University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Play-testing a video game prototype with low-SES college-bound urban high school students

(USC Thesis Other)

Play-testing a video game prototype with low-SES college-bound urban high school students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PLAY-TESTING A VIDEO GAME PROTOTYPE WITH LOW-SES
COLLEGE-BOUND URBAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

by

Victor Garcia

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Victor Garcia

ii
DEDICATION
To my parents, Santiago Garcia Diosdado and Maria Estela Servin, who in
1974 arrived in the United States from Mexico as a young couple with only a dream
that their children might have a better life than the one they had known themselves.
They worked hard as farm laborers and did the best they could to impart upon my
siblings and me a strong work ethic and concern for others.
To my siblings Sandra, Ignacio “Nacho,” Leticia “Leti,” and Marcos, the
thought of each of them has been my driving force so many times. To my maternal
abuelitos, Jose Trinidad Servin and Ermila Hernandez Vargas, who raised me and
literally saved my life more than once when I was an infant. To my paternal
abuelitos, Jesus Garcia Rodriguez and Maria del Refugio Diosdado, who were
always kind and generous to me. To my three little nephews, Isaac (8), Emilio (3),
and Mateo (2), because each time I see them I am reminded about why I decided to
do all of this with my life—I have only the greatest hopes, dreams, and expectations
of all three.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair and
mentor, Professor William G. Tierney, whose invaluable guidance and advice over
the past four years was not only limited to my dissertation. Aside from being one of
Bill’s doctoral advisees, I also had the great privilege and gift of serving as Director
of Outreach Projects under him at the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
where he always presented me with opportunities to grow as a student and as a
professional.
I would like to thank my committee members, USC Vice-President of
Student Affairs Dr. Michael Jackson and Professor Kristan Venegas, whose
dedication to their students, including me, inspires me to do the same in my own
pursuits. In addition to their observations and feedback about my dissertation, on
multiple occasions I benefited tremendously from their willingness to help me sort
through questions and opportunities I encountered during my graduate studies.
I would be remiss if I did not thank all of my former colleagues and peers at
the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). Without their consistent
encouragement and unconditional support this dissertation would not have been
possible. Diane Yoon, whose grace and kindness are unmatched, was the greatest
“office co-pilot” anyone could ever wish for—she helped me coordinate our college
access mentoring and summer writing programs and assisted me on this dissertation.
I am also forever grateful to Zoe Corwin who read several early drafts of this

iv
dissertation and held many conversations with me to refine my writing during this
process. And of course Monica Raad and Diane Flores who always held everything
together so effortlessly and because of their positive energy, it was always a pleasure
for all of us to be at CHEPA.
In addition, I would like to thank all of my closest friends and loved ones
who were patient with me even when all I seemed to do was talk about my work and
my dissertation. I could not have completed this process without you all: Eddie
Quiroz, Dr. Paz Oliverez, Christopher Haun, Sal “Chava” Lopez, Jose Cedillo, Maria
Vera-Barrera, Lupe “Beauty” Martinez, Daniel Lazo, Yadira Villa, Blinker Wood,
and Marina Gonzalez. Over the years, several teachers and mentors have also held
me up and given me opportunities to prosper, at times when I needed them most, and
because of their concern for me I have arrived at this point in my life: Ms. Janet
Lewis, Alfonso Hernandez, Marta Navarro, Rosie Cabrera, Mr. Trauger, Mr. and
Mrs. Mills, Mercy Herrera, Jennifer Vega-La Serna, and Albert Desroissier.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One. Introduction 1
Chapter Two. A Review of the Literature 16
Chapter Three. Methodology 42
Chapter Four. Presentation of Data 49
Chapter Five. Conclusions 77
References 84
Appendices:
Appendix A. Request for Review of a Project Involving Human Subjects 92
Table A.1: Metric Comparisons/Descriptions of Metrics 101
Appendix B. Student Assent Form for Research 106
Appendix C. Parent Consent to Participate in Research 108
Appendix D. Student Consent to Participate in Research 112
Appendix E. Internal Intake Form 115
Appendix F. Play-testing Observational Field Notes 116
Appendix G. Focus Group Protocol 117

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Grade Levels of Study Participants 51
Figure 4.2: Study Participants by Gender 52
Figure 4.3: Study Participants by Race 53

vii
ABSTRACT
This study identified five prevailing themes that emerged from observations
of play-testing the paper prototype of a pending video game. The objective of the
game prototype was to inform students about skills and knowledge needed to prepare
strong college and financial aid applications. Study participants were high school
students from low-socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds attending under-resourced
urban high schools and represented a population with limited access to school-based
counselors. In addition to observations of play-testing sessions, focus group
discussions also provided insights into social networking among study participants
and constituted a secondary focus of this applied research study. No theoretical
framework was used to assess research findings given that the goal of the study was
to supply raw qualitative data to a team of video game designers about students’
interactions with the game prototype and related themes which impacted study
participants’ college prospects—the data was to be used to refine the content and
structure of a pending video game. Play-testing observation findings were, however,
juxtaposed against three of Gee’s (2007) “Learning Principles Built into Good
Computer and Video Games” which are: Empowering Learners, Problem Solving,
and Understanding (new knowledge).

