the focus of games and play usually explores themes like gamification, game design, adaptive learning systems, humancomputer interaction, behavioural analytics, and persuasive technology to mention a few. The space where all these components are connected and acting can be seen as learning environments, entertainment industries, business settings, and different ecosystems, depending on the point of view. Previous literature has covered various ecosystems with complex interactions among components and stakeholders, for example different digital ecosystems, supply chain ecosystems, internet of things (IoT) ecosystems, and education technology (EdTech) ecosystems, but more specifically there exists a gap in research of digital education games ecosystems. Digital education games ecosystems can be seen as a combination of education technology (EdTech) ecosystem, digital education ecosystem (DEE), or digital game ecosystem (DGE). This study explores the existence of digital education games ecosystem (DEGE), which brings attention to a more specific type of interactions and components that need to work and be understood in educational settings to fully take advantage of all the benefits education games can offer. Although all stakeholders are important in this ecosystem, currently the teachers hold a vast majority of control over what education games are used in classrooms and how. Different policies and recommendations exist in schools and on national levels, but as of right now in Finland, the decision to use a certain game in their teaching is made by the teacher. That is the reason for this study to analyse this ecosystem from the perspective of teachers as a stakeholder. In the following sections of the introduction chapter, the structure and background of this thesis is further explained. The aim of this thesis is to define the space of the discussed ecosystem and find how teachers as stakeholders are viewing their possibilities to affect the usage of digital education games. Different 1 INTRODUCTION 8 components and stakeholders may affect the outcomes in each school and classroom, but mapping the current situation creates a path for understanding and way for development in the future, which is changing ever so fast with AI technologies, adaptive learning models, and eLearning practices. 1.1 Background of the Study This study focuses on digital education games ecosystems especially in the Finnish basic education level. The aim of this study is to outline the current ecosystem in question in Finnish basic education, specifically in the grades 7th to 9th from the teachers’ point of view. In this context, ecosystem model offers a way to understand how the interactions of stakeholders shape the learning environment. The topic is situated within the broader landscape of education technology but anchored in the field of information systems. Ecosystems have been studied far and wide in different fields, ranging from biology to economics, sociology to information technology. Previous research has shown that there are ecosystems defined for learning environments, digital learning environments, technologies, game development, and gaming industry. However, specifically for digital education games the research is not yet as profound. Arthur Tansley introduced the concept of ecosystem in 1930s, but the term digital ecosystem emerged in the 1990s with the rise of the internet and other digital technologies (Willis, 1997; Bocking, 1994). James F. Moore brought the term to economics in his work in 1993 and described the concept as an economic community of business entities. Then in early 2000s, Nachira, Dini, and Nicolai (2007a) worked towards creating the general notion of the concept. They emphasized the global interconnectedness and economic integration aspects of digital ecosystems in her research. Digital ecosystems gained more prominence alongside the new advancements in technology, such as Thomas S. Ray’s Tierra project back in 1992. The focus of digital ecosystems shifted has changed over the years based on the perspective and field, and for example the European Commission (2020) highlighted the role of ICT in local economic development and entrepreneurship in digital ecosystems. During the past thirty years, digital educational games have gained increasing attention in education settings. As the technology and tools for learning have evolved, so have the games in question. They provide pupils new ways to learn and be immersed in the learning subject. Even regular games can be seen as tools to improve teamwork, strategic skills, and problem solving, to name a few (Manesis, 2020; Fleer, 2021; Carr et al., 2006). As the popularity of digital education games grew, the ecosystem surrounding digital education games—comprising developers, educators, policymakers, pupils, and technological infrastructure— has also grown more complex. But despite the growing presence of digital educational games in educational contexts, research focusing specifically on the digital education games ecosystem within Finland’s basic education system remains limited. 9 The choice of examining this ecosystem from the perspective of teachers was reached as teachers seemed to hold a significant amount of decisive power in bringing DEGS in classrooms. Teachers can be seen as acting as intermediaries who translate game-based content into curriculum-aligned learning activities. By investigating teachers' perspectives, this study seeks to identify the current challenges, opportunities, and resources available to them within the DEGE, thereby contributing to a broader understanding of how this ecosystem functions in realworld educational settings. Overall, there is vast knowledge in the background, previous studies, and research of this topic, which can ground the subject well into the field. Outlining the history and present state of digital education games ecosystem can be helpful in the future to show way for development of digital education games and open a space for discussion of how teachers as stakeholders view their chances of affecting the usage of digital education games. 1.2 Research questions and motivation The main objectives of this thesis are to define and conceptualize digital education games ecosystems, identify stakeholders and their roles, and analyse the different components especially from the perspective of teachers as a stakeholder. The aim is to gather insights into education game usage in Finnish basic education and explore the related benefits, challenges, and pedagogical theories. As the education systems are moving towards a more digitalized period, a deeper understanding of the learning environments and ecosystems are needed. According to Nyyssölä’s (2022) report for Finnish National Agency for Education, the future of education includes vast trends of change such as digitalization, transformation of work, demographic development, and climate change. Teaching technology is marked to be evolving and bringing new kinds of opportunities to get personal support for teaching, learner guidance and actions, and communal practices. The background of the guidance is influenced by transnational policies, especially from the OECD and European Union. Nyyssölä (2022) also discusses the uses of Artificial Intelligence in education technology, along with Lähdesmäki (2024), Zhang and Aslan (2021), and Schiff (2021). Hiltunen (2010; 2011; 2012) also highlights the importance of understanding digital learning environments and the capabilities of the used devices in education, by giving an example in her lecture (2024) of a case where school had bought new devices and learning software for pupils to use, but these were not compatible with each other. Understanding the ecosystem that is needed for the use of digital education games and how teachers as stakeholders see their possibilities to affect the usage is important in order to benefit most from the games. This research was motivated by the need to address gaps in the literature regarding digital education game ecosystems and by doing so it can contribute to advancing knowledge of digital education games ecosystems, and possibly 16 the term digital changes the meaning simply to one part. As said above, learning ecosystem refers to both digital and non-digital elements that support learning experiences and contexts, whereas digital learning ecosystem emphasizes digital tools, platforms, and technologies that enhance educational processes and outcomes. The scope of digital learning ecosystem focuses on digital technologies within educational contexts which facilitate teaching and the different learning activities or tasks. (Hecht & Crowley, 2020; Kowch, 2018; Hannon et al., 2019; Uden et al., 2007). In terms of education games, there can also be divination between digital and non-digital games. For example, some board or card games, such as monopoly, chess, uno, or set, may be used in educational purposes. All of these games can be presented in a digital format as well, but in general, a digital learning/education game is a type of interactive software or application specifically designed for educational purposes (Bylieva & Sastre, 2018; Shi & Shih, 2015; Manesis, 2020; De Freitas; 2006). Combining the discussed terms, the concept of digital education games ecosystem, refers to an ecosystem of learning, technology, and business, which directly revolves around digital, educational games created with specific, curriculum-oriented and pedagogic learning objectives in mind. There have been abbreviations of Digital Education Ecosystem (DEE) and Digital Education Game (DEG), and therefore this study suggests the use of DEGE as an abbreviation of Digital Education Games Ecosystem. This ecosystem, as its predecessors, involves different stakeholders from game creators and suppliers to users. In the upcoming chapters, this ecosystem and its stakeholders and interactions are further discussed and analysed from the perspective of teachers as a user stakeholder. 2.3 Conceptual Framework To understand the theoretical implications of digital education games ecosystem, this section focuses on the conceptual frameworks surrounding the topic. Roughly dividing there can be three different categories of surrounding theories: education games, digital learning, and digital ecosystems. When studying the research papers of educational games, numerous theories address engagement, learning outcomes, and the motivational aspects of what makes them effective educational tools. Costa et al. (2016) discuss a bit similar recurring themes within game-based learning research, pointing to theories and themes like gamification, flow, and experiential learning. All of these can collectively be seen to point to engagement through structures and purposeful interactions. Gamification, for example, involves incorporating game mechanics into non-game settings, and in DEGE, it could encourage teachers and developers to structure educational games that are both captivating and educationally meaningful (Costa et al., 2016; Hamari et al., 2014). The concept of flow could also suggest that carefully designed educational games can hold pupils’ attention better and create deeper cognitive engagement (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Experiential 17 learning, rooted in Kolb’s model (2014), could also offer another perspective when focusing on the role of reflection and action in learning processes. This theory would suggest that educational games could engage pupils through active participation and encourage them to reflect on their actions within game environment. And since interconnectedness and collaboration among stakeholders can also be emphasized (Wang et al., 2024), when combined with experiential learning, this perspective could highlight how interactions within educational games simulate real-life social and collaborative dynamics. Such a structure might also align with Hecht & Crowley's (2020) call for equitable learning environments. Analytical frameworks for ecosystems usually apply to a conceptual model or a set of principles that are used to understand the structure of ecosystems and how different dynamics and behaviour models affect the stakeholders and components. This type of framework would offer a more structured approach to study how the ecosystems function, develop, respond to different influences. Studying the ecosystems dynamics, Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) could be used to view the ecosystem as an adaptive, self-organizing system that features non-linear interactions among the components. This has been studied by Roundy et al. (2018), who present a holistic view of entrepreneurship ecosystems (EEs), as well as Peltoniemi and Vuori (2004) who concentrated on business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. The key findings of Roundy et al. (2018) addresses fragmentation in entrepreneurship research, and the role of experimentation and entrepreneurial intentions when analysing EEs. Based on both studies from Roundy et al. (2018) and Peltoniemi and Vuori (2004), the key concepts of CAS lie in systems dynamically adjusting their behaviour in response to internal and external stimuli and emergent properties seem to arise from interactions among individual components. CAS framework could help in analysing the nature of DEGE and be used as a framework to show how interactions among stakeholders and components shape ecosystem behaviour over time. Drawing from ecological concepts, a bit more niche approach would represent specific roles or positions that are occupied by stakeholders within DEGE. From a mature perspective, Patten and Auble have studied System Theory of the Ecological Niche in 1981 and the concepts niches, which include System Nature of Niche, Fundamental Niche, Realized Niche, and Extended Niche. According to Patten and Auble (1981) system theory would elucidate adaption and succession processes within different types of ecosystems while shaping niche dynamics and organizational development. They have discussed the competitive exclusion and coevolution to be emphasizing the intrinsic consistency and interactions among ecological systems. The concept of output niche comes from system theory, and it provides a perspective on dominance and dynamics of control based on the input and output environment comparisons. (Patten & Auble, 1981). Emphasizing biodiversity-inspired diversity in game settings and educational approaches may enhance DEGE’s resilience and adaptability by enabling it to respond to changing educational needs. Understanding niche dynamics would 18 allow for collaboration and synergy among stakeholders, and then minimizing competition and maximizing impact. Then again, diversity could help grow resilience through providing multiple strategies and reducing reliance on any single approach. It would also support innovation in many different educational methods, learner needs, and stakeholder engagement. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Socio-Technical Systems Theory would emphasize the interactions among human and non-human actors and the balance between social and technical elements within DEGE (Latour, 2005; Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). From these perspectives, teachers could recognize how their roles, along with those of pupils and game developers, might form a network where each actor influences others. This understanding could strengthen DEGE by clarifying how collaborative interactions impact the ecosystem’s overall functionality. In contrast, through the lens of Learning Ecology, DEGE could be seen as an interconnected environment of diverse resources, where teachers can manage multiple tools and pathways that collectively support game-based learning (Barron, 2006). While this perspective would align with a possible goal of integrating varied resources, it may not offer specific guidelines for pedagogical strategies. Then again Systems Theory, including feedback loops, would add to these structural frameworks by providing mechanisms for adaptive change, where teachers could modify instructional approaches based on pupil performance data, viewing DEGE as a responsive system (von Bertalanffy, 1968). In contrast to structural theories, Knowledge Building Theory, Open Innovation Theory, and the Theory of Situated Learning would offer more processfocused perspectives. Knowledge Building Theory would frame DEGE as a collaborative tool for co-creating knowledge, where teachers and pupils might work together toward shared understanding (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2010). Open Innovation Theory would suggest that collaborative development among teachers, developers, and other stakeholders could improve educational game content also by incorporating teachers' instructional insights (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). And the Theory of Situated Learning would emphasize DEGE’s potential to simulate real-world contexts, positioning games as immersive environments where pupils might engage in practical applications relevant to their learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). However, given that Situated Learning was developed prior to recent shifts in digital and online learning, it might not fully capture the virtual elements that are now quite integral in DEGE. By combining these process-oriented perspectives with structural frameworks like Systems Theory, teachers could gain a better understanding of DEGE, seeing how collaboration and adaptability intersect to better support a range of instructional goals. 2.4 Approach with Educational Theories Since Digital Education Games are the core of DEGE, different educational theories are quite essential in understanding the stakeholder interactions. From these theories can be found possible frameworks for the design, implementation, and 19 evaluation of game-based learning experiences. Educational theories can also be used to ensure that digital education games are aligned with established principles of teaching and learning. However, teachers might use these to select proper games, whereas other stakeholders like game developers might use them to create the products. The aim of these theories is to guide the selection and design of games to achieve specific learning objectives in different levels of learning and alignment. These theories can be used as a base to explain how games can support cognitive development, skill acquisition, and conceptual understanding, for example. Instructional strategies within game environments can be informed with these theories and with them influenced how content is presented, feedback provided, and learning engagement fostered. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, also known as TPACK framework, can be used to study and describe the knowledge that teachers need to integrate technology into their teaching practices. This has been studied by Bond & Bedenlier (2019) and by Davies (2011), both who came to the conclusion that this framework can be divided into three parts consisting of Technological Knowledge (TK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Content Knowledge (CK). Understanding the functionalities and affordances of educational games is part of the technological knowledge, as is exploring game-based platforms and tools to select those aligned with specific pedagogical needs. When pedagogical strategies are applied with the thought of using engagement and motivational aspects of educational games and design of learning activities include integrating games to achieve specific learning objectives, the framework leans more towards pedagogical knowledge. Content knowledge (CK) focuses on aligning the use of educational games with curriculum goals and subject matter expertise and selecting games that support content management and deeper conceptual understanding. (Bond & Bedenlier, 2019; Davies, 2011). Within DEGE, the TPACK framework would influent the development and design of educational games which align the different needs and requirements of teachers. The professional development of teachers that TPACK would support and be used to analyse, the focus is on enhancing their technological competencies and pedagogical approaches for game-based instruction. The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) offer another framework to evaluate and elevate the use of games in education. In the context of study by Wahyuni et al. (2020), the SAMR model is used to categorize the levels of technology integration in instructional activities involving both teachers and pupils. According to the study, teachers and pupils have experienced the infusion of different types of technology into instructional activities (these represent the Substitution and Augmentation), and usually technology acts as a direct substitute for traditional tools (substitution) and enhancement of tasks is created by additional functionalities provided by technology (augmentation). In Modification and Redefinition stages, technology is used to modify and redefine instructional tasks that might prove difficult without the help of technology. For pupils, the use of technology at these phases could widen their knowledge, skills, and digital literacy. 20 According to another study by Alivi (2019) where TPACK and SAMR models were compared and reviewed, it was found that both frameworks support teachers utilizing ICT as learning tools to enhance learning. However, the use of technology is not obligatory for every activity, and according to Alivi, it should be applied based on pupils’ needs and learning objectives. ICT offers more than instrumental tools than traditional (e.g. blackboard, pencil, paper) by providing access to authentic materials and enabling global communication. Alivi studied especially the perspectives of language teachers and encouraged them to integrate ICT (using TPACK) to enhance task levels according to the SAMR model, and gradually introduce and advance pupils’ use of technology in their learning. Some challenges related to this can be seen to be the dependency of technology on technical aspects and connectivity, and that teachers need to anticipate and address ICT-related issues. In terms of DEGE, the SAMR model could be used to focus on encouraging game-based learning experiences from basic usage (substitution) to transformative practises (re-definition), which are aimed to align with learning objectives. Inspiring developers and designers to create games that offer functionalities and transformative potential and encouraging systemic changes within educational institutions to promote the adoption and integration of educational games at more sophisticated SAMR levels would at its best foster holistic ecosystem development. (Wahyuni et al., 2020; Alivi, 2019). In a recent study by Wang et al. (2024), the researchers discuss theories related to collaborative innovation mechanisms within digital ecosystems, and especially focus on value co-creation and incentive mechanisms. According to Wang et al. (2024), Value Co-Creation Theory highlights the importance of stakeholders collaborating within a digital ecosystem. In the context of DEGE, value co-creation would involve growing interactions between multiple stakeholders (such as teachers, pupils, developers, and institutions) to collectively enhance educational benefits. Another theory analysed by Wang et al. (2024) is the Incentive Mechanism Theory, which explores different methods to address coordination dilemmas and design better incentive structures for interactions. For DEGE, this theory could suggest to consider designing incentive contracts or policies to align the interests of different actors (e.g., educators, game developers) towards common educational objectives. Incentive mechanisms could promote engagement, innovation, and long-term cooperation. All of these theories could be integrated into the design and management of DEGE in order to create a stronger and clearer collaboration between different stakeholders. The exploration of DEGE through theoretical frameworks and conceptual lenses reveals a multifaceted landscape, which can be anchored and analysed with the synthesis of these theories. Consideration of technological dependencies, accessibilities, and inclusivity are important in the implementation of DEGE. Addressing these challenges based on previous research and anticipating potential issues could also create smoother integration of digital games in educational settings. Viewing DEGE through different ecosystem dynamics and CAS emphasize the properties and interactions among stakeholders, and highlights the understanding of niche dynamics, stakeholder roles, and system behaviour. Different 21 research methodologies and evidence-based practices in game-based learning studies generate empirical evidence and with correct evaluation and improvement can this contribute to effectiveness and sustainability of DEGE. 2.5 Defining Stakeholder and Component Roles Different components and stakeholders are the core of ecosystems. When drawing the distinction between these actors for digital education games ecosystem, one of the ways to start is by examining how stakeholders have been defined in previous studies. For DEGE, an examination of digital ecosystems, learning ecosystems, and game ecosystems has been conducted by selecting relevant studies to build a comprehensive description. From these perspectives, stakeholders, components, and their roles and significance within DEGE are discussed. Nguyen and Tuamsuk (2022) discussed the different stakeholder and component roles in their study about Digital Learning Ecosystem. They divided the roles into biotic and abiotic components, under which they listed stakeholders and components. Their classification was rather detailed, listing over 50 different components that can be divided into eight categories: biotic components into teaching nice, learning nice, supporters, and stakeholders, and abiotic components into technologies, infrastructure, learning contents, and administration. (Nguyen & Tuamsuk, 2022). These can all be connected to DEGE, but when the focus moves from general learning tools to curriculum-focused and pedagogical education games, the components and stakeholders might get different roles, and the value of their input might be shown in different interactions better. For this study, their listed components can be referred to rather well, although a preference to stakeholders referring to biotic and components to abiotic is present, and therefore other studies and their classification have also been studied. According to Hecht and Crowley (2020), an ecosystem has no centre, but the stakeholders and components of the system are influenced and the influencers by their context. They have identified and categorized stakeholders within educational ecosystems based on their roles and contributions to the management and support of learning environments. Hech and Crowly (2020) identified the following different stakeholders and their main roles: Program officers are responsible for setting goals and strategies related to educational funding, shaping the direction of educational initiatives. Educational funders, whether entities or individuals, provide financial support to networked ecosystems for learning. Organizations and institutions deliver educational services and programs. They contribute directly to the educational processes and outcomes within the ecosystems by studying the relational processes within learning ecosystems. Practitioners, that can be seen as the educators and policymakers are working directly in the field of education and implementing strategies within these learning environments. Policymakers are responsible for creating policies for the educational systems and their functioning. Local communities, parents, and other invested 22 groups then again contribute to the outcomes and processes of educational ecosystems. Hecht and Crowley's (2020) stakeholder analysis in general highlighted how important the interconnectedness of educational ecosystems is, and their classification focus mostly on biotic individuals or groups. They suggested to focus more from individual learners to broader systemic processes and relational dynamics, which might not be an exact fit with this particular study. Their model of ecosystem stakeholders does have important stakeholders when thinking about DEGE, especially for the broader view, but only half of the mentioned stakeholders by Hecht and Crowley (2020) would be directly involved with teachers as well. Similarly to Hecht and Crowly (2020), Roundy et al. (2018) categorized different stakeholders, but within entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs), based on their roles and contributions of these systems. According to Roundy et al. (2018) Entrepreneurs are individuals who initiate and develop new ventures within entrepreneurial ecosystems. Policymakers are responsible for developing and implementing effective policies that support and foster the growth of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Scholars and researchers develop frameworks, methodologies, and insights that contribute to understanding the complex dynamics of EEs. Practitioners are individuals actively engaged in the practical aspects of entrepreneurship within ecosystems. Agents in Agent-Based Modelling as stakeholders are simulated entities used in computational models to represent different actors and behaviours within entrepreneurial ecosystems. Individuals who contribute to qualitative research methods like interviews and ethnographic observation provide information into the human and relational aspects of ecosystem dynamics. (Roundy et al., 2018). This ecosystem also has important stakeholders, and the focus isn’t as broad as Hecht and Crowley’s (2020), which would suit DEGE slightly better, but neither does this model fit DEGE as it is. In this study, the focus on biotic stakeholders is once again present. Another categorization of stakeholders has been created by Wang et al. (2024), focusing especially on collaborative innovation and cooperation strategies. Core manufacturers were identified as primary entities responsible for product development, innovation, and production within the manufacturing digital ecosystem. Digital technology providers supply digital solutions, technologies, and expertise that enable manufacturing enterprises to adopt automation, AI, data analytics, and other digital tools. The inclusion of local governments as stakeholders underscores their role in providing policy guidance, incentives, and support to foster innovation and digital transformation. Collaborative partnerships between manufacturers and local governments can lead to favourable policy environments, incentive subsidies, and infrastructure development. (Wang et al., 2024). Although not explicitly discussed in depth in their study, consumers represent an important stakeholder group whose preferences and demands influence innovation strategies and ecosystem development. Manufacturers and technology providers need to understand consumer needs and behaviour to tailor their offerings and support market-driven innovation. The analysis by Wang et al. (2024) emphasized how collaboration and coordination among these 23 stakeholders is important to achieve digital transformation objectives within the manufacturing digital ecosystem. Similarly with previous studies, this analysis includes broader sense of biotic stakeholders with other mentions of components, but especially with a focus on collaboration and innovation between stakeholders. In DEGE, this sort of ecosystem could fit especially well when analysing the ecosystem from the game developers’ or teachers’ point of view. There are many different studies on ecosystems and their components. The ones studied and mentioned in this work are a fraction of all but were selected based on their relativeness to the topic, timeframe and significance in the field. There can be different ways to categorize and classify stakeholders and components, often referring to stakeholders as biotic entities and components as abiotic entities. Different studies had specific focuses, for example stakeholder categorization presented by Wang et al. (2024) especially discussed the complexity and interdependence of actors involved. All the mentioned findings can be used to guide the analysis of DEGE and especially how the different relationships between stakeholders and components are viewed. With different views on which stakeholders are important in this sort of ecosystem, it can be easier compare different ones to understand how DEGE should be formed. 2.5.1 Stakeholders Based on the previous studies and the categories of different stakeholders, especially by Nguyen and Tuamsuk (2022), Hecht and Crowley (2020), Roundy et al. (2018), Wang et al. (2024), and Wang et al. (2024), a distinction between them can be discussed to analyse DEGE. The stakeholders identified within the context of DEGE represent essential actors who contribute to the development, adoption, and integration of educational games into learning environments. The following groups of stakeholders and components were drafted based on the previous studies on educational ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and manufacturing digital ecosystems. The different main stakeholders can be divided into six different entities. Game developers play a role in creating and designing the education games. This aligns with the categorization of "Core Manufacturers" in the manufacturing digital ecosystem, where manufacturers are in charge of product development. Similarly, entrepreneurs within entrepreneurial ecosystems are akin to game developers, initiating and developing new ventures (including educational games) within their respective ecosystems. They can be categorized similarly to "Core Manufacturers" within manufacturing digital ecosystems (Wang et al., 2024), where manufacturers are the ones behind product development and innovation. Game developers would also include selling their games forward. In entrepreneurial ecosystems (Roundy et al., 2018), game developers align with entrepreneurs who initiate and develop new ventures, including educational games. Educational institutions are stakeholders responsible for integrating games into the curriculum and shaping adoption trends. This role resonates with the involvement of organizations and institutions within learning ecosystems, 24 directly being involved in contributing to educational processes and outcomes. This also aligns with the involvement of organizations and institutions within learning ecosystems (Hecht & Crowley, 2020) directly contributing to educational processes. Policymakers influence education game adoption and integration into educational policies, similar to local governments in the manufacturing digital ecosystem (Wang et al., 2024) which provide policy guidance and support for innovation. Teachers, who are also in the main focus in this study, have the power to implement education games in classrooms and address challenges and opportunities associated with game-based learning. Their role as practitioners can be seen to mirror practitioners within entrepreneurial ecosystems (Roundy et al., 2018). Pupils are the end-users and participants in the education game ecosystem, influencing engagement and learning outcomes. This role is comparable to consumers in the manufacturing digital ecosystem (Wang et al., 2024), whose preferences and demands then drive innovation strategies. Parents play more of a supportive role in influencing education game usage, but they can have specific concerns and attitudes towards game-based learning which then affects pupils. This is similar to the engagement of local communities and parents within educational ecosystems (Hecht & Crowley, 2020; Nguyen & Tuamsuk, 2022). These six stakeholders can also be further categorized in four different main groups: Creators/Producers include stakeholders (e.g. game developers, educational institutions) responsible for creating and designing educational games, such as game developers and educational institutions. They drive innovation and product development within the ecosystem. Consumers/End-Users (e.g. pupils) are the primary beneficiaries or users of education games. Their engagement and preferences drive the demand for innovation and shape learning outcomes. Facilitators/Implementers (e.g. teachers) encompasses stakeholders like teachers who are instrumental in implementing education games in classrooms and addressing challenges associated with game-based learning. They play a crucial role in translating innovations into practice. Supporters/Enablers, such as policymakers, parents, and other stakeholders who influence adoption and integration of education games into policies and practices fall into this category. They provide guidance, incentives, and support for innovation within the ecosystem. These four categories capture the roles and contributions of stakeholders within the digital education game ecosystem, while drawing parallels from and to similar stakeholder groups identified in manufacturing digital ecosystems (Wang et al., 2024), entrepreneurial ecosystems (Roundy et al., 2018), and educational ecosystems (Hecht & Crowley, 2020). 2.5.2 Components The components of the DEGE consist of many different interactions and relationship within the ecosystem, infrastructure, challenges and collaboration, equity and inclusion, and future directions. Understanding the different interactions and relationships among stakeholders and how they affect the ecosystem. 