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was twofold: 1) to learn how study participants (low-
SES students from select urban high schools) would respond to the paper prototype
of a video game about applying to college and for financial aid; and 2) to identify the
social networks study participants operated within as they prepared for their
transition to college. Because the game prototype used in this study provoked
discussions that signaled players’ college awareness (or lack thereof), insights into
the types of social networks that study participants operated within served as an
opportunity to identify college-going capital that students had access to (or not).
Low-SES first-generation urban students were central to this study because
they overwhelmingly represent the type of college applicants who receive little or no
guidance from school-based counselors on how to effectively prepare for college—
including learning how to build strong and purposeful social networks (Gonzales,
Stoner, & Jovel, 2003). When low-SES first generation students are more closely
networked with mostly peers possessing the same levels of college-going knowledge
as they do, they limit their own ability to gather important information about
preparing for college.
The disproportionately high staff-to-student ratios in under-resourced urban
schools often do not allow students opportunities to build and sustain meaningful

2
relationships with college counselors while preparing for college (Corwin, Venegas,
Oliverez, & Colyar, 2004; McDonough, 2005; Venegas & Tierney, 2006). Low-SES
African American and Latino students, specifically, are particularly likely to have
their college plans negatively affected by unresponsive high school college
counselors (Lee & Ekstrom, 1987; Plank & Jordan, 2001) and more likely to have
underprepared counselors and/or counselors without dedicated counseling duties
(Paul, 2002).
Disadvantaged high school environments therefore arguably pose significant
threats to the college prospects of their students. The video game prototype
employed in this study was designed as one innovative strategy to impart practical
skills and knowledge about applying to college and for financial aid to students who
otherwise would not receive critical information from school-based professionals.
The Game
Interactive media such as video games is increasingly recognized as an
effective strategy to engage high-school-age students in learning or developing
valuable skills (Dickey, 2006; Gee, 2007a, 2007b; Jenkins, 2006). The American
Federation of Scientists (2006) recently proclaimed that “the success of complex
video games can teach higher-order thinking skills such as strategic thinking,
interpretative analysis, problem solving, plan formulation and execution, and
adaptation to rapid change.” Those same skills closely align with the dexterity a

3
prospective college student needs to exercise as he or she prepares to enter college.
Video games, then, represent a novel strategy to convey critical information to
college-bound youth.
The video game paper prototype tested in this study (also referred to simply
as the game or the prototype) was designed as a multi-layered card game which
participants played in groups of three to four (five at most, although this was rare) at
each session. The game stressed the importance of social interaction between
players. To be successful in the game, study participants needed to become key
resources to one another while at play. The type of engagement between players
during play-testing sessions would in turn impact each participant’s game
outcomes—an element purposely included to simulate the possibility of similar
results which could occur in real life situations.
The game prototype employed rules that 17-18 year olds who use other card,
board, or video games would likely recognize. However, the prototype’s content
(factual information about the college and financial aid application processes) was
new to some players. The actual strategies participants would have to decipher in
order to “win” in the game were intended to represent unfamiliar yet appropriate
challenges for all players. Since the youth who participated in the study were of the
generation of students who have grown up with interactive media readily available to
them at home, in school, and other public spaces, the game prototype offered an

4
opportunity to use familiar playing skills to gain new and useful information relevant
to their college aspirations.
As an indicator of previous familiarity with strategy games, study participants
reported whether they sometimes purchased their own video games or had access to
them on the internet (sometimes at no cost). Some participants also shared or
exchanged games with their peers to be used on home gaming consoles. In a study of
video game use among teens, the Pew Internet & American Life Project indicated
that 97% of 12-17 year olds in the United States play video games regularly (Lenhart
et al., 2008). The participants in this study recounted that their time spent playing
video games and their overall gameplay preferences were affected by their home and
school lives and responsibilities. Chapter Four presents more detailed data relating to
gameplay by study participants.
Play-testing
The play-testing sessions in which study participants engaged served the
central purpose of generating data to refine the structure and content of a future
video game. Observations of play-testing sessions and general participant feedback
allowed a team of video game designers (with whom data were shared throughout
the course of the study) to transform the paper prototype into a digital game. The
pending video game would be disseminated via online platforms (such as social
networking sites like Facebook) and would tentatively occur at a point beyond the
life of this focused three-month study.

5
Nonetheless, while the prototype was similar in format to other actual
popular card, video, and board games youth currently play, this game was themed
with tasks and guidance for high school students preparing to apply for college and
for financial aid. Players were informed not only about college and college costs, but
they were pointed to the steps necessary for assessing what they could do in high
school to ensure a better transition to postsecondary studies. Students’ engagement
with the game was captured through informative microgames (smaller tasks within a
larger game).
The structure of the game was meant to mirror real life situations and
decisions students typically encounter in preparation for college. Built on a set of
initial engagement processes, the prototype then offered opportunities for students to
unlock deeper gameplay. In a second phase of the game, the focus shifted from
assessing what would have to be done to become a strong applicant to actually
applying to college and for sources of financial aid implanted throughout the game.
Consistent with other popular game formats, players earned valuable points, awards,
and privileges when they took positive actions in the microgames at the onset and
were able to use those advantages for building strategic and competitive applications
later in the game. A more detailed description of the actions allowed during
prototype gameplay and a full description of the game itself are included in Chapter
Four of this study.

6
The prototype testing described here represented one of the first stages of
game development conducted by a team of education researchers focused on
exploring novel strategies to reach low-income students in need of time-sensitive
information about going to college. The university-based research team was
complemented by game designers from a multimedia laboratory within the same
institution with a proven track record for innovative game creation. Full details about
the video game are not included here as the research team continues the game
development, in part, using data collected through this study.
Social Networks
In addition to assessing study participants’ engagement with the game and
with each other in play-testing sessions, this study also aimed to identify the types of
social networks that study participants developed while in high school. Given that
game testing called for a high level of interactions among students during gameplay,
including having discussions about the college and financial aid application
processes, knowing who formed part of study participants’ social networks was a key
element to consider in data collection. The low-income students who participated in
this study often operate in networks of peers who do not know what types of
questions they should ask in preparation for applying to college and do not know
where to find complete answers to those questions (Venegas & Tierney, 2006).

7
In effect, the majority of schools that study participants attended did not
typically encourage developing or putting into practice wide-ranging social networks
with adults who were knowledgeable about college and financial aid application
processes. In the event that students did receive information or materials about going
to college, those were often difficult to understand. For such students, receiving
timely guidance about the importance of asking focused questions and sustaining
wide-ranging social networks consisting of key institutional agents (counselors,
teachers, mentors, and positive peers) would have been critical (Stanton-Salazar,
1997; Venegas & Tierney, 2006).
Study participants asserted that they developed social networks in real life
places like the classroom, student organizations, and sports or off-campus activities.
Digital platforms offered other networking opportunities for them as well. Otherwise
known as online social networking sites (SNS), these outlets allow students from all
socioeconomic backgrounds to create digital profiles and establish or maintain real
life connections with friends, peers, and others (Howard, Rainie, & Jones, 2001).
Strong and purposeful social networks, whether in real life or online, benefit
those students who use them strategically. High school students from varied
institutional backgrounds (private, public, parochial schools) already possess
important social networks by the time they graduate the 12
th
grade and move on to
college, but not all student networks carry the same social benefits (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Whereas affluent students’ networks can be shaped by college educated

8
parents with well-resourced networks of their own, low-income students’ networks
are often considerably limited as their networks are less likely to include college
knowledgeable adults. Those differences are particularly important once students
begin to apply to and enter an unfamiliar college environment (Tierney & Venegas,
2006; Valenzuela, 1999). Learning to develop new social networks for college
becomes indispensible for low-SES first generation students.
Generational Context
Because of their access to varied electronic media, the age group discussed in
this study is often collectively labeled the net [internet] generation or millennials
(Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). Most students of this generation are used to receiving
and accessing information through multiple electronic media sources like television,
radio, digital audio and video discs, broadband high speed internet, and game
consoles. More recently, youths and most of the general population have also
enjoyed the benefits of portable data storage and retrieval devices such as MP3
players (iPods, for example) and smart phones capable of sending and receiving
email, creating and sharing videos, and general internet access which in some cases
can even be operated through simple voice commands. At length, electronic devices
have increased youths’ access to sources of information (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
The prevalence of new electronic media has also fueled a growing interest
among scholars to assess how these technologies can be used to engage different
learner audiences (Dickey, 2006; Gee, 2007a, 2007b; Jenkins, 2006). Advances in

9
information technology have evolved from the mere availability of desktop or laptop
computers and varied software programs to a sophisticated delivery of critical
information and entertainment. While several studies have examined video game use
among high school students, few education researchers have explored interactions of
low-SES college-bound students on social networking sites (Boyd & Heer, 2006;
Hagittai, 2007). A smaller number of comprehensive studies or assessments have
looked more closely at the general use of video games by youth (Lenhart et al., 2008;
Ito et al., 2008; Summit on Educational Games, 2006). Only a select number of
studies have examined representations of gender, race, and age in video games
(Williams et al., 2009).
Acknowledging the limitations of executing a small scale three-month
qualitative study such as the one discussed here, this research did not aim to support
previous research on digital technology use overall among low-SES youth. Rather,
the objective was to point to the needs and realities of a small sample of high school
students as they used electronic media while networking with each other and
preparing for college.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand how low-SES high school
students from under-served urban high schools engaged with the paper prototype of a
pending video game being designed to inform youth about applying to and

10
transitioning to college. Concurrently, the study also aimed to determine the types of
social networks those same students created in preparation for applying to college;
specifically, their real life and online networks were explored as they pertained to
their development of new college-going capital.
Observations of play-testing sessions and focus group discussions generated
qualitative data about college related questions that mattered to the study
participants. This study also identified the environmental contexts (the schools and
college going resources) available to the select group of Latino, African American,
and Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander students (groups who typically attend
college at lower rates than their more affluent white peers) in urban Los Angeles
public high schools. All data collected during the course of this study had the
practical purpose of helping to refine a college admissions and financial aid themed
video game still in development.
Statement of the Problem
Low-SES students in urban schools lack consistent and reliable information
about how to apply for college admission and financial aid. Additionally, their social
networks are frequently weak compared to those of their affluent peers. Given these
limitations, low income students are often left to decipher on their own the confusing
and sometimes unappealing college resources which are supposed to inform them
about their postsecondary options.

11
This study collected data that responded specifically to the question of
student engagement with a paper prototype of a game about the college and financial
aid application processes, and secondly about the social networks they forge while
still in high school including those they form in person and online.
Study Overview
The aims of this applied research study called for a qualitative approach.
While a more detailed summary of the methodology employed is included in Chapter
Three, the following offers a snapshot of what was executed.
Primary Research Question
1. How will low-SES urban high school students respond to the paper prototype
of a pending video game aimed at informing them about applying to college?
Secondary Question
This secondary question was included in anticipation of data which would
likely point to the lack of college awareness among study participants. Data collected
and relating to this question would help contextualize students’ actions during
gameplay.
2. What are the social networks of study participants?
Research Approach
One hundred twenty students composed a pool of potential study participants
—not all students actually play-tested the game prototype or participated in all parts

12
of the study. All participants were high school juniors and seniors who attended one
of ten urban high schools. Participants were organized into play-testing teams of 3-4
students (rarely 5, and in such cases a fifth player would be paired with another).
Following the completion of all play-testing sessions, 20 participants were purposely
selected to discuss what they thought about the game and to talk about their own
college plans. Focus group questions and discussions asked students about their use
of video games. Additional questions pertained to the students’ real-life and online
social networking. Student responses were coded for salient themes and included in
an analysis of all data.
Study Terminology
The following key terms were used in this study and are presented in an
effort to lend greater clarity to the reader:
• Character building: Following specific game instructions to develop a profile
for a character within a video game.
• Digital Immigrant: Informal classification given to individuals unfamiliar
with current or developing digital formats; digital immigrants are not
necessarily members of a generational group but rather those who have not
had access to or the opportunity to develop familiarity with current
technology.

13
• Digital Native: Informal classification given to individuals who have for most
or all of their lives had access and familiarity with digital language of
computers, video games, and the internet.
• Facebook: Most popular and free social networking site with approximately
200 million users. Originally designed for college affiliated subscribers, users
of Facebook now only need a valid email address to register. Each user can
belong to a limited number of networks including one for their city, as well a
high school, college, university, or employer. Users can request to be added
to other users’ profiles and may confirm or ignore others who want to be
added to their profile.
• First Generation Students: College-bound or college attending students who
are the first in their families to seek or have reached higher education.
• Gameplay: As it related to this study, this refers to the experiences a video
game player encounters during various levels of using a card or digital game.
• Low-SES students: Low-socioeconomic background; individuals who during
K-12 schooling qualified for free or reduced price lunches at their public
institutions; families must meet or be below federally categorized poverty
levels for their students to qualify for this meal program. This classification
was used as marker to indicate low-income status.