25 For instance, understanding interactions within DEGE requires analysing how relationships and communication flows among stakeholders—such as teachers, pupils, game developers, and policymakers—affect the ecosystem. Wang et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of network dynamics, communication, and knowledge exchange among stakeholders. Nguyen and Tuamsuk discussed the difference between abiotic and biotic components, and the components mentioned here would fall under the abiotic category. Figure 1 on the right illustrates the stakeholders and components within DEGE, to visualize how each entity interacts and contributes to the ecosystem's functionality (Figure 1). Digital education games are the foundation of DEGE, as it even forms most part of the name. They function as the primary tool through which educational content is delivered and experienced, linking pupils, teachers, and developers in a continuous cycle. Digital games, which are studied more in the following chapter, encourage educators to adopt new approaches within the curriculum. Without digital education games, the ecosystem would lack a central medium that integrates learning goals with interactive technology. This positions digital games not just as a component but as the basis upon which the other elements of DEGE—interactions, infrastructure, and curriculum—are built and connected. Curriculum serves as one of the other core components, as it outlines the educational objectives and guides the integration of game-based learning into teaching practices. Different policies affecting curriculum might also affect the creation of educational games, but this depends on the fact who is making the game and for what purpose. A well-structured curriculum should also ensure that digital education games align with educational standards and learning outcomes, but the official guidelines provided by the national curriculum for basic education does not go in detail about the usage of education games (Opetushallitus, 2014). However, a curriculum provides a framework that helps educators and educational institutions in incorporating games in teaching. Innovation represents one aspect of DEGE, involving the continuous development and adaptation of digital education games to meet evolving educational needs. Innovation requires active collaboration among stakeholders to foster creativity and problem-solving within the ecosystem, especially in the form of training and including teachers into the creation of local curriculums and teaching strategies. Wang et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of network dynamics, communication, and knowledge exchange in driving innovation, as well as the role of stakeholder engagement in achieving these optimized outcomes. Figure 1 - Stakeholders and Components 32 standards. Then again, games that engage pupils may lead to more meaningful learning experiences, even if they don’t have as rigid objectives. The different frameworks and classification models offer lenses into the world of educational games. While several categorization models exist, only the most relevant are explored here. However, categorizing DEGs can shape the teachers’ perceptions of their educational value, for example, when learning objectives and structure are treated as interdependent factors that shape educational impact together. Interestingly, the classification on popular platforms, such as the Play Store, AppStore, and other review websites for example, might often prioritize commercial appeal over pedagogical alignment. Categories like “educational”, “puzzle”, or “adventure” may lack the specificity teachers would need for instructional decision-making, which has also been widely discussed by Annetta (2018). This might raise questions about the authority behind classification rules, and whether these standards are set by educational experts, commercial platforms, or user-driven feedback mechanisms. According to Kebritchi, Hirumi, and Bai (2010), commercial interests often drive game classifications, with minimal input from educators, which may then limit the accuracy of the labels in reflecting true educational value. Consequently, the lack of consistent, pedagogically informed standards in commercial classifications may hinder teachers’ ability to find best fitting games for their educational goals, underscoring the need for more education-focused classification frameworks in DEGE. 3.3 Pedagogical Theories and Game-Based Learning Pedagogical theories can offer a guiding framework within the digital education games ecosystem. Teachers, who translate theoretical principles into practise, operate at an intersection of technology and pedagogy. Behind the national curriculum and other guidelines are always pedagogical theories, and when educational institutions adopt digital tools, including educational games, they do so with the goal of aligning the tools with the visioned teaching frameworks. Recent studies have also discussed how pedagogically grounded approaches can shape teachers’ perspectives on DEGs and their implementation (Davies, 2011; Laanpere et al., 2014; Shaikh, 2023). Learning is often conceptualized a direct process of acquiring knowledge and abilities, traditionally viewed as a linear transfer from teachers to learners (Agathangelou et al., 2016; Iversen et al. 2015). However, the “negative dimension” of learning, where pupils must grapple with their own knowledge gaps and limitations (Mitgutsch & Sattler, 2008), can also be considered through gamebased learning (GBL). This offers a way to explore the combination of cognitive and constructivist perspectives. For teachers, GBL provides opportunities to teach the given topic with different experiences and tools, which can have the ability challenge and expand pupils’ understanding better than texts and pictures in a book. Teachers are the ones, who ultimately choose which games or frameworks best support their pupils. This chapter explores key pedagogical theories 33 underlying GBL, including constructivism, motivation theories, and social learning theory, and examines how these frameworks influence teachers' practices and perceptions. Constructivist theory, primarily associated with Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, posits that knowledge (or learning) is constructed through experiences rather than passively received (Pardjono, 2016; Polin 2018). If the importance in learning is based on hands-on learning experiences and social interactions, gamebased learning can offer a way to include both of these elements in a pupil-centred way (Costley, 2014; Kalogiannakis et al. 2018). Especially when there are situations that would be hard or almost impossible to replicate without ethical, financial, or time constraints. Teachers who adopt a constructivist approach view of GBL as a means to provide interactive experiences that allow pupils to experiment, whether consciously or not, can solve problems and build new understanding through gameplay (Gee, 2008; Polin, 2018; Roussou, 2004). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) suggests that pupils learn best when they are challenged but supported in reaching the new competencies. Many gamebased learning platforms incorporate levelling systems, adaptive challenges, and feedback, which align with ZPD by offering tasks within each pupil’s learning range (Plass, Homer, & Kinzer, 2015). The experiential element of games can also be used to create situations where pupils can encounter and overcome "negative dimensions" of learning (Mitgutsch & Sattler, 2008). Self-Determination Theory (SDT) explained by Deci and Ryan (2000) and Uysal and Yildirim (2016) is another framework for GBL, particularly focusing on motivation—the internal desire to engage in an activity for its own sake. In a well-thought game, all of the elements (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) can be present. Games that allow choices and give players control (autonomy), provide feedback on progress (competence), and encourage collaboration (relatedness) are more likely to engage pupils (Kebritchi, Hirumi, & Bai, 2010). For teachers, the motivational elements of GBL could provide a way to engage pupils who may otherwise struggle to find interest in traditional educational methods. Then again, Salter (2011) observed that since games include assessment mechanisms, as progression often requires mastery of specific skills, they can aid in teaching and in evaluating pupils’ formal and informal learning. The benefits of game-based learning are particularly noticeable among digital natives, who are accustomed to quick information retrieval, visual cues, non-linear access, networked environments, and instant feedback (Salter, 2011). Social Learning Theory, developed by Albert Bandura, said that learning occurs through observation, imitation, and interaction with others. Teachers, who are interested in highlighting these elements, could observe that these interactions create opportunities for pupils to learn from each other, practice social skills, and engage in collaborative problem-solving (Häkkinen et al., 2017). Also, David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) provides support for the use of games in education. According to Kolb, effective learning involves a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Kolb & Kolb, 2010). Games, which offer hands-on experiences, 34 give pupils a space to enter a learning cycle by engaging directly with content, reflecting on in-game successes and failures, conceptualizing new strategies, and experimenting with solutions. According to Zhong (2019) game-based learning, also been referred as funbased learning in Taiwan, represents an innovative educational approach that merges education with play. By instructional content and creating game-based learning scenarios, pupils can independently tackle game tasks either individually or through group collaboration within engaging and challenging game environments. Through this approach, learners actively construct knowledge, develop collaborative skills, and enhance problem-solving abilities during gameplay. Moreover, the stimulating learning environment boosts pupils' motivation and interest in acquiring knowledge. This method, characterized as "play-andlearn," seamlessly embeds learning within the gaming experience, harnessing elements like motivation, interest, curiosity, challenge, and feedback to achieve an educational effect that feels as immersive and dedicated as playing a game. (Zhong, 2019; Roussou, 2004; Manesis, 2020; Rodriguez, 2006; Iversen et al., 2015). Pedagogical behaviour can be studied through the forementioned theories and lenses in order to understand the relationships and interactions between stakeholders. Stakeholders can be viewed from many different standpoints, as well as their actions. In case of DEGE, the ecosystem revolves around digital education games, which suggests that pedagogical theories might explain the actions a bit better than just information systems. For example, classroom observations, case studies, and qualitative analyses are quite commonly used to study how teachers implement constructivist practices, such as questioning techniques, and this can be a way to demonstrate that information systems alone lack the capacity to capture the relationships and actions within educational contexts. 3.4 The Usage of Education Games and Gamification The developer of any learning material can start the planning of the learning materials from a pedagogical point of view. This also applies to digital learning materials. There are many pedagogical starting points that can be related to describing, visualizing, illustrating, presenting, or processing a topic or its information content. The learning materials themselves can be activities aimed at learning goals, text content, speculation tasks, learning tasks or part of the entire learning process of the subject. The transition to digital learning materials has been motivated by technological development and the desire to improve the learner's commitment to the subject, but on the other hand also by cost efficiency. Finland and Europe have been active factors in integrating digital learning materials into educational systems, and the topic is also studied in many different countries (EC, 2020; Löytönen & Tossavainen, 2019; Kaisla et al. 2015; Ilomäki, 2012; Shi & Shih, 2015; Manesis, 2020). With digitization, learning materials can be created and 35 used digitally more and more alongside the rapid changes in technological development (Kaisla et al., 2015), which might also soon include the use of AI. The European Commission’s Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) highlights the importance of integrating technologies, such as digital educational games (DEGs), into classrooms to enhance digital literacy (EC, 2020). The Action Plan has been created to support the development and widespread adoption of digital education tools in Europe, even though it does not necessarily specify what kind of digital tool should be used. It also prioritizes teacher training as the need for educators to be equipped with the skills and confidence is important. In Finland, the principles of the Action Plan align closely with national educational strategies outlined in the Opetussuunnitelma 2014 (Opetushallitus, 2014) and the general guidance provided by Opetushallitus (Finnish National Agency for Education). The curricula advocates for the use of technology to foster creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving skills, encouraging teachers to incorporate gamified learning methods to engage diverse learners and develop critical digital competencies (Opetushallitus, 2014). Similarly, Opetushallitus supports digital learning through training programs, funding initiatives, and resources that empower schools to integrate tools like DEGs. A few studies have been made in Finnish settings on education games and their usage. Across some of these studies, teachers viewed educational games as valuable tools for pupil engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes. However, challenges were also present, including a lack of professional training to improve teachers’ technical competence and confidence in using these tools (Keskiniemi, 2018; Ylitervo, 2021; Hautala, 2019). Another key concern was the difficulty of aligning game content with curriculum objectives (Linnakylä & Nurmela, 2012; Hautala, 2019). Infrastructure limitations, including inadequate resources and technical issues, had also further constrained their adoption rates (Ylitervo, 2021; Hautala, 2019). Teachers assumed roles as guides—structuring gameplay and aligning it with learning goals—or supporters, offering assistance during gameplay (Hautala, 2019; Rosenqvist, 2012). It is worth noting that many of the studies reviewed were conducted as part of bachelor or master level research projects. While these studies provide insights into the use of educational games and their implications in teaching, the scope and methodology of such projects may be influenced by the resources and time constraints typical of student research. This does not diminish their significance; rather, it highlights the importance of considering these factors when interpreting the findings. On a national level, numbers or data weren’t found on how much certain DEGs are used in schools. Teachers' perspectives on integrating digital educational games into the classroom reflect both enthusiasm and apprehension, as mentioned in the works by Kaisla, Kutvonen-Lappi, and Kankaanranta (2015) and Ilomäki et al. (2012). According to Kaisla’s et al. (2015) research, many teachers see the potential of digital learning materials, including games and they seem to appreciate how these tools can make lessons more interactive, teach digital literacy, and are relevant to pupils’ digital lives. However, Kaisla et al. (2015) also mention some of the challenges teachers face when incorporating digital games into their teaching 36 practice. Many teachers reported concerns about the time and resources required to implement these tools. There is often a lack of adequate training or support, which can lead to uncertainty in integrating digital games in a way that aligns with curriculum goals. Also, some teachers worry that focusing too much on digital games may detract from essential traditional skills or lead to distraction rather than meaningful engagement. Despite these challenges, the study finds that with the right support and professional development, teachers are generally open to using digital educational games. (Kaisla et al., 2015). For digital games to be successfully adopted in classrooms, it would seem that teachers need ongoing training, access to quality resources, and a supportive infrastructure. Teachers’ beliefs play a major role in the adoption of DEGs in classrooms. According to Ertmer and Ottenbret-Leftwich (2010), the amount of confidence teacher has on their ability and skills affect how such tools are used. Also, Mertala (2019) suggested that teachers’ comfort with traditional methods and their own experiences with technology shape their willingness to experiment with DEGs. If teachers view games as distractions or feel unprepared to handle potential technical issues, they are less likely to incorporate them, regardless of their potential benefits. Even when resources and infrastructure are available, teachers’ underlying pedagogical beliefs might often determine whether they will integrate tools like DEGs into their teaching. Teachers who see technology as aligning with their instructional goals are more likely to incorporate it, while those who perceive a disconnect between digital tools and their teaching philosophy may resist adoption (Ertmer & Ottenbret-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2014; Mertala, 2019). When discussing DEGs, another important aspect is Gamification. This can be described as a process where usual activities are modified with game-like features, like points, badges, levels, and challenges, and the goal is to make the activity more pleasant (Hamari & Huotari, 2012). The game elements are studied and brought into non-game contexts and other platforms and take advantage of people’s natural competitive drive or playfulness. The core mechanisms of gamification, according to Hamari et al. (2014), are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. On other hand, it can be seen as a way to motivate people to do tasks and take part in actions that would be otherwise boring to them. As a phenomenon, gamification is rather new, and its research and usage can be seen mostly starting in the 21st century (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Hamari et al., 2014). During the past few years, the development of digital tools and devices has changed a lot how different technologies can be used and their users better motivated (Hamari et al., 2014; Hamari, 2019). Contemplating on the future of gamification, this could mean more personalization, real-time feedback and adaptation of game experiences, use of Natural Language Processing, and other use of immersive technologies, and all could be done with the help of AI. But as the late Professor Johan Huizinga's famous work "Homo Ludens" began with the words: "Play is older than culture, for culture, however imperfectly defined, always presupposes human society, and animals have not waited for man to teach them their games." (Huizinga, 1955), there could always be different sort of tools and devices, the core comes from humans themselves. And as play seems to be part of our 37 development, the connection between emotions and games arises in importance. Humans can play playfully and seriously, and as humans grow up, serious play (playing sports, competing) can be seen as more acceptable than play (for example, children playing with toys) (Hamari et al., 2014; Rodriguez, 2006). Along with play, throughout history, people have created various games and tools that have been used for pure entertainment, more serious learning and testing (war) strategies while creating connections with other people. Gamification and Digital Education Games share some overlapping principles and objectives. This is highlighted especially in the goals in wanting to engage pupils and create better learning experiences. As of right now, games have taken their place in the digital world and part of everyday lives of many young pupils, even when just a decade or two ago digital games and their players had more of negative labels attached to them (Hamari et al., 2014; Malliet, 2006; Hamari, 2019). In DEGE, gamification could be seen as a tool for different stakeholders to enhance the relationship between DEG and its user. However, drawing from the works of Hamari et al. (2014) and Koivisto and Hamari (2019), teachers could use gamified analytics and performance dashboards to guide their usage, game developers could create more gamified features that align with curriculum goals, and educational institutions could track performances while standardizing local digital literacy goals. Teachers might also already use gamified tasks in their classrooms, as for many, turning a boring task into play or competition can boost participation activity (Hamari et al., 2014; Ilomäki et al., 2012, Kaisla et al., 2012) Implementation of these through the lens of DEGE would probably require better interactions between stakeholders. There are currently some challenges and obstacles in using DEGs and gamification, which can be related to lack of knowledge, skills, or tools, but with training and collaboration between stakeholders these could be solved. 