14
• Microgames: As they related to the video game prototype utilized in this
study, these were the smaller games encountered upon entering in gameplay.
• MySpace: Until 2008 this SNS had been the most popular online networking
site in the United States. Any person over the age of 14 can create an account
needing only general identifying information such as a valid email address,
date of birth, and a permanent physical location (will not be verified by
MySpace).
• Off line: Connections, friendships, or occurrences taking place in the physical
world, opposite to “online.”
• Online: Connections, friendships, or occurrences taking place on the internet,
opposite to “off line.”
• Play-centric design: A formal methodology for involving participation by and
consideration of potential players.
• Play-testing: Active session where a video game was pilot-tested with the
intention of learning what its players thought of the experience.
• Social Capital: Knowledge, ideas, skills, interpersonal connections, tangible
desirable resources.
• Social Networking Site (SNS): Internet based services (free or paid) designed
for meeting others users. Examples include: Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn,
eHarmony.com.

15
• Strong Social Ties: Formal friendships or connections between kin or close
friends.
• Subscriber: A new member of a social networking site (SNS).
• Weak Social Ties: Casual connections between acquaintances, often through
informal communication; can often represent a source of unfamiliar social
capital.
• User: A continuing consumer of a social networking site (SNS) or video
game.

16
CHAPTER TWO
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter offers a review of literature pertaining to factors that impact the
postsecondary options of low-SES youth such as those who participated in this study.
This chapter is offered to contextualize the need for timely college preparation
initiatives for low-income students. A comprehensive summary of challenges
encountered by low-SES college-bound students is included to highlight the scope of
interventions which have been attempted in addressing the issue of access—the game
prototype which is tested in this study is but one proposition seeking to address a
particular aspect of student access to postsecondary studies.
Subsequent sections of this review also discuss how interactive media have
allowed low-SES students to operate between real-life and online personal networks
as they prepare for transitioning to college. A brief extraction of literature grappling
with the pedagogical foundations of educational video games is also included but
only as an effort to frame the role of the video game prototype play-tested in this
study. The cross sections of access to information and digital technology are also
offered to foreshadow the intended effect that a finished video game about college
admissions might have in the lives of low-SES urban students who could use it to
acquire new skills and information about applying to college.

17
While this study does not formally employ social capital theory as a
conceptual framework to decipher data collected through observations of game play-
testing sessions and focus groups, the notion of college social capital attainment is
briefly presented as it relates to the importance for securing and/or maintaining
strong social networks in preparation for college among low-SES students.
The literature review is guided by two overarching challenges faced by low-
SES urban high school students as they prepare for college admission: 1) limited
information about their postsecondary options; and 2) limited awareness about the
necessary steps to take in order to present strong college and financial aid
applications.
Low-Income College Bound Students
Only in the last 20 years have researchers focused more acutely on issues
affecting the college prospects of first generation low-income students. Two areas in
particular have received growing consideration because they deal squarely with
gateway barriers for postsecondary studies: 1) the limited availability of tools,
information, and resources at underserved high schools working with low income
students and therefore impacting students’ abilities to become fully college eligible;
and 2) a limited awareness or misinformation about how low-income students and
their families can prepare to meet the costs of a postsecondary education (Kane,
1999; Kirst & Venezia, 2004; McDonough, 1997; Perna, 2004; Rosenbaum, 2001;

18
Tierney, 2006; Venegas, 2007). While varied research findings begin to demonstrate
how college admissions officers and administrators conceive of the challenge of
access and success for low income students, current trends paint a contrasting story.
Low college admissions rates, high attrition, and low retention and graduation rates
indicate that accessing and completing a college education is still not a reality for
many low-SES students, primarily for first generation Latinos and African
Americans.
Recent national figures indicate that approximately 32% of high school
students still do not graduate and another 41% do not attend college in the semester
following their high school graduation (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2004). Among those students who do transition to college, many often
drop out—32% do not return for the second year and another 33% leave before
college graduation. Latino and African American students constitute a significant
majority of dropouts in comparison to their white and Asian American counterparts
in college (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004). In the
face of such dire statistics, new kinds of strategies to reach and prepare low-SES
college-bound students for applying to and transitioning to college merit closer
consideration.
The barriers that low-SES students face in pursuing access to college are
often shaped by factors in both their school and home environments (Corwin,

19
Venegas, Oliverez, & Colyar, 2004; McClafferty, McDonough, & Nunez, 2002;
Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995; Flint, 1993). In contrast to their more
privileged peers who are more likely to attend well resourced schools and have
college-educated parents, urban first generation low-SES students of color often lack
consistent relationships with adults who can detail the intricacies of applying to
college.
Still, even when resources are available at their schools, urban students
typically face high student-to-staff ratios which limit meaningful interpersonal
communications with those adults. Developing and maintaining relationships with
key adults and peers at school is especially important for low-SES students because
their parents and other adults outside of school may be unable to provide the college-
related answers (Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999; Stanton-Salazar &
Dornbusch, 1995; McDonough, 1997).
College Preparation Programs
In select urban schools with low college-going rates, structured college
preparation programs and intervention strategies by postsecondary or non-profit
institutions have attempted to have a positive effect by importing tools and resources
which the schools themselves are unable to provide. College preparation programs
are seen as a means of providing access to college going information, academic
support, and financial aid for those students who have little to no prior access to
postsecondary education (Gándara & Bial, 2001; Tierney, Colyar, & Corwin, 2003).

20
Gulatt and Jan (2004) describe college preparation programs as pre-collegiate
initiatives that promote academic rigor and/or provide instrumental college
knowledge, skills, and resources needed by students pursuing a college path. These
services are seen as especially vital for increasing access for students who remain
historically underrepresented in postsecondary education, including low income and
first generation students as well as students of color. Student from these groups are
also more likely to be missing the “college knowledge” needed to be successful in
gaining access to and persisting through postsecondary education (Vargas, 2004).
While pre-collegiate initiatives share a mutual interest to increase the college
enrollment rates of first generation college-bound youth, these programs organize
their services differently and identify their main audiences in a number of ways.
Some strategies begin as early as middle school and their proponents argue that
starting to prepare students in subsequent years only leaves out students who have
already made up their minds about going to college (Wimberly & Noeth, 2005).
What is clear is that no consensus exists on a single best time to prepare
students for college. Arguably, various junctures are viable entry points for college
preparation programs to begin addressing the needs of college-bound students. Some
programs may focus on a specific aspect of college preparation and move towards
meeting that focused goal, as is the case with the federal TRIO programs. Some
TRIO programs are offered at the middle school level (Talent Search), others in high

21
school (Talent Search, Upward Bound), and still others are meant for undergraduate
students (Student Support Services, Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate
Achievement Program). Other college preparation programs may focus on
motivational activities, such as the Puente Program which serves first generation
Latino/Chicano students in California community colleges and helps them prepare to
transfer to four year colleges and universities.
The definition and scope of pre-collegiate program services has also been
examined. Gullatt and Jan (2003) suggest that most college preparation services
include: college admission information, assistance to students and families,
motivational activities, academic enrichment and support, and counseling and
advising. The authors identified up to 10 principles of practice for implementing a
college preparation program which include: high standard for students and staff,
personalized attention, role models, peer models, strategically timed interventions,
long term investment in students, K-12 and community connections, scholarship
assistance, and evaluations that are consistent with program goals (Gullatt & Jan,
2003).
Other evaluative efforts have also examined the characteristics of effective
college preparation programs. Tierney, Colyar, and Corwin’s (2003) edited text on
college preparation programs identified similar markers to those outlined by Gullatt
and Jan (2003). The work of Tierney et al. (2003), however, presented nine elements
of sound college preparation programs which included: the role played by students’

22
peers, the influence of mentors, the types of academic preparation offered to
students, the timing of interventions, the costs of programs, the culture in which
programs operate, and the depth and scope of counseling offered to students. In
aggregate, these factors suggest that a successful college preparation program must
consider multiple elements operating in concert.
In an effort to survey the scope and impact of college preparation programs,
Perna and Swail (2001) completed a National Survey of Outreach Programs for the
National College Access Network (NCAN). In their review of college preparation
programs, the authors focused on program goals, services, instructional methods,
program structure, and costs. An outreach handbook produced by Swail (2001),
based on the NCAN survey, delineated best practices for program operation and
detailed student participation as a means to understand the outcomes and
effectiveness of specific program components. Swail’s report addressed, among
other issues, the timing of program interventions and concluded that 67% of the
1,000 programs in their study ran on a year-round basis and 94% of surveyed
programs reported they conducted a program evaluation. Internal evaluations by pre-
collegiate programs, however, are typically not made available to a broader audience
for critique and review (Gándara & Bial, 2001).
College Guidance
In a report to the National Association of College Admission Counseling
(NACAC), McDonough (2006) pointed to the significance of counseling at the high

23
school level and its impact on students’ level of awareness and preparation for
applying to and eventually enrolling in college. McDonough’s report found that at
present, public school counselors in the United States serve an average of 478
students each year. When juxtaposed against the data-proved needs of low-SES
college-bound students, McDonough’s findings magnified the importance of
providing information in various formats to students. Still, individualized
interpersonal counseling continues to be essential in order to assist students to
understand their full college options (Gándara & Bial, 2001; King, 1996;
McDonough, 2004; Plank & Jordan, 2001; Rossenbaum, Miller, & Krei, 1996;
Venezia et al., 2003).
Additional research also points to the disadvantages faced by students at
schools where only some of their peers are tracked into college courses and therefore
receive information about how and when to prepare for college (Rosenbaum et
al.,1996). At large urban high schools in particular, such as those attended by
participants in this study, many students are affected by the disproportionately high
students-to-college counselor ratio. At those schools, each counselor is responsible
on average for serving 600-700 students and must not only prepare them for college
admission but must also help them understand varied topics related to the transition
to a postsecondary environment. In addition to those responsibilities, college
counselors must host college outreach events and oversee federally and state

24
mandated standardized testing, as well as plan SAT and ACT registration and testing
for their students.
Academic Preparation
Academic preparation throughout the high school years is important yet often
becomes a barrier for low income students in underserved high schools. Academic
preparation—having taken a structured and challenging college preparatory
curriculum—and demonstrating steady achievement in such courses is an important
predictor of prospective college enrollment and success. Adelman (1999) suggests
that the intensity and quality of a secondary school curriculum is the best predictor of
whether a student will go on to complete a bachelor’s degree. In urban schools
however, classroom space is often limited, staff (counselors included) turnover is
high, and qualified faculty are scarce because many would prefer to teach in better
performing schools. Given these dire conditions, students often have fewer
opportunities to complete college preparation courses which are essential for
applying to and eventually doing well in college (McClafferty, McDonough, &
Nunez, 2002).
Still, some inroads in providing greater college access to low-SES students
are now evident—albeit some are not full success stories. Contreras (2005) found
that between 1994 and 2003 the total number of students taking Advanced Placement
(AP) classes more than doubled. Students of color (Latinos were the focus of
Contreras’ study) however demonstrated lower access to college and lower