38 This chapter introduces the methodology and decisions made for the gathering of data. As mentioned earlier, the research takes a closer look at the digital education games ecosystem (DEGE) in Finnish basic education focusing on the teachers’ point of view. Even though entangled, the focus of this study could be divided into defining the digital education games ecosystem and how teachers view this ecosystem as stakeholders. Therefore, the first part of this study is mainly theoretical and diving deep into the roots of ecosystems, digital education, and education games. The second part focuses on the teachers and their views. In terms of methodology for the qualitative study and research questions the strategy consisted of interviews with teachers around Finland and thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted with eleven different teachers with different backgrounds, genders, work experiences, and other attributes. The interview questions were categorized and tested before the interviews to balance the connections between research questions and the interview questions. The data collected from these interviews was transcribed and coded to identify recurring themes and patterns. Ethical considerations were also noted, and prior to the interviews, all participants were informed about the study’s purpose, their role in it, their rights, and including the right to withdraw at any time without any consequences. In the following chapters, the different points and themes are discussed more thoroughly to show the work and thought between decisions. As this study aims to create space and understanding of the digital education games ecosystem in Finnish basic education, the findings could possibly add to the existing body of knowledge and offer advice to practical implications. 4.1 Research Design In this study, a qualitative research design was implemented to examine teachers’ perceptions of their roles within the Digital Education Games Ecosystem (DEGE). 4 METHODOLOGY 39 This approach aligned with the recommendation of Myers (2019) for studying a social phenomenon where the goal is to understand participant perspectives within the contextual framework. In the context of Information Systems and based on the previously mentioned works, qualitative studies often incorporate a blend of theoretical frameworks, data collection techniques, and analysis methods to explore the technical and social aspects of the technology in use. This study leaned on the research approaches of Information Systems in order to unpack DEGE and with a qualitative method, it was possible to build a more nuanced view of how teachers perceive their standing in the ecosystem. Motivated by existing gaps in the literature, this study addresses the following key research questions: 1. What constitutes the digital education games ecosystem and how does it differ from similar digital ecosystems? 2. How do teachers, as pivotal stakeholders, perceive their influence on the use of digital education games in classrooms? 3. How do teachers view the functionality and effectiveness of the current digital education game ecosystem? 4. What are the primary obstacles hindering the widespread adoption of digital education games in classroom settings? The first question mostly being present in the theoretical discussion and questions from 2 to 4 guiding the qualitative studies with the teachers. As written in the previous chapter, to help frame the study, several theoretical frameworks were brought under discussion. Qualitative research was selected as the primary method for this study to better capture individual perspectives. Myers (2019) described qualitative methods as suitable for understanding the combination of social contexts and behaviours. This approach also aligned with the interpretivist perspective, which emphasized understanding how participants construct meaning within specific contexts. The qualitative design supported an exploration of teachers’ personal and professional experiences within DEGE, as also noticed by Koivisto and Hamari (2019) in their systematic review of motivational information systems, where the complexity of interactions was best examined through interpretative methods. Rather than chasing objective measures, interpretivism can open the space for personal narratives (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). The goal was to see through teachers’ eyes, to map out the subtleties of their involvement and the meanings they attach to DEGE in their work. IS research often tackles these blended spaces—where technology and human behaviour interact (Wahyuni et al., 2020), and in this context, digital games are not just tools, but they are embedded in the educational world. Teachers’ subjective experiences don’t just interact with the system—they shape it. Hevner & Chatterjee (2010) remind us that both the technical and social dimensions matter, making interpretivism a good approach here. Similarly to Koivisto & Hamari (2019), who explored gamification through similar methods, this study uses semi-structured interviews to dive into teachers' 40 perspectives. These interviews offered the freedom for open reflection, but still capture viewpoints that more structured methods might miss. Semi-structured interviews served as the primary data collection method. They provided flexibility for participants to share their thoughts and experiences beyond predetermined questions (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). This approach allowed for a deeper understanding of teacher perspectives and interactions within DEGE, aligning with previous studies on stakeholder engagement and educational technology (Davies, 2011; Huotari & Hamari, 2012; Wahyuni et al., 2020). Reflexivity has also been incorporated into the research process to ensure objectivity and transparency. Myers (2019) and Noble and Smith (2015) both highlighted the role of reflexivity in qualitative research as a means to mitigate potential biases. Reflexivity was maintained by documenting reflections and analytical decisions, helping to control for personal influence on data interpretation. And reliability as well was reinforced by using consistent data collection and analysis processes, as recommended by Hevner and Chatterjee (2010) as well as Hevner’s et al. (2004), whose study focused more on design research and systematic evaluation in research frameworks. In a system like DEGE, where technology, education, and policy overlap, a rigid or purely quantitative method could miss the subtleties that arise from personal and contextual factors. The interpretivist framework complemented the qualitative approach. Through this approach, the study focused on capturing not just what teachers think but how they arrived at their perceptions, how they made sense of their involvement, and how the ecosystem shaped their professional identities. 4.1.1 Qualitative vs. Quantitative Approach In choosing a path for this study, the decision to embrace a qualitative approach came quite naturally. As the outline of DEGE was developed and the approach to this study considered, it became apparent that the results could not be neatly measured or distilled into numbers only. Instead, they were vibrant with the perspectives of teachers, whose voices shape the landscape of how these games are adopted and understood, and therefore this study called for depth through conversation. Qualitative research, with its emphasis on subjective experience, offered exactly that. It allowed the narrative to unfold in a way that structured, quantitative measures cannot achieve that well (Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Bryman, 2008). DEGE, with its different layers of technology, policy, and education, would benefit from view that highlights the complexity of individual experience. Quantitative research can be seen to be powerful in identifying trends and correlations, but it might flatten the texture of personal perspectives. In the world of teachers and their role in this evolving ecosystem, numbers could miss the subtleties— how a teacher feels about adopting a digital game, what influences their decisions, and how they navigate the policies and practice. Often teachers have quite vast power in choosing how they teach or what education games they use (which is 41 to be discussed more thoroughly in chapter 5), and the use of these games depends more on their personal experiences and knowledge. While quantitative research might measure adoption rates or effectiveness in broad strokes, it would seem that in-depth conversations and reflective narratives are a way to see how a teacher truly perceives their role in this complex ecosystem. Also, the qualitative approach not only aligned with the study’s aim but with the very nature of ecosystems themselves. Just as biological ecosystems are made up of countless interdependent relationships, so too does DEGE function through a network of connections between teachers, technology, pupils, and policy. Each part of the system interacts, adapts, and evolves in response to its environment, much like General Systems Theory suggests (Skyttner, 2005). The role of teachers in this ecosystem can be better understood with their lived experiences, perspectives, and reflections. In DEGE, teachers were also not passive users of digital tools; but active participants who shape and reshape the ecosystem through their decisions, their classroom practices, and their interactions with both pupils and technology. Peltoniemi and Vuori (2004) wrote that ecosystems evolve through relationships and exchanges between their parts, and in the case of DEGE, it is the reflections of teachers that would illuminate how this ecosystem adapts and transforms over time. The qualitative method allows for the capture of these moments of reflection, how they perceive their influence, and how they choose to steer the challenges and opportunities. Furthermore, ecosystems thrive on diversity, on the multiple layers of experience and interpretation that contribute to their ongoing evolution. Qualitative research mirrors this diversity, and teachers' narratives provided that richness. 4.2 Data Collection methods Semi-structured interviews form the core of data collection for this study. With the predetermined questions, every interviewee was asked the same questions, but this method allowed participants to expand on their thoughts and explore areas that may not have been anticipated by the researcher, as Adams (2015) described the use of semi-structured interview method. Open-ended questions might better bring forward thoughts, ideas, and experiences of the teachers. The semi-structured format's flexibility would allow teachers to talk about their experiences and perceptions in their own words, rather than being confined to rigid response options. This freedom would encourage more authentic responses and deeper engagement with the subject. (Adams, 2015) In the transcribed interviews, there were also some extra questions presented to certain interviewees, when an opportunity presented itself for such act. As noted by Hecht & Crowley (2020), qualitative approaches that emphasize participant-driven dialogue can allow for a more thorough understanding of how individuals interact with and influence these broader systems. This structured 48 In this chapter, the results of the interviews were analysed and categorized based on the research questions. Important notions or mentions from the interviews have been highlighted with quotes from participants. 5.1 Categorization of Interview Questions For this chapter, the interview data has been categorized according to the research questions. These four areas are: Understanding of the Digital Education Game Ecosystem (DEGE), Teachers' Role and Influence, Operability and Functioning of the DEGE, and Obstacles in the DEGE. This categorization provides some structure to analysing the responses, although there are various ways to sort and analyse them. Understanding the overview DEGE is placed first because it addresses the foundational level: what is being used and how familiar participants are with the digital educational game ecosystem. This category has the knowledge base that forms the starting point for any further discussion. Questions such as “What devices are used?”, “Are e-books used in school?”, and “Do you use educational games in your teaching?” all revolve around what is already in place—what tools, resources, and technologies are currently integrated into everyday classroom practices. Some of these questions can be showed better with charts and numerical data, and therefore the chapter in question is divided in two parts. Without understanding the baseline of digital engagement, it would be difficult to move forward into more complex discussions about influence or operational challenges. The second category, Teachers' Role and Influence, shifts the focus to agency and decision-making within the ecosystem. Here, the questions are designed to probe how much control teachers have, how they feel about their influence, and whether they are supported in implementing digital tools. Questions such as “Do teachers decide on game use, or does the school guide their choices?” and “How do you feel about your ability to provide feedback on game use to developers or 5 RESULTS 49 institutions?” are examined how top-down or bottom-up the integration process is. This category acknowledges the importance of teachers' perspectives, recognizing them as active participants who have the potential to either drive or inhibit digital transformation in classrooms. This placement emphasizes the role of teachers as both users and influencers of digital educational games. Thirdly, Operability and Functioning of the DEGE addresses the mechanics of how the ecosystem works on a practical level. Questions about the infrastructure, device availability, and support systems reveal whether or not the ecosystem function smoothly as of right now according to experiences of these interviewees. This category includes questions such as “How well does your institution’s infrastructure support game use?” and “Who maintains the devices?”, which are key in determining the feasibility of implementing digital educational games on a larger scale. In many ways, this category serves as a bridge between theoretical engagement with digital tools and the real-world limitations or capabilities that determine their success. Without adequate infrastructure, even the most well-intentioned plans for using digital games can fall apart, which is why it’s crucial to address the operational side explicitly. Obstacles in the DEGE is positioned last, as it encapsulates the challenges and barriers that prevent the system from reaching its full potential. Questions in this category explore internal and external factors, from technical issues to cultural resistance. For example, questions like “Why aren’t devices being used?” and “What problems could you imagine in using the games?” reveal a critical dimension of the digital ecosystem: not everything works smoothly, and there are barriers that need to be identified and overcome. This category also touches on broader issues like policies, resources, and the role of developers. By placing this category last, the framework highlights that obstacles are the final hurdle to address, once understanding, influence, and functioning have been explored. In essence, the categories build upon one another. Understanding of the DEGE sets the foundation (especially with the first part of this study), Teachers' Role and Influence explores agency, Operability and Functioning of the DEGE addresses practical concerns, and Obstacles in the DEGE pinpoints the barriers that prevent progress. The arrangement of questions in this way provides a logical flow, moving from what is known and understood, through to the complexities of decision-making, practicality, and the problems that come with any new technological integration. 5.2 Preliminary Stakeholder Perceptions of Digital Education Games Ecosystem The first research question, focused on the "overview of the Digital Education Games Ecosystem (DEGE)," is primarily discussed in the theoretical section, where the structure and components of the ecosystem were discussed more thoroughly. This theme acted as a foundation for understanding these results and 50 how to analyse the data. In some sense, all interview questions are connected to this research question, as they examine various aspects of the ecosystem, including the use of devices, e-books, and educational games, as well as the roles of different stakeholders. However, going through the questions, assigning these questions as most relevant to this topic seemed most logical. 