25
achievement compared to their White and Asian American counterparts (Contreras,
2005). Results from exams like the AP are important measures to consider because
they are often used as indicators of who will actually apply to and enroll in college.
Further still, AP exams can be a strong indicator of which students are not even on a
college path. Using a descriptive statistics approach to examine 2003 data from the
College Entrance Examination Board, Contreras (2005) asserted that students would
likely continue to persist at lower levels if the role of social and cultural capital was
not fully explored and assessed as a potential point of intervention and community
responsibility. Sample data from the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:
88/94) also illustrate disparities found in college access among low-income students.
For example, 88/94 data indicated that although 285 out of 1,000 8
th
graders from
low-SES backgrounds secured at least minimal academic college eligibility by the
time they completed the 12
th
grade, just 144 of them actually enrolled at a four-year
institution within two years after graduating from high school (Cabrera & La Nasa,
2001).
Cabrera et al. (2001) used yet another approach to examine student
achievement: a three-stage preparation process that begins as early as the seventh
grade and continues through freshman year in high school when school and family
‘predispositions’ often impact students’ possibilities to continue on a college
preparation track. Such predispositions may include encouragement from parents,

26
teachers, peers, and counselors and are followed by tangible actions by the student,
like enrolling in challenging courses and joining college preparation programs.
Cabrera and La Nasa (2001) described a second stage between the 9
th
and
12
th
grades when students search their options which included continued
participation in activities and events beyond the classroom stressing the importance
of a college education. During that time, students also narrowed their lists of
tentative postsecondary institutions. Lastly, in the 11
th
and 12
th
grades students make
choices based on their particular aspirations and the kinds of opportunities available
to them at the institutions they plan to attend.
Low-Income Parents’ Perceptions about College Costs
Perna (2000) suggests that parent involvement which takes place when their
students are still in a ‘predisposition stage’ can predict whether the students will
ultimately enroll in 4-year colleges or universities upon high school graduation.
Further still, Horn, Chen, and Chapman (2003) found that family income and parent
level of educational attainment predict the likelihood that parents would be able to
provide correct tuition estimates—an important factor to consider given the role that
parents can play in their child’s college aspirations. Horn et al. (2003) found that
parents of students from higher-SES families (mostly white and Asian Americans
with a college education) were more likely to demonstrate positive knowledge about
the costs and ways to afford college.

27
Among low-SES families, Horn et al. (2003) concluded that 39% of low-
income parents surveyed overestimated tuition costs and another 13%
underestimated this (assumed to be the average for tuition at public and private
colleges and twice the state average for students who planned to attend public
institutions in another state). These results indicate a considerable lack of
information about actual college cost among low-SES students and their families.
When left unaddressed, these misconceptions can arguably shape decision makers’
confident in their knowledge about what it takes to afford college and can lead
parents to under-invest and take fewer positive actions to pursue postsecondary
options for their students (Morgan, 2002).
In a separate study using nationally representative survey data to evaluate the
accuracy of the real and “imagined” costs of paying for college among low-income
parents, Grodsky and Jones (2006) demonstrated similar results: low-SES students
and parents are less likely to provide estimates of college costs and those who do
provide estimates will often make large errors.
Patterns of inequality in tuition knowledge among students and their parents
can be attributed to two phenomena. First, low-income families often operate among
informal networks that are generally segregated along race/ethnicity, education, and
income meaning that students in those communities have fewer opportunities to
gather critical information and build meaningful relationships to benefit their college
aspirations (Grodsky & Jones, 2006; Louch, 2000; Marsden, 1988; McPherson et al.,

28
2001). For African American low-income parents and their students (although
similar circumstances might apply to many low-income Latinos), Grodsky and Jones
(2006) found that they remained overwhelmingly segregated from other racial and
ethnic groups in terms of where they lived. When students from these two racial
groups live in communities where few if any members are college educated, their
prospects for realistically imagining a college future are also limited.
College-Going Social Capital
This research study did not employ a social capital theoretical framework to
analyze collected data—its intended goal did not necessitate that approach. Data
collected through this study had the focused objective of providing concrete evidence
to a team of video game designers about students’ engagement with a game
prototype and with each other during game play. A secondary objective was to assess
the kinds of real-life and online networks those same students created.
The principles inherent in a social capital conceptual framework, and the
reason they are mentioned here, are to contextualize the real life impact that new
information about college-going can have in the lives of low-SES students.
Information about how to prepare and apply to college, for first generation low-
income students, is a form of new social capital. The following introduction of social
capital attainment is therefore presented as a means to cement the relevance of social
networking in this study. A future study could attempt to grapple with a full analysis
of social networking among study participants.

29
The Role of Social Capital Attainment
Researchers from across various disciplines have employed social capital
frameworks to understand how individuals navigate society and its institutions for
the accumulation of desirable knowledge and skills. Most theorists and researchers
who have used that theoretical lens might generally agree that social capital is
relational, communal, exchangeable, and that it is comprised of norms and
obligations (Dika & Singh, 2002; McNeal, 1999). In relation to low-SES college
bound students, social capital attainment is particularly important as it is the vehicle
by which many will learn to explore new and unfamiliar processes and options.
Without the direct help or support structures created by knowledgeable adults, or
even age-alike peers who can explain important college preparation processes, many
low-SES first generation college bound students would be significantly limited in
their postsecondary pursuits.
While recent examinations of social capital theory are more closely
associated to the work of sociologists James Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu, this
conceptual framework has been utilized since Emile Durkheim (1876,1966) made
note of its importance. Within the past twenty years however, Coleman (1990)
sustained that social capital is intricately related to the intangible resources, not only
the physical, which individuals circulate and exchange amongst themselves. Further,
Coleman suggested that “individuals do not act independently, goals are not
independently arrived at, and interests are not wholly selfish (p.301).”