5.2.1 Use of Devices and Games in Classrooms The data in this chapter surrounds mostly questions that can be answered with one-word responses. These questions might not be as relevant to this study as the questions that ask reasons and thoughts behind certain subjects, but these questions were helpful in tuning in the participants. With these kinds of questions, the interviewees could ground themselves into the topic and start easily. If these questions were studied more relevantly, the sample size of primary data should be larger. However, as these questions were asked and also help lay down the foundation, they were chosen to be analysed as well. For the first question related to the overview of understanding DEGE (“1. Are teaching devices used?”), out of 11 interviewees, all answered “yes” to using teaching devices in some capacity. Five respondents (interviewees P5, P6, P8, P9, P10) indicated more specifically that devices are integrated into the daily classroom environment. Interviewees P5, P6, P8, and P9 said that devices are regularly used, and there are clear strategies, such as "IT-strategies" (tvt-strategia) or schools providing personal devices for every pupil. Interviewee P4 brough up that there is no standard practice for device use, but personally they still try to integrate technology into their classroom activities. Interviewee P7 mentioned that device usage is not a natural fit for them, but they acknowledge that the school's policies guide them to use the devices. A few respondents (Interviewees P1, P3, P10) mentioned specific types of devices like laptops, touchscreens, and IT classrooms (computer labs). While some schools have a strong reliance on devices across subjects (Interviewees P6, P8, P9), others focus more on specific uses, such as in IT rooms for math or ICT lessons (Interviewees P3, P 5). There seems to be a trend of all schools using devices to some extent, but there are differences in how uniformly devices are provided (some schools had personal devices for each pupil, while others relied on shared resources). Five respondents (P5, P6, P8, P9, P10) said that devices are integrated into the daily classroom environment. Interviewees P5, P6, P8, and P9 said that devices are regularly used and cited specific school policies, such as "IT-strategies" (tvt-strategia) or schools providing personal devices for every pupil. Interviewee P4 brough up that there is no standard practice for device use, but they still make an effort to integrate technology in the classroom. Interviewee P7 mentioned that device usage is not a natural fit for them but acknowledges that the school's policies guide them to use the devices. This hints at potential barriers due to the teacher’s own comfort level. A few respondents (Interviewees 1, 3, 10) mentioned specific types of devices like laptops, touchscreens, and IT classrooms (computer labs). While some schools have a strong reliance on devices across subjects 51 (Interviewees 6, 8, 9), others focus more on specific uses, such as in IT rooms for math or ICT lessons (Interviewees 3, 5). There seems to be a trend of all schools using devices to some extent, but there are differences in how uniformly devices are provided (some schools have personal devices for each pupil, while others rely on shared resources). The Figure 3 below shows yes/no questions that belong to the first category of interview questions (Figure 3). By categorizing the responses into "Yes," "Maybe/Somewhat," and "No," the figure allowed for a straightforward visual interpretation of the attitudes of the interviewees. The question “Do you think educational games could be useful” showed a generally positive outlook among respondents. The concerns regarding the usefulness were related practicality or appropriateness of educational games in their teaching contexts. Out of the eleven respondents, five indicated that they use educational games in their teaching, three said they use them sometimes, while three stated that they do not use them regularly. Four respondents (Interviewees P4, P5, P6, and P11) reported regular use of educational games in their lessons. Three respondents (Interviewees P3, P7, and P10) indicated either no use or minimal use of educational games. The teachers who used the games the most or saw them in more positive light demonstrated a pattern of regular, structured usage of educational games in their classrooms. Interviewees P1, P2, and P4 fell into a category of educators who use games in a more supplementary manner, perhaps only when appropriate for certain lessons or during extra time. These teachers viewed educational games more as an additional tool than essential part of their teaching routines. Interviewees P3, P7, and P10 also talked about the challenges or preferences of integrating (or not integrating) educational games into their practises. The reasons varied from not seeing the need (Interviewee P3) to feeling unfamiliar or uncomfortable with how to implement games effectively (Interviewee P7). Later in the interviews, these interviewees also discussed lack of training or knowledge Figure 3 – General Thoughts on Devices and Games in Classrooms General Thoughts on Devices and Games in Classrooms 52 and limited perceived relevance of games. However, in most schools in question educational games were more or less used, although not necessarily by the interviewed teachers. In terms of E-book usage, a few mentioned that they are primarily utilized in higher-grade levels and specific subjects, especially with languages. Four interviewees (P1, P3, P4, P9) answered that e-books are not used in their schools, and the reasons varied from preference to traditional books and lack of infrastructure to e-books not being implemented yet. Some mixed perspectives and hesitations also included the convenience of e-books but raised concerns about distractions from non-academic content (e.g., TikTok) by interviewee P8, while interviewees P5 and P10 indicated hesitations among some teachers in their respective schools regarding the full integration of e-books. Interviewees P4 and P9 also preferred traditional textbooks, citing better learning outcomes through manual notetaking and avoiding technical issues with digital tools. The usages of e-books and educational games in certain subjects are shown in the Figure 4 below (Figure 4). In this chart, the amount of mentions for each subject were counted. The most common subjects mentioned include languages and mathematics. Several interviewees reported that e-books are used across multiple subjects, including both humanities and sciences. Languages were mentioned the most and as one of the primary subjects where e-books are most frequently used. Based on the responds, this is understood to be likely due to the interactive and accessible nature of digital materials that can facilitate vocabulary learning, grammar exercises, and instant feedback. Interviewee P11 noted that while e-books started being used in languages, they have gradually been introduced into other subjects, such as mathematics, environmental studies, and native language (Finnish). While some respondents reported that e-books are used in almost all subjects, others interviewee P7 was uncertain about which subjects use e-books, and in their opinion, traditional books may still be more prevalent in some areas. The adoption rates varied by school, subject, and even teacher preference in this participant group. Interviewees P3, P5, and P9 mentioned that although e-books are widely used, traditional textbooks are still present in some subjects. Figure 4 – E-Book and Educational Game Usage by Subject E-Book and Educational Game Usage by Subject 53 The question “In which subjects are educational games used/would be used?” can also been in the Figure 4. Most respondents (10 out of 11) believed that educational games could be applied across various subjects, with a particular focus on mathematics, languages, and programming. At least 5 interviewees mentioned that DEGs could be used in almost any subject, as long as appropriate games are available. Languages were frequently mentioned, and the suitability of educational games for vocabulary practice and language learning was highlighted. Interviewees P4 and P11 particularly emphasized that languages are a clear first choice for game-based learning. Beyond the common subjects, several interviewees noted that games could also be applied in other areas like environmental studies, history, social skills (tunnetaidot), biology, geography, and media education. Interviewees P1, P3, P9, and P11 discussed the potential for creative uses of DEGs in subjects like biology and geography, particularly in tasks like identification exercises or geolocation-based games. Interviewee P9 started by discussing different learning applications, but after conversing these, they remembered different digital plant identification games or games involving flag recognition and memory tasks, which were related to the subjects they taught. While games were seen as useful in many subjects, some interviewees expressed reservations about their use in certain areas, such as biology. Interviewee P3 was unsure of how games could align with biology’s learning objectives, and half-wondered how games could support the learning goals. Several interviewees implied that the use of DEGs depends largely on teacher initiative and their ability to find or create appropriate games. For example, Interviewee P11 remarked that games could be used in any subject if the teacher is willing to seek out relevant games. Interviewees P6 and P7 mentioned the use of DEGs for teaching social and emotional skills (tunnetaidot), which could involve scenario-based games or role-playing games that teach empathy, problem-solving, and decision-making. Seven responded to the question “Which grade levels use/would use educational games in your school?” that educational games are used or would be suitable for all grade levels (1-9). A general belief that DEGs have wide applicability across different ages can be seen in this group of interviewees. Two respondents, Interviewees P3 and P9, talked more about lower grade levels (1-6) possibly benefitting more from educational games, adding that younger pupils find them more engaging and suitable for their learning levels. However, Interviewee P9 also expressed concern that younger children might get more easily distracted if the games become too entertainment focused. 5.2.2 Present Attitudes and Knowledge Diving deeper into the data of the 1st category of questions surrounded topics that delved more deeply into how the teachers thought about the overview of DEGE. However, with some questions, it was easier to see common themes than with others. When asked “How would you describe your knowledge of digital education games?”, the responses could be quite easily coded with a spectrum of barely any knowledge to well versed in the topic. Interviewees P3, P7, and P10 54 expressed most out of touch with DEGs, even hinting at being unsure, stressed, or nervous about using them. Interviewee P7 expressed their school supporting the use of DEGs, but brought up how trying to learn about new things can be stressful, as seen below. The school encourages it, but it does feel a bit stressful trying to learn new things while the old ways are still ingrained. (Koulu kannustaa, mutta kyllä se itselle tuntuu vähän stressaavalta yrittää oppia uusia juttuja samalla, kun vanhat tavat on vielä selkärangassa. P7) During the same question, interviewee P10 brought up the differences between education games and other learning tools/applications, not being sure where the line should be drawn. They also mentioned their own young children using different learning games, and were supportive of their usage, while not quite seeing whether older children or youth would be able to benefit from the as much. Interviewee P2 also mentioned being more familiar with education games their own children had used. Some teachers could be described to be quite enthusiastic and excited about using different tools in learning, mentioning learning about them by themselves or having a related hobby. Interviewee P4 also approvingly mentioned how many pupils have learned English while playing commercial entertainment games. A few of interviewees, six to be more precise, also described different games they had used or tried out in their classes. The terms often used by teachers in the answers included words like “understand”, “complex”, “visualise”, “strengthen”, and “repetition”, when they discussed why or what kind of games or effects they wanted in them. The most commonly mentioned games or platforms included Kahoot, ViLLE, GeoGebra, and Quizlet, with some respondents noting that they have used these actively in their lessons. Interviewees P1, P4, P5, P6, P8, and P11 said that they use digital educational games in their teaching or other personal learning environments. For instance, Interviewee P4 often uses Kahoot during lessons and encourages pupils to engage with other educational games. Interviewee P6 described a broad use of many different tools, showing high familiarity with mainstream educational games and more specialized tools like ViLLE. Interviewee P5 said that they integrate games into technology lessons, such as teaching keyboarding skills with specific games. Interviewees P2, P7, P9 expressed a more limited familiarity or comfort with using digital educational games. Similarly, Interviewee P9 found digital games somewhat enjoyable but expressed uncertainty about their educational value in the classroom. Interviewees P4, P5, P6, and P11 demonstrated the highest engagement with educational games, using them regularly in their teaching and sometimes testing out new games for educational purposes. The seventh question fitting for this category is “Which educational games are used/would be used in your school/classroom?”. Kahoot and Quizlet were the most frequently mentioned educational games, with both being used by at least five different interviewees. These seemed like answers “on the top of their tongue”, 55 and then proceeded to more specific contexts or mentions. Some interviewees reported using more specialized games in their subjects, such as programming games and typing games for IT classes (Interviewees P5 and P6), as well as escape-room-style games for media literacy (Interviewee P6). Media literacy classes were also included in the IT-strategy that was showed during the interview. Interviewees P1, P5, and P6 pointed out that programming and typing games are common in IT classes, with specific mentions of GeoGebra for math and coding games like Angry Birds programming game (Interviewee P1). Interviewee P6 talked about a wide range of games with great interest, including ViLLE, SoMe Detectives, and Minecraft, and explained that these games are usually used in media education, environmental education, and other areas of learning. A few interviewees, including Interviewees P3, P7, P9, and P10, indicated little to no use of educational games with slight emotion of wanting to keep the answer short and clear. Interviewee P3 and P7 both mentioned that they haven’t used any games personally but have heard about them being used in subjects like math and languages from other teachers in their school. Interviewee P9 reflected more uncertainty, mentioning Duolingo but expressing scepticism about its fit for school contexts. These responds focused on vocabulary games and quizzes to supplement more traditional teaching methods. To the question "What specific learning goals are you trying to achieve/would you try to achieve by using educational games?" all respondents provided specific learning goals, which were usually related to the subjects they taught. The learning goals varied depending on the subject, with a focus on either skills development (coding, typing) or conceptual understanding (language acquisition, critical thinking). Interviewee P1 and P4 both talked about using educational games to help pupils understand logic and coding, and these were also mentioned by P5 and P6 in addition of basic media literacy and cybersecurity practises. Vocabulary building and grammar practice were seen as key objectives in language learning by P2, P4, and P11. Interviewee P3 expanded on this by also mentioning the use of games to promote faster reactions, communication skills, and listening/reading comprehension. Similarly, P11 talked about how a person can demonstrate their skills by using them in the games: Learning through games shows that the player has internalized what they've learned, or at the very least, remembers and can use the knowledge to progress in the game. (Pelien avulla oppiminen osoittaa, että pelaaja on sisäistänyt oppimansa asian. Tai ainakin muistaa ja pystyy käyttämään oppimaansa tietoa pelissä edetäkseen. P11) Games were also seen as tools for fostering teamwork, as pupils often collaborated to solve game-related challenges. Interviewees P6 and P7 emphasized using games to generate enthusiasm about subjects and approach concepts from different perspectives. Interviewee P7 pointed out that educational games are effective in developing logical thinking and emotional intelligence, which might not be directly addressed through traditional teaching methods. Interviewee P8 56 emphasized that games allow pupils to demonstrate their knowledge in a practical setting. In terms of feedback (“What feedback have you received from parents or pupils about the use of games?") all respondents noted that pupils generally enjoy playing educational games and enthusiasm from pupils was commonly mentioned. Out of 11 respondents, 4 had received any direct feedback from parents or limited, general discussions. Among these, all described the feedback as positive or neutral, mostly focusing on how games have been used at home as well or how they’ve motivated pupils to learn. Across the board, pupils were described as enthusiastic about using games during lessons. Interviewee P4 noted that pupils often ask when the next game will be played, which had also been asked by P9, but more as a half-joke with reference to wanting to play entertainment games. Also, interviewee P11 said that they don’t often engage with parents due to often substituting in different schools. Even with a general positive attitude about using DEGs, P11 also talked about how pupils might get more easily bored with slow education games, if they are used to fast and focused games, within genres like war and action. The teachers who had received feedback, such as Interviewees P2 and P5, mentioned that parents they had been in contact with had an appreciation for the use of games, especially when their children continued to play them at home. Interviewee P8 did note some joking from pupils, who occasionally make comments about “just playing in class”, if they use education games often enough. However, this was viewed as part of normal adolescent behaviour, rather than a negative reflection on the use of games themselves. The last question in this category was “Who or what kinds of stakeholders do you think are part of the digital educational games ecosystem?”, which in a way can summarize a lot for this research in particular. Before the participants answered, a brief description of what is meant by ecosystems was also discussed. All respondents consistently responded teachers, pupils, and game developers as the core stakeholders involved in the digital educational games ecosystem. Seven out of 11 respondents also mentioned school leadership, while five mentioned parents. Other stakeholders that were mentioned included educational experts, universities, and even cultural institutions. Across all interviews, teachers and pupils were seen as central to the ecosystem. Interviewee P6 also mentioned universities and research institutions, highlighting their role in studying learning processes and developing new educational tools. Interviewee 6 introduced an interesting perspective by suggesting that cultural institutions such as museums and writers could be involved in game development. Games aren’t just about math or programming; they can also explore themes in history or the arts. (Pelithän ei oo pelkästään matikkaa tai ohjelmointia, vaan niillä voi käsitellä vaikka historian tai taiteiden teemoja. P6) Some teachers talked about IT support and hardware providers (e.g., laptops and tablets) within schools. P9 discussed many different places where pupils engage 57 with games, like libraries, schools, game shops (physical and online), marketing/advertisements, and game shop sellers as stakeholders. More interactions and information were hoped between stakeholders such as game developers and schools, in order for the games to be “actually educational, and not just entertainment” (P7). While teachers listed these stakeholders and components, there were some unsureness and guessing. Many used sentences like “in my opinion”, “I would guess”, and “Maybe the…”, and P3 expressed not being too familiar with the concept in any case. When it came to discussing parents, mostly verbs like “support”, “encourage”, and “supervise” were used. Teachers were mentioned, but they roles had been discussed in detail during other questions, which might affect how little their roles in detail were mentioned. Game developers were seen as an entity that is further away, but who creates the selection of games, and who should also have a grand knowledge of learning goals in order for them to be useful. Pupils were mostly noted using the games, but still being “in the centre” (P8). School or educational institutions were thought to be the provider of infrastructure: devices, games, IT-support, and internet connections. Schools also implemented curriculum which affects the teaching, but other policy makers were not mentioned. 