30
More than actual tools, social capital makes reference to the human skills and
capabilities that one brings to an exchange with another person when good will is
present between individuals (Adler & Kwon, 2002). To illustrate, a low-SES student
might enter the college application process with only a general notion of where and
what to study after high school. A skilled and supportive college counselor, however,
can provide direction, instructions, and referrals to individuals who can explain the
college application process and make it more manageable.
Prior to Coleman (1990), Bourdieu (1986) examined the power dynamics
which characterize social networks and declared that the types of social capital that
an individual possesses is determined by the kinds of connections in his or her wider
network. A particular network might in turn be composed of individuals with varying
degrees of economic, cultural, or even symbolic capital that can allow its members to
access important resources amongst themselves. For low-SES first generation
college bound students from under-resourced schools, this conceptualization of
social capital has steep implications—well-networked adults familiar with the
intricacies of applying to and transitioning to college can become invaluable
resources. Those students who are unable to make such connections can be at a
significant disadvantage while trying to accomplish similar tasks.
Social capital is not a skill or tangible item possessed only by the elite; rather
it is a neutral concept describing a phenomenon which occurs in different social
environments regardless of the socioeconomic level of those involved (Putnam,

31
1995; Tierney, 2006). Social capital is fluid and can be used to describe the different
value given to relationships, resources, skills, and knowledge in a given community
of individuals. While low-SES students may not possess the kinds of social capital
that can help them understand the college application process as well as their more
affluent peers, they (low-SES students) do possess their own forms of social capital
which already help them succeed in their schools and communities.
The strength of a social connection a student might make is as important as
the person with whom he or she actually connects. In this regard, Granovetter (1973,
1982) emphasized the significance of “weak” and “strong” ties. The slightly negative
sounding term “weak” might paint the impression that the concept is less favorable.
However, the author identified weak ties as those an individual might create with
others outside of a close circle of friends or acquaintances. Weak ties with well
positioned (networked) individuals are important because they give entrée to new
resources, knowledge, and skills. In contrast, strong ties with close friends and others
can be limiting as individuals tend to associate with peers who have the same access
and limitations as they do.
Adler and Kwon (2002) take Granovetter’s (1973, 1982) propositions further
suggesting that weak or strong ties are connected to “contextual factors” which are
linked to objectives, norms, and beliefs. For example, where a low-income student
may have various social connections with well-informed adults and age-alike peers,

32
he or she can take greater advantage of those connections by knowing how and when
to use them effectively. For example, in a qualitative study on the educational
mobility of low-income Chicanos, Gándara (1995) found that students availed
themselves of important social and cultural capital by using traditional and non-
traditional resources that privileged students would not necessary explore, such as
school-based college preparation programs which could make their college goals
realizable.
Digital Technology and Youths
During the past 35 years all social and generational groups have been
significantly affected in both their private and public lives by the use of digital
technologies. Personal portable computers, email, digital image recorders, MP3
players, cell phones (now smart phones), video-teleconferencing, and video games
among other innovative gadgets, have allowed users to communicate quickly and
receive fast responses to their personal or work questions. In several cases,
technology has even allowed individuals to imagine themselves in virtual realities.
Such is the case of video games.
Video Games
The first video games were developed in the early 1970s and only a decade
later became available to consumers across socioeconomic lines in the U.S. and other
industrialized countries (Funk, 1993). Soon thereafter, video games were in arcade

33
shops and with the sale of affordable gaming consoles, in private homes. As video
game titles and genres evolved so did the concern of some parents and educators that
such devices could have a negative impact on personal and academic habits. That
idea has received closer attention over the past 20 years (Dietz, 1998; Lenhart et al.,
2008).
Video games are now used by individuals of all ages, yet virtually all teens
play video games. While scholars suspected that video game use was heavily
prevalent among certain segments of society, by 2007 no single empirical study had
examined trends in digital technology use among teens specifically. In 2008, The
Pew Internet and American Life Project examined and published research indicating
youths’ engagement with video games and how this related to their real world civic
involvement in particular (Lenhart et al., 2008).
Lenhart et al. (2008) found that 97% of youths aged 12-17 play computer,
web, console, or mobile video games. Youths also bought games with relative
frequency and duration, nearly one-third (31%) of teen players appeared to engage
with games every day, and one in five (21%) claimed to play games three to five
days a week. The same study also concluded that almost all girls and boys played
video games, though survey data indicated that boys played games more often and
for longer periods of time than girls.
Video games have become increasingly popular with all audience types and
in recent years their sales have rivaled or surpassed those of blockbuster feature films

34
(Lenhart et al., 2008). Still, the appeal of video games has not been attributed to any
single factor inherent to their design. Rather, games tend to engage audiences
because they offer a virtual space for entertaining, educating, and even training users
on different topics of interest or game genres—and they have done so outside of the
traditional hierarchical structures which so often characterize board games or in-
person instruction (Gee, 2007; Squire, 2005). What is clear to researchers and critics
alike is that video games cannot be dismissed as a mere source of entertainment.
Where video games were once looked upon with skepticism, they are now regarded
not only as a commercial success but in some cases even as viable education tools
(Squire, 2005).
Popular video games played by teens cover a wide variety of topics as is
evident through the titles of some best-sellers. The five most popular video games
among American teenagers in 2008 were: Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution,
Solitaire, Halo 3, and Madden NFL which were categorized as rhythm games,
puzzle/card games, and sports games respectively (Lenhart et al., 2008). Other
popular genres included: racing, action, strategy, fighting, survival horror, virtual
worlds, simulation, adventure, first-person shooters, role playing, MMOG
(Massively Multimedia Online Game).
Similar to other current digital media, video games are not always used in
isolation. Some video games are played by a sole user but others allow the possibility

35
to engage with secondary players whether in person or online. As many as half of
teenagers who use video games avidly report to use them with secondary players,
typically individuals they already know (Lenhart et al., 2008; Valentine & Bernhisel,
2008).
Educational Video Games
Video games with an education focus are an even more recent phenomenon,
and most of these have traditionally been geared towards pre-teen audiences. Among
the first of these games was Carmen Sandiego, a game used to teach history and
geography lessons and later adapted to teach other academic subjects. Lemonade
Stand taught elementary economics lessons through the operation of a virtual
lemonade stand (Lenhart et al., 2008). Among the educational establishment, notably
scholars concerned with the effective structure and design of measurable learning
objectives, the notion of replacing in-person instruction with educational video
games has been criticized.
Some video game designers have challenged criticism of video games as
viable formats for facilitating learning and instead have suggested that video games
invite players to work together, competitively and cooperatively (Fullerton, 2008;
Gee, 2007; Lenhart et al., 2008). Increasingly, video game proponents suggest that
traditional methods for delivering instruction, knowledge, and skills are not
necessarily being replaced; rather, video games offer an additional way to convey
information. Advocates for video games propose a “moral imperative” to use video