5.3 Teachers’ Influence on Digital Educational Game Integration The questions related to the second research question focus on how teachers perceive their chance to influence the digital educational game integration. The question “Have devices been discussed officially or unofficially among staff?” provided views on both formal and informal dialogues within the school. First of all, some of the answers brought up opinions or discussion about use of phones in school and that most discussions about devices among staff were related to this phenomenon. The recent or possible changes were mentioned, for example by P5 how the biggest change during the past 10 years has been to start using ebooks more generally. Some teachers also talked about the policies or IT-strategies of their school, how they are discussed, and different tips are shared. Then again, one teacher (P9) discussed school’s influence and budget more thoroughly, and how it could potentially increase the device use, also mentioning how many teachers in their school would be interested in starting to use the devices daily. Budget was seen as a reason to change from traditional books to devices/e-books. There seemed to be general awareness among staff about the importance of technological integration into education, even with some differing perspectives of device usage. Some teachers brought up how there are sometimes complaining in coffee rooms because of bad behaviour when using the devices. Pupils might not concentrate on what is being taught, or devices are handled without care. One interviewee P10 also talked about how restless pupils already are in lower grades and mentioned how it would hard to see how games would fit when behaviour and/or mental issues are already disrupting the classroom. 64 The analysis of responses to the question "How often do/would you use educational games in your teaching?" shows a spectrum of attitudes among interviewees, which can be seen in Figure 6 below (Figure 6). Some, like interviewees P4, P5, P6, and P11 reported using educational games weekly, particularly in subjects such as language instruction and programming, indicating a proactive approach to their integration. In contrast, interviewees P1 and P2 mentioned using games mostly occasionally. They still suggested an openness to more frequent incorporation but noting that it depends on class schedules. Interviewees P3, P7 and P10 expressed more reserved views, indicating they might consider using games in certain situations but do not currently integrate them regularly. Interviewee P10 explicitly explained that they preferred traditional methods and expressed scepticism about using educational games frequently, while Interviewee P8 emphasized the need for significant added value to justify their use. Also, for many it would depend on what is being taught. The analysis of responses to the question "How user-friendly or reliable do you find the platforms or apps that provide the games?" revealed a spectrum of opinions regarding the usability and dependability of digital educational game platforms. Most interviewees expressed no significant issues with the platforms. Interviewee P1 noted that while free versions might present advertisements or limitations, they had not faced any major problems. Interviewee P2 found e-books generally reliable, though sometimes hindered by pupils' devices struggling to run multiple applications simultaneously. Others, such as Interviewee P3 and P7, mentioned a lack of personal experience but indicated a belief that the platforms are likely reliable. Interviewee P4 pointed out that pupils often navigate the games intuitively but acknowledged the occasional need for collective troubleshooting. I think the pupils are very good at using the games, almost better than I am. It’s very intuitive and seamless for them. (Mielestäni oppilaat osaavat hyvin käyttää pelejä, melkein paremmin kuin minä itse. Että hyvin sellaista intuitiivistä ja sujuvaa. P4) Figure 6 – Education Game Usage by Interviewees Education Game Usage by Interviewees 65 Several interviewees mentioned general ease of use, with interviewee P5 also stating that most applications function well despite some outdated graphics. Interviewee P6 confirmed the user-friendliness of games made in Finland or available in Finnish, while Interviewee P7 recognized improvements over time in platforms but cautioned about some free games being clunky or too simple. Some concerns about data privacy and security were raised by interviewee P8, who expressed a lack of awareness regarding the potential risks. Interviewee P9 pointed out the interruptions caused by advertisements, especially when playing with their own children, while emphasizing that platforms should be userfriendly for both teachers and pupils. Teacher P2 also mentioned that if a certain game goes through a subject in a different order or way than what they have been studying in classes, it might disrupt the flow and learning process. For example, if there are different memory aids or grammar rules in different order/explained differently. 5.5 Challenges in Using Digital Education Games The challenges were approached from multiple angles, ranging from infrastructure to personal thoughts and skills. First of all, this category starts by examining how the devices have been purchased. According to the teachers, they were primarily purchased by the school in collaboration with the city. This raised concerns about funding and resource availability, as different cities have different budgets and expenditures. In general discussions, it appeared that the budget and funding from the city are viewed as a framework within which schools and teachers operate, making decisions while navigating the possible financial limitations. However, this did not come across as something teachers worry too much about, but the concern rather looms around. Fortunately, we’ve had the opportunity to invest in a well-functioning set of devices, and it shows in seamless teaching. (Meillä on onneksi ollut mahdollisuus investoida hyvin toimivaan laitekantaan, ja se näkyy sujuvassa opetuksessa. P6) Regarding the use of devices, one primary reason mentioned by multiple interviewees was the preference for traditional textbooks, which they believed served educational purposes more effectively. Interviewees P1 and P3 showed a bit uncertainty about the actual benefits of devices for learning, citing concerns that increased device usage could exacerbate pupils' concentration problems, given their already existing screen time for leisure activities. Interviewee P9 emphasized resource issues, noting that not all pupils have access to personal devices, and space constraints in the school's computer lab limit their usage. There were also some guesses about how financial situation may affect to decision between digital and traditional school supplies, especially leaning on that e-books 66 could be the cheaper option. On the opposite side of the spectrum, interviewee P2 expressed that in their opinion, e-books make teaching much easier, many more options for different tasks, and grading/check homework has become much easier. Teacher P5 and P6 both mentioned that it is part of everyday life nowadays to have sufficient computer skills, therefore it’s no wonder schools push for the change. P6 also mentioned, that their school has an active plan and goal to be at the top in terms of teaching technological skills to pupils. The overall sentiment indicated a recognition of e-books as a modern and efficient resource, though concerns about resource availability remained a significant barrier. Based on the answers to the question “Are/would free or paid games be used?”, it would seem to be the former option. Depending on the budget and needs, using paid games is possible, but free games are seen as more proper choice for smaller usage. If there were a larger investment or plan to implement a certain software, these would be discussed and decided by the school. Interviewees (9 out of 11) indicated a strong preference for using free games, primarily due to budget. The general consensus was that free games are more accessible and sufficient for educational purposes, especially since the school has already invested in hardware and e-books. If an application were deemed suitable for teaching, the resources allocated to it could be discussed. (Jos joku sovellus todettaisiin sopivaksi opetukseen, siihen laitettavista resursseista voitaisiin keskustella. P2) For instance, several interviewees (5 out of 11) did also mention that free applications, like those associated within e-books, are prioritized for resource allocation. In terms of how school resources affect game usage, responses highlighted the role of technology availability. If there were no devices, digital education games would not be used (at least as easily). If some pupils didn’t have their own device and school didn’t have anything to offer, it would create an unfair situation to this pupil. Then again, teacher P1 also said that phones are used way too much already in schools. Interviewee P8 mentioned that even with different budget restraints, teachers are imaginative and would think of different ways to implement the tools they want into their classrooms. However, some noted challenges, such as potential overcrowding in the computer lab, which could also hinder effective game usage (P3, P9). Factors influencing the use of educational games include the perceived effectiveness of these tools in enhancing learning outcomes. Interviewees (6 out of 11) expressed that while games could be beneficial, they often require additional time and effort to be implemented effectively. Concerns were raised by several (4 out of 11) about whether games could distract from traditional learning methods, leading to rather negative opinions about their appropriateness within the classroom. There was also the question whether these DEGs could truly be used to teach something and not just as an additional tool. At least teacher P2 expressed that they hadn’t found better fitting games but could be possibly 67 interested. There was also the question of skills, and whether the teacher would be able to keep up with the game or with the pupils. Especially P7 expressed that they found their usage stressful as it feels unfamiliar, and they don’t have a lot of experience. Time is also needed for learning and using the games. (Aikaa pelien opetteluun ja käyttöön tarvitaan myös. P5) Time was a relevant theme in the challenges. This was mentioned by seven interviewees, and it was discussed from different viewpoints. P8 mentioned that teachers’ schedules are already quite full, and it takes time to get to know the game, understand how it works, and how it could be used in the classroom. Then in the actual learning situation, it takes time to get the device, start the software and teach the pupils (if necessary). Time that takes to teach or guide pupils was also mentioned multiple times by different interviewees. Regarding whether the developers of digital educational games understand educational goals sufficiently, the responses varied significantly. In Figure 7, can be seen the different views on how teachers see the developers' grasp of educational objectives (Figure 7). Many mentioned that game developers ought to have decent knowledge and skills to create games based on those policies. However, there were some thoughts about the balance between selling and entertaining product and well-working education game. Teacher P5 also expressed this by saying that sometimes games are advertised as education games, but they feel more like entertainment than an educational tool. Interviewee P8 also said on the matter, that often games can be fun, but the pedagogical depth is lacking. They remained sceptical about their alignment with educational aims. Many games are really good and well-designed, but sometimes it feels like the entertainment aspect takes over from the educational purpose. (Siis monet pelit on tosi hyviä ja ihan hyvin suunniteltuja, mutta joskus tuntuu, että se viihde menee vähän opetuksen ohi. P6) Figure 7 – Views on Developers and Policies Views on Developers and Policies 68 Both P9 and P10 mentioned that the motivation behind game development is probably money, which then might affect how well it would fit teachers’ learning routines. Teacher P10 discussed more thoroughly how this commerciality might affect gameplay in the form of advertisements that slow down the progress in the game. Or that there can be a free game, but when it’s played a bit further (few levels forward), it ceases to be free and usually the playing must be stopped then. However, when it came to games that are within E-books, it seemed that according to P2, these games fit the learning well and situated chronologically with the same pace and style as the learning material. In the second question in Figure 7, regarding the influence of policy or curriculum on game use, the responses illustrated some division as well (Figure 7). Policies and curriculum were generally seen as the grand framework for everything that is done in schools. It was the understanding of most, that currently there are not too many notions on how to use education games in teaching in these national curriculums. However, participant P6 described more in detail the IT-strategy of their school, which has an important role in terms of how policy affects the classroom work. According to P6, their IT-strategy gives concrete outlines how each grade is taught and introduced to different digital tools and what skills they must master before graduating. They seemed content and proud, when explaining how clear and instructive this type of policy is. National politics and different trends were also seen as topics to bring up, but not necessarily having that much power to change or have an impact in the classroom. It’s more about how well the games align with the set learning objectives. (Pikemminkin on kyse siitä, miten hyvin pelit sopivat niihin opetustavoitteisiin, joita on asetettu. P8) Regarding whether educational games are seen as harmful, responses varied, but a general theme indicated a cautious yet largely positive view. The majority of interviewees did not classify educational games as harmful, with several expressing that they did not find the games detrimental to learning. However, some participants acknowledged that while games could be beneficial, they also pose a risk of shifting focus away from learning objectives if not monitored effectively (Interviewees P1 and P7). Teacher P1 explained more detailed that sometimes DEGs can concentrate on quite marginal aspects of subjects. Similarly, P2 said that DEGs tend to be hard to edit to fit their own teaching style, so they are left to find games that fit them, even though they would want it to be the other way around. Many also brought up that using games might lead pupils to explore different sites or do something unrelated to learning, if they don’t find the game interesting. Interviewees P7 and P10 expressed grander worry over the cyber security issues and loss of interest or focus during the game. Teacher P10 also said that they wouldn’t know what to do, if something went wrong with the device or software. Also, they said that for around 20 kids, it’s almost impossible to find a game that would interest all. In terms of technical functionality and usability issues (Have you encountered problems with the technical functioning or usability of the games?), a significant 69 portion of respondents reported having encountered some level of technical problems while using educational games. Especially interviewees P3, P7, and P10 expressed stress and worry over not being able to solve these problems and finding this to be one of the main reasons they didn’t want to implement DEGs into their classrooms. Other common issues included connectivity problems and varying levels of pupil proficiency with technology. With technology, the capacity of speed of devices was also especially brought up by P9 and P10. Despite these challenges, the consensus was that such issues are generally manageable, with most interviewees reporting that they are resolved quickly and do not significantly impede the learning process. When discussing desired improvements for educational games, responses to the question “What improvements would you like to see in the functionality of the games?” were focused on enhancing especially the customizability and functionality. Customizability and clear information packages for teachers about each phase of the game and its teaching methods. (Muokattavuus ja selkeät tietopaketit opettajille jokaisesta pelin vaiheesta ja opetusmetodista. P2) Participants P2 and P5 both expressed a strong desire for games to be more adaptable to different learning styles and skill levels, while others highlighted the importance of clear instructional materials for teachers (Interviewees P4 & P7). These teachers were excited and thought these answers quite quickly. Teacher P8 discussed thoroughly how it’s sometimes hard to estimate how fitting a game is for pupils. At first, it might seem like a fitting game with good topics, but once the pupils start playing, it turns out to be rather limited or meant for much younger pupils. This affects the excitement of pupils, and P8 wished there was a better balance between truthful reviews and explanations of gameplay. Additionally, there were mentions of the need for technical improvements to ensure smoother operation during lessons, such as reducing lag and preventing connectivity issues (Interviewee P1 & P3). Overall, the responses reflected a mix of enthusiasm for educational games, tempered by concerns about their implementation and functionality. Interviewees express a desire for games that not only engage pupils but that would genuinely help with educational experiences without compromising learning objectives. Clear instructions about appropriate user ages, usage of game, and other instructions were brought up to know more without having to do time-consuming research, as well as personalization options. 5.6 Research Questions Outcomes The main research question of this study was to find out what constitutes the digital education games ecosystem and how it differs from similar digital 70 ecosystems. This was first approached through literature review based on previous research, but according to the data results the answer might be slightly different. This chapter summarizes the findings and views gathered from the interviews that were discussed more in detail in the previous chapters. The differentiation of DEGE from other Digital Ecosystems might be explained better through previous literature. However, as shown in chapter 5.2 Preliminary Stakeholder Perceptions of Digital Education Games Ecosystem, teachers generally viewed the stakeholders as humans, such as pupils, other teachers, parents, and game developers. Digital Education Games were not mentioned as much, even though they are a vital part of the ecosystem. However, DEGs can be seen as a component rather than a stakeholder. Thinking of different participants of the ecosystem without much knowledge of Digital Ecosystems might explain why stakeholders were thought of first. Educational institutions were seen as something between a stakeholder and a component, as it is not a living entity, but rather a collective. Teachers did acknowledge the different interactions between stakeholders, focusing on the ones between pupils and teachers, educational institutions and teachers, and how teachers viewed DEGs. The second research question focused on how teachers viewed their influence on the use of digital education games in classrooms and the related interview data was analysed in chapter 5.3 Teachers’ Influence on Digital Educational Game Integration. This was generally viewed as quite strong, despite the frequency the teacher in question used the DEGs. Whether a teacher was uncomfortable or familiar with using DEGs, the responds highlighted, maybe even more strongly, that teachers decide how they teach and what devices they are using in the classroom while complying with national and local educational policies. There were discussions and wishes for clearer instructions or information on what kind of games to use, what kind of pedagogical goals can be met through their use, and where to find these games. The third research question was about the functionality and effectiveness of the current digital education game ecosystem and was shown in chapter 5.4 Perceived Functionality of Digital Education Game Ecosystem. The interviewed teachers felt comfortable with the closest stakeholder groups: pupils and educational institutions. Parents were seen as a little bit further away, an entity reached through pupils. Policymakers were also further away but had more power on their daily practises through national educational policies and through their own local school. Their guidelines outlined their teaching the most, and teachers felt they worked within the given frames. The relationship between DEGs and teachers varied, and the skills and knowledge of the teacher affected it the most. The use of infrastructure was also discussed, mostly in positive light. In the use of devices could also be detected teachers’ familiarity with their usage: if teacher felt more comfortable with DEGs or devices, they generally wanted to use them more in their classrooms. Some teachers expressed worries about the concentration and traditional learning skills that could be negatively affected by digital devices and tools, but they also admitted they were not all negative nor useless, as digitality is part of the everyday life right now. Game developers were seen 71 most distant from teachers. Teachers didn’t seem to know how they could interact or whether they would have a chance to be productive through collaboration, other than sending information on detected technological issues, but there was some interest. Especially, teachers expressed to know more about the games, their purposes, and instructions on what kind of situations they are the best. The last research question focused on the primary obstacles hindering the adoption of digital education games in classroom settings and the related data was analysed in chapter 5.5 Challenges in Using Digital Education Games. For this topic, the lack of interaction between teachers and game developers can be seen the best. Teachers expressed varying degrees of uncertainty when it came to choosing DEGs to use and finding information about the games. Time constraint was most often mentioned, and searching and testing fitting games were seen as one of the biggest obstacles, even with the teachers who viewed DEGs in a more positive light. There were also some discussions on customization and personalization options on games, as there can be many different levels of skills and learning styles in one classroom. Infrastructure was also mentioned, especially by teachers, whose school did not have personal devices for pupils. Renting shared devices took time and planning before-hand, while pupils also might not have been accustomed to using them. Then again, teachers who worked in schools with personal devices also reported issues in infrastructure, but they were related to the capacity of devices, internet connections, and compatibility. 72 Understanding the current state of DEGE in schools required exploring the interplay of tools, roles, and barrier within this ecosystem. Teachers’ insights emphasize the potential of DEGs to support learning while also revealing some gaps in implementation and alignment with educational goals. According to the teachers in this study, it seems the integration of digital education games into teaching is widespread but inconsistent. Majority of interviewees had a positive outtake on the use of DEGs in education, but even the ones who were not as excited or positive, agreed that the use of devices, digital tools, and DEGs were on the rise and considered them as something trendy at the moment. Teachers talked about a broad range of technologies, including ebooks, learning apps, and subject-specific games that are being used to varying degree in schools and grade levels. The diversity of these tools may reflect on the willingness to engage with technology in education, but it also highlights some disparities in infrastructure and resource availability. While many educators expressed a sense of autonomy in deciding on DEG use, there could be some more training or professional development to enhance their confidence and competence. Especially, when it comes to time and energy. Time constraints, both for teachers to familiarize themselves with the games and for their effective use during lessons, were frequently mentioned as barriers in using more DEGs. Also, technical issues, usability issues, and misalignment with curriculum goals were present in the conversations. Teachers also raised concerns about the pedagogical depth of some games, noting that entertainment value often overshadows educational goals. Collaboration with other stakeholders, like developers and institutions, was also perceived as a bit insufficient. Not necessarily with many complains, but more of not knowing how or why to engage with each other. Despite some challenges, teachers remained quite optimistic about the potential use of DEGs, or at least of how much it has grown over the last few years. Games are seen as a popular and trendy, but still valid tool to foster better engagement. Especially how DEGs can be used with different learning styles to reinforce skills and learning logic, vocabulary, and visualization of knowledge. 6 DISCUSSION 73 These findings can provide a foundation for discussing how the DEGE can evolve to better support teachers and pupils while addressing its current limitations. 6.1 Reflections on Understanding of the DEGE Among the interviewees could be sensed a sort of agreement on using teaching devices in teaching and its growing popularity in general, even if not all of the interviewed teachers were excited to use them. These teachers, consistent with Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich’s study findings (2010), demonstrated an alignment between their technical competence and positive attitudes toward educational technology. Conversely, teachers who could be seen being in an imagined “low skills, low preference” quadrant discussed barriers such as lack of training, insufficient institutional support, and scepticism about the educational value of DEGs. These challenges might suggest, also by Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), that low confidence and negative beliefs combined may hinder technology adoption. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich also mention that it is important for teachers to believe in their own abilities to implement this while being confident about their knowledge. Confidence seems to be especially important when reflecting how some of the interviewed teachers discussed not being sure which game would be good for which lesson or pedagogical goal and also the time constraints for researching the games. Similar themes were also mentioned by Thomas and Palmer (2014) and Greener and Wakefield (2015) in their works. The interviewed teachers seemed to have limited chances to affect the infrastructure in their schools, despite feeling rather powerful in deciding the teaching methods in their classrooms. If a teacher wanted to be more present or active in deciding what tools to use or what kind of strategies should be used, depending on the place, they seemed to have a chance to be involved in that. However, majority of the interviewed teachers were not too involved in these. Teacher led innovation and participation in decision-making when creating curricula were also positively remarked by Kilag et al. (2023) and Rodriguez et al. (2016). Still, it seems that schools that adopted clear IT strategies were able to enable more consistent device usage and aim to concentrate on learning digital skills, which as a concept is also supported by Wahyuni et al. (2020) as it posits that effective technology integration transforms educational experiences. However, the varied levels of device integration reported—ranging from extensive use in some classrooms to limited access in others—might suggest some disparity in the educational technology deployment regionally. Such discrepancies would also hinder the effective application of TPACK, if educators struggle to integrate technology into their pedagogy when faced with inadequate resources (Bond & Bedenlier, 2019). The uneven adoption of e-books presented another layer of complexity within the DEGE. While some interviewees reported using e-books primarily in language and math classes, a few interviewees expressed a preference for 80 disconnect by fostering dialogue between teachers and developers could result in tools better tailored to pedagogical needs and reduce the apprehension teachers feel about adopting DEGs. 6.5 Policy Implications and Recommendations The integration of digital educational games (DEGs) into classrooms might present both opportunities and challenges for educational stakeholders. One of the issues identified in this research was the lack of training for educators in integrating digital educational games into their teaching practices. Given that some of the interviewed teachers expressed a desire for more support, educational policies should prioritize the development of professional development programs. These programs should focus on training in digital pedagogy and support teachers build confidence in their knowledge and skills. Instruction and/or training should cover the technical aspects of using digital games and emphasize pedagogical strategies that align with different curricula goals on local, national, and even transnational level through EU legislation. Programs similar to those in other countries, for the sake of an example in this case Singapore and Australia, which emphasized professional development and technology integration, could be also considered and studied (Lim & Khine, 2006; Romeo et al., 2012). Based on these studies by Lim & Khine (2006) and Romeo et al. (2012), maybe this could be implemented through continuous training programs, structured policy design, collaboration with tech companies, and clearer instructions on integrating of digital skills. Additionally, it might be beneficial to include training in gamification techniques. This could help teachers with strategies to diversify their teaching and help with pupil engagement through game-based learning, as highlighted by research on gamification and its effectiveness in educational contexts (Costa et al., 2016; Hamari et al., 2016). The research findings revealed that teachers experienced varying degrees of decision-making autonomy in selecting educational tools. In order to foster a better collaboration and confidence in sharing knowledge, policies could also explore the use of teacher-led innovation, which has been studied in Philippines by Kilag et al. (2023) and in Spain by Rodriguez et al. (2016). According to these studies, teacher-designed curricula might often better address the needs of different learners and empower teachers to feel more connected to their role as changemakers. From this point of view, educational authorities could create frameworks that empowered and joined teachers to participate in the selection and creation of digital tools and games. This could be achieved through decisionmaking processes that involved educators, administrators, and technology developers. These kinds of policies could also promote mechanisms for incorporating pupil feedback in the decision-making process. One other barrier to the effective use of DEGs was the inconsistency in resource availability across educational institutions. This has been noted by Blikstad-Balas and Klette (2020) in Norway and Sprenger and Schwaninger (2021) 81 in Switzerland, to name a few examples. To address this issue, policies should prioritize investment in technology infrastructure. This is already quite well established in Finland but there were some changes even in this focus group. All of the schools mentioned by the interviewees of this study had at least rentable and shared devices and/or IT classrooms for pupils to use, but supporting digital literacy and skills still varied a lot between schools. The findings also indicated that cultural attitudes toward digital tools varied across contexts. Policies could promote narratives about technology's role in education, and it can already be seen to some extent happening. Educational campaigns that help boost training programs could help shift perceptions by showcasing successful case studies and best practices from countries with digital integration. Also, since there were a few interviewees who felt uncomfortable or uninterested in DEGs and digital tools in general, this kind of cultural attitude change could create curiousness or nudge these ideas of digital tools being uncomfortable to be challenged. Additionally, policies could facilitate better collaboration among teachers especially, but also pupils and educational technology developers to create a more inclusive ecosystem that valued diverse perspectives and experiences in integrating digital tools. In conclusion, the integration of digital educational games into classrooms might offer potential for enhancing teaching and learning experiences. However, achieving this potential might require efforts from policymakers to address the challenges identified in your research and the insights gained from international practices. By enhancing professional development, fostering decision-making autonomy, improving infrastructure, promoting a cultural shift, and establishing evaluation frameworks, educational policies could create an effective and engaging learning environment that leveraged the capabilities of digital educational tools. These recommendations might support educators in their professional growth and contribute to the overall improvement of educational outcomes for pupils. 82 The research questions of this study were focused on outlining DEGE, Digital Education Games Ecosystem, and how teachers viewed their position as a stakeholder in this ecosystem. This study suggests that DEGE can be used to study and analyse the use of DEGs, Digital Education Games, in school settings and guide the development of collaboration between stakeholders. An ecosystem in general is formed with different stakeholders and components, which in this context include teachers, pupils, schools, game developers, and parents as stakeholders, and DEGs, curricula, infrastructure, and training as components. All of these affected by their relationships, interactions, and new innovations. This study focused on teachers and their views as stakeholders, as they have a fundamental role as decisionmakers and facilitators within this ecosystem. Their ability to navigate this space is influenced by training, infrastructure, their skills, and other mechanisms. Also keeping in mind that the different challenges and possible future directions require institutional support and further focus on how to improve communication among stakeholders and to ensure that DEGs align with both pedagogical goals and practical classroom realities. The following chapters introduce more in detail the key findings, limitations, and future research ideas of the study. 7.1 Summary of Key Findings This study from teachers’ perspective highlighted both the opportunities and challenges faced by different teachers who include digital educational games in their teaching methods. The growing presence of teaching devices and digital tools in education can be seen in the previous research and interview answers from teachers, as well as everyday life, but the extent of their integration and use varied. Infrastructure was found important when talking about functionality and integration of DEGE. Access to devices varied, with older pupils often having 7 CONCLUSION 83 personal devices while younger pupils more often relied on shared electronic devices. Most participants acknowledged the increasing use of educational games and e-books, particularly in higher grades and specific subjects like languages and mathematics. However, there were differences in how these tools are being adopted and influenced by individual teacher preferences and school systems. Based on the interviews, teachers felt like they themselves have the most influence on deciding about the use of technology in their classroom. This influence is still affected by the guidance of curricula and other institutional policies in general, but most variation stemmed from the abilities and skills of specific teacher. Feedback from pupils played some sort of role in shaping teachers’ decisions, if for example pupils suggested different games or ways to implement technology into the classrooms. However, teachers did express a gap in mechanisms for connecting with stakeholders further away from them, like game developers, and this might affect negatively being able to provide feedback and get information and support to choose the best fitting games for their personal teaching goals. Also, teachers’ confidence and familiarity with DEGs played a role in their willingness to adopt these tools. Teachers often mentioned and wished for games that include clear instructional materials and with some possibilities to customize or personalize the learning experience. Challenges in DEGE and integration of DEGs included time constraints, insufficient training, and scepticism regarding the pedagogical depth of certain games. Teachers frequently mentioned the lack of structured training or knowledge of fitting DEGs on their behalf. These were also amplified by technical issues and usability concerns, such as advertisements or lagging applications. Despite these obstacles, many educators expressed optimism about the potential of DEGs to support different learning styles especially in learning critical thinking, problem-solving, and vocabulary acquisition. The role of stakeholders in the DEGE were seen by teachers was another prominent theme. Teachers and pupils were identified as central actors with schools’ essential infrastructure. Game developers were perceived as a distant stakeholder group whom with teachers felt they had limited possibilities to communicate. A better collaboration between developers and educators was mentioned by a few in order to better ensure that DEGs would meet the educational goals. Other stakeholders, such as parents and policymakers, were mentioned less frequently. Parents were seen as being connected through the pupils, while policymakers were seen affecting game developers, educational institutions, and classroom goals. To reach the full potential of DEGs by analysing DEGE, it would be important to focus on teacher training, improving infrastructure, and creating better dialogue among stakeholders. Teachers are in key position in bringing DEGs into classroom, while being affected mostly by the actions of educational institutions, policymakers, game developers, and pupils. 84 7.2 Limitations of the Study While this study focuses on Digital Educational Games Ecosystem (DEGE) and how teachers view their standing in this ecosystem, it is important to also acknowledge the limitations of this study. One of the main limitations is the small sample size of 11 participants. Although the study captures the different perspectives from all these teachers, it does not provide a largely representative view of educators across diverse contexts. This small group may not reflect the broader trends or differences in how digital tools are adopted in different schools, regions, or educational systems in Finland. Another limitation lies in the reliance on qualitative data collected through interviews, as conversations (interviews) are inherently shaped by subjective experiences. The participants’ personal views, how comfortable they are with technology, and even the dynamics of the interview process may have influenced their responses. Added to this, the analysis of the answers was also filtered through a subjective researcher, although the process was discussed with the help of supervisors of this study. The study also focused primarily on the perspectives of teachers, without including input from other key stakeholders like pupils, parents, school administrators, or game developers. While teachers are central to the adoption of DEGs, a more comprehensive study would be required to better understand how each stakeholder views each other. For example, pupils’ feedback on how games impact their learning or developers’ insights on aligning their products with classroom needs could be combined with teachers’ views to make the use of DEGs a better experience for all. Additionally, the study did not quantitatively assess the impact of digital educational games on actual learning outcomes. The findings in this study are based on participants’ perceptions rather than measurable data. And while these perspectives are valuable, they can’t provide a clear picture of whether or how DEGs directly improve educational performance. Another limitation is the difference between the attitudes and experiences among the participants. Teachers who were less experienced with these tools may have been less confident in their responses or less optimistic about their potential, while those with more exposure might have emphasized their benefits more. This range of familiarity likely might have affected the depth and actuality of the study. Lastly, this study also reflects a specific moment in time, within a specific educational and technological context. Educational technology changes constantly and some of these results might lose their relevance over time. Despite these limitations, this study provides a foundation for understanding DEGE. Future research could address these gaps by involving larger and more diverse participant groups, incorporating quantitative measures, and seeking perspectives from a wider range of stakeholders. 85 7.3 Suggestion for Future Research To continue the previous discussion, future research could explore several areas to provide a more practical understanding of the Digital Educational Games Ecosystem (DEGE) and how this ecosystem can be used. One key direction could be to expand the sample size and diversity of participants. This study was based on the perspectives of 11 teachers, which, while insightful in a qualitative sense, represents a narrow slice of experiences. Future studies could include a larger pool of teachers from different regions, grade levels, and school contexts. This would mean interviewing educators who have different abilities on using technological tools, and maybe comparing answers within different regions, for example. Beyond teachers, it would be interesting to include other stakeholders such as pupils, parents, school administrators, and game developers in future research. Similar views could be used, for example to study how pupils view their position in this ecosystem. Also, there could be studies made that are focused on more in detail to explore the different types of stakeholders and components under the main categories presented in this study. These sorts of studies may have already been conducted while not focusing on the point of view of ecosystems or education games. Long-term studies could also be useful. Tracking how teachers and pupils interact with digital educational games over several months or years could provide a deeper understanding of their impact. Do teachers grow more confident and skilled in using these tools over time? Do pupils improve their academic skills through these different tools? Then again, the rapid speed of development in this area must not be forgotten. Long-term studies might fail because it would simply be impossible to keep up with the development of digital technologies. Another area for exploration is professional development. This study highlighted that many teachers felt they lack training in using digital tools. Future research could evaluate different types of training programs to see which approaches best support teachers in bringing educational games into their classrooms. This might include workshops, peer mentoring, or online tutorials focused on both technical skills and how to align games with teaching goals. In short, future research should aim to broaden the scope of inquiry, include more voices, and dig deeper into the long-term effects and practical applications of digital educational games. Understanding DEGE is important for supporting innovation and communication between stakeholders, much like understanding an ecosystem in nature will offer knowledge on how to help different groups to thrive and then again how they can support each other. 86 REFERENCES Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi‐structured interviews. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 492-505. Agathangelou, S. A., Charalambous, C. Y., & Koutselini, M. (2016). Reconsidering the contribution of teacher knowledge to pupil learning: Linear or curvilinear effects?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 125-138. Alivi, J. S. (2019). A review of tpack and samr models: how should language teachers adopt technology?. Journal of English for Academic and Specific Purposes (JEASP), 2(2), 1-11. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?. Educational researcher, 41(1), 16-25. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human development, 49(4), 193-224. Blikstad-Balas, M., & Klette, K. (2020). Still a long way to go: Narrow and transmissive use of technology in the classroom. Nordic journal of digital literacy, 15(1), 55-68. Bocking, S. (1994). Visions of nature and society: A history of the ecosystem concept. Alternatives, 12-18. Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1). Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A sociotechnical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS quarterly, 17-32. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Bryman, A. (2008). Of methods and methodology. Qualitative research in organizations and management: An International Journal, 3(2), 159-168. Bylieva, D., & Sastre, M. (2018). Classification Of Educational Games According To Their Complexity And The Players Skills. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 51. Caponetto, I., Earp, J., & Ott, M. (2014, October). Gamification and education: A literature review. In European conference on games based learning (Vol. 1, p. 50). Academic Conferences International Limited. Carr D, Buckingham D, Burn A, Scott G. Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play. Wiley: Polity Press; 2006. 224 p. ISBN: 978-0-745-63400-5 87 Carrasco-Farré, C., Snihur, Y., Berrone, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2022). The stakeholder value proposition of digital platforms in an urban ecosystem. Research Policy, 51(4), 104488. Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California management review, 50(1), 57-76. Cook, T. D., & Reichardt, C. S. (Eds.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage publications. Costa, C., Tyner, K., Henriques, S., & Sousa, C. (2016). A Review of Research Questions, Theories and Methodologies for Game-Based Learning. Journal of Content, Community & Communication, 4(2), 2-16. Costley, K. C. (2014). The positive effects of technology on teaching and student learning. Online submission. Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55, 45-52. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 1(20), 416-436. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Tondeur, J. (2014). Teachers' beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st-century teaching and learning. In International handbook of research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 403-418). Routledge. European Commission, 2020 (Action plan 2021-2027) European Commission. (2020). Digital education action plan (2021–2027): Resetting education and training for the digital age. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport, and Culture. https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-theeu/digital-education-action-plan_en Feiyue, Z. (2022). Edutainment methods in the learning process: Quickly, fun and satisfying. International Journal of Environment, Engineering and Education, 4(1), 19-26. Fleer, M. (2021). Play in the early years. Cambridge University Press. Fraser, B. J. (2013). Classroom learning environments. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103-124). Routledge. De Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning. 88 Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review. Managing service quality, 24(6), 643-683. Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 5-16. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games (pp. 21-40). Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative. Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st century skills: What are they and how do we assess them?. Applied measurement in education, 29(4), 245-249. Greener, S., & Wakefield, C. (2015). Developing confidence in the use of digital tools in teaching. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(4), 260-267. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025-3034). Ieee. Hamari, J., Huotari, K., & Tolvanen, J. (2015). Gamification and economics. Hamari J., Shernoff D. J., Rowe E., Coller B., Asbell-Clarke J. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 54, 170179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045. Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification. In the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (G. Ritzer., and C. Rojek Ed.). John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey: USA Hannon, V., Thomas, L., Ward, S., & Beresford, T. (2019). Local learning ecosystems: emerging models. Innovation Unit. Hautala, T. (2019). Systemaattinen kirjallisuuskatsaus oppimispelien vaikutuksista alakouluikäisten matematiikan osaamiseen ja opettajan rooliin oppimispelien integroinnissa. (Master’s Thesis). University of Lapland. Hecht, M., & Crowley, K. (2020). Unpacking the learning ecosystems framework: Lessons from the adaptive management of biological ecosystems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 264-284. Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design research in information systems: theory and practice (Vol. 22). Springer Science & Business Media. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 75-105. Hiltunen, L. (2010). Enhancing web course design using action research (Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä). Hiltunen, L. (2011). Tietokoneen rooli perusopetuksessa. Teoksessa K. Suomi & K. Kajannes (toim.) Ymmärrys hoi, 75-81. Hiltunen, L. (2012). Verkko-opetuksen suunnittelun tehostaminen. Tietojenkäsittelytiede. Tietotekniikan laitos, Jyväskylän yliopisto, 34, 37-53. 89 Huotari, K., and Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (MindTrek ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 17–22. Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1938) Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): a framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25-41. Ilomäki, L., Taalas, P., & Lakkala, M. (2012). Learning environment and digital literacy: A mismatch or a possibility from Finnish teachers' and students' perspectives. In Learning the Virtual Life (pp. 63-78). Routledge. Ilomäki, L. (2012). Laatua e-oppimateriaaleihin. E-oppimateriaalit opetuksessa ja oppimisessa, 5. Iversen, A. M., Pedersen, A. S., Krogh, L., & Jensen, A. A. (2015). Learning, leading, and letting go of control: Learner-led approaches in education. Sage Open, 5(4), 2158244015608423. Jacobides, M. G., Lang, N., & von Szczepanski, K. (2019). What does a successful digital ecosystem look Like?. Boston Consulting Group. Kaisla, M., Kutvonen-Lappi, T., & Kankaanranta, M. (2015). Digitaalinen oppimateriaali koulun arjessa. Kalogiannakis, M., Ampartzaki, M., Papadakis, S., & Skaraki, E. (2018). Teaching natural science concepts to young children with mobile devices and hands-on activities. A case study. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 9(2), 171-183. Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & education, 55(2), 427-443. Keskiniemi, M. (2018). Oppimispelien ja pelillistämisen käyttö opetuksessa (Bachelor's thesis). University of Jyväskylä. Kilag, O. K., Marquita, J., & Laurente, J. (2023). Teacher-led curriculum development: Fostering innovation in education. Excellencia: International Multi-disciplinary Journal of Education (2994-9521), 1(4), 223-237. Koivisto, J. & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification literature. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013 96 Opetuspelit Miten kuvailisit tietämystäsi digitaalisista opetuspeleistä? Oletko saanut koulutusta tai ammatillista kehitystä liittyen digitaalisten opetuspelien integroimiseen opetuskäytäntöihisi? (instituutti) Miten hyvin oppilaitoksen infrastruktuuri tukee pelien käyttöä esim. teknologia, koulutus? (instituutti) (komponentti) Käytetäänkö koulussanne opetuspelejä? (Kyllä/ei) - Mitkä luokka-asteet käyttä(isi)vät opetuspelejä koulussanne? - Mitä opetuspelejä koulussa/luokassasi käytetään/käytettäisiin? - Missä aineissa opetuspelejä käytetään/käytettäisiin? - O(lisi)vatko pelit e-kirjojen yhteydessä vai erillisiä pelejä? - Käytetäänkö/käytettäisiinkö ilmaisia vai maksullisia pelejä? - Miten koulun resurssit vaikutta(isi)vat pelien käyttöön? (instituutti) (komponentti) - Päättä(isi)vätkö opettajat pelien käytöstä vai ohjeistaako/ohjeistaisiko koulu pelien valinnassa/käytössä? (instituutti) - Koetko, että sinulla/opettajilla on tarpeeksi vaikutusvaltaa pelien valinnassa? (instituutti) - Kuinka aktiivisesti osallistut päätöksentekoprosessiin, kun valitaan työkaluja (esim. oppimispelejä) opetukseen? (instituutti) - Mitkä tekijät auttavat tai estävät pelien käytön? - Koetko, että digitaalisten opetuspelien kehittäjät ymmärtävät opetuksellisia tavoitteita tarpeeksi hyvin? (kehittäjät) - Miten koet mahdollisuutesi antaa palautetta pelien käytöstä oppilaitoksen ja kehittäjien suuntaan? (kehittäjät/instituutti) - Koetko, että politiikalla tai opetussuunnitelmalla on vaikutettu pelien käyttöön? (tukija/vaikuttaja) Käytätkö itse opetuspelejä opetuksessa? Kyllä - Miten kuvailisit niiden toimintaa ja merkitystä? - Jos olet käyttänyt ryhmälläsi opetuspelejä, oletko kokenut opetuspelit hyödyllisiksi? - Jos olet käyttänyt ryhmälläsi opetuspelejä, oletko kokenut opetuspelit haitallisiksi? - Minkälainen rooli oppilailla on opetuspelien valinnassa ja käytössä? (oppilaat) - Kuinka usein käytät digitaalisia opetuspelejä opetuksessasi? - Mitä tiettyjä oppimistavoitteita pyrit saavuttamaan käyttämällä opetuspelejä? - Kuinka käyttäjäystävällisinä tai luotettavina pidät pelejä tarjoavia alustoja tai sovelluksia? - Oletko kohdannut ongelmia pelien teknisessä toimivuudessa tai käytettävyydessä? - Mitä parannuksia haluaisit nähdä pelien toiminnallisuudessa? 97 - Minkälaista palautetta olet saanut vanhemmilta tai oppilailta pelien käytöstä? (oppilaat/vanhemmat) Ei - Miten kuvailisit niiden toimintaa ja merkitystä? - Kokisitko, että opetuspeleistä voisi olla hyötyä? - Mitä ongelmia voisit kuvitella pelien käyttöön liittyvän? - Minkälaisen roolin antaisit oppilaille opetuspelien valintaan ja käyttöön? (oppilaat) - Kuinka usein käyttäisit digitaalisia opetuspelejä opetuksessasi? - Mitä tiettyjä oppimistavoitteita pyrit/pyrkisit saavuttamaan käyttämällä opetuspelejä? - Kuinka käyttäjäystävällisinä tai luotettavina pidät pelejä tarjoavia alustoja tai sovelluksia? - Mitä parannuksia haluaisit nähdä pelien toiminnallisuudessa? - Oletko saanut palautetta vanhemmilta tai oppilailta pelien käytön suhteen? (oppilaat/vanhemmat) Ketä tai minkälaisia sidosryhmiä mielestäsi liittyy digitaalisten oppimispelien ekosysteemiin?