36
games to teach since youth of the “video game generation” often do not respond to
more traditional forms of instruction (Prensky, 2001; Squire, 2002).
An example of players’ interpersonal engagement using a video game is Kurt
Squire’s simulation game Supercharged! which helps students learn physics (Squire,
2004). While pointing out that what is actually needed is an overhaul of the
hierarchical structure of high school curriculums, Squire (2005) used a video game
called Civilization III to teach high school history to students of varying familiarity
with video games. Squire found that the game was especially appealing for students
who considered a traditional classroom to be less engaging—students who preferred
hands-on experiences in order to better conceptualize materials otherwise taught in
the traditional lecture and textbook fashion. Students who were already more likely
to do well under a traditional classroom format were also more likely to experience
frustrations in playing Civilization III. The latter group expressed concerns that their
engagement with a video game would not have real world applicability and claimed
that such a video game would not help them with the kinds of tasks required for
admission to or success in college. Still, Squires noted that it is the complexity and
difficulty of games like Civilization III which makes them engaging and often led
players to spend hours trying to understand even the most basic game concepts.
James Paul Gee (2003, 2007) indicated that video games have much to teach
researchers and game players alike about learning and literacy. Gee (2007) asserted
that through good game design, deeper learning can be leveraged as a form of

37
pleasure in people’s lives without them even having a hint of school or schooling.
The author further claimed that this task is all the more pressing when one considers
the outdated or ineffective strategies of disseminating information to students who
would often prefer to “do” rather than to “hear” what needs to be done. Play-testing
observation findings from this study were juxtaposed against Gee’s (2007) “Learning
Principles Built into Good Computer and Video Games” which are: Empowering
Learners, Problem Solving, and Understanding (new knowledge). Gee’s “Learning
Principles” served as a measure to identify the ways in which gameplay among study
participants might have signaled the prototype’s ability to approximate this
population’s perceived needs regarding proper preparation for college admission.
Social Networking Sites (SNS)
The use of online social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook is
common among socially and racially diverse youths (Hagittai, 2007; Kolek &
Saunders, 2008). High school students often possess profiles on multiple social
networking sites where they communicate with peers. Considering these online
formats in conjunction with video games is important because youths play digital
video games in those spaces and communicate with each other about multiple topics
via SNS profiles.
As a consequence of its earlier availability, research on MySpace had been
more prevalent until recently when the faster-growing popularity of Facebook shifted

38
academic attention towards that social networking site. Studies on either of the sites,
however, have not distinguished how youth of color and their white counterparts
differ in their use of SNS. Nor have studies examined if or how the differences in
socioeconomic backgrounds might shape those youths’ online networks and overall
engagement (Boyd & Heer, 2006; Hagittai, 2007).
Facebook now increasingly attracts more college affiliated subscribers
(current undergraduate and graduate students, alumni, staff, and faculty). MySpace
has purportedly shifted in focus and has become a popular music and video outlet but
remains a networking tool among a steady high school and pre-high school audience.
Meanwhile, Facebook has grown to include general public subscribers
(Facebook.com, retrieved April 2009).
Defining a Generation of Digital Learners
Neil Howe and William Strauss (2003) are credited with setting the
foundation for a contemporary understanding of generational cultures. In recent
years, Howe and Strauss have categorized people in middle school, high school, and
(traditional age) undergraduate students as Millennials, making reference to the fact
that members of this age group were children or adolescents at the turn of the 21
st

Century. The authors assert that members of that generation have always been within
reasonable or immediate proximity of digital technologies at home or in shared
spaces found in their communities. In other words, Millennials have grown up in a
time when they do not have to wait for information they need in order to resolve

39
questions or concerns about work, school, or personal matters—access to the internet
has provided them with quick streams of information.
Other social observers identify those born after 1982 as the Net Generation
because more than any other generation before them, technology (in particular, the
internet) has played a significant role in many general aspects of their lives and is
expected to play an ever greater role in their futures (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007).
Howe and Strauss (2003) proposed that seven core personality traits define members
of the Millennial or Net Generation: 1) feelings about being special; 2) feeling
sheltered; 3) demonstrating confidence uncharacteristic of generations prior to theirs;
4) preferring to work in teams; 5) being conventional thinkers as evidenced in their
preference for rules and standards; 6) feeling pressured to plan ahead for their
futures; and, 7) expecting of themselves to achieve more than generations before
them. While such traits are generally optimistic expectations that Millennials or
“NetGens” might have about themselves, the authors do not consider differences
among members of different socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups.
Contextualizing a Digital Divide
The digital divide refers to the gaps in access or understanding of digital
technologies due to socioeconomic or generational difference. Prensky (2001)
considered several distinctions and described a divide not only between those who
can “log on” and those who cannot because of limited income, but also the division
between those who have grown up using digital media and those how have not. This

40
difference is important to note because public schools like those attended by low-
income urban youth can be staffed by instructors unfamiliar with the media used by
members of younger generations. When staff are unaware or unwilling to stay
informed about the formats that students employ to learn and communicate, not only
are the students at a disadvantage but schools lose an opportunity to engage students
in ways that make sense to the younger audience. Prensky (2001) defined members
of older generations who are unfamiliar with new technologies as “digital
immigrants” whereas younger students might be labeled “digital natives.”
A traditional interpretation of the digital divide has often related to
inequalities in access to computers and the internet among individuals from low-SES
backgrounds. A more ample interpretation would include one or more of the social
and cultural identifiers mentioned elsewhere in this study. For example, the digital
divide might also make reference to a sex-related digital divide—a gap that some
would argue closed when women surpassed men as users of the internet in August of
2000 (NTIA, 2000). Gerard (1999), however, pointed to the particularly negative and
stereotypical portrayals of women in video games which are most popular among
boys and men. Further still, Spooner and Rainie (2000) expressed concern about race
difference online and the growing number of white supremacist websites that have
increased in visibility as the number of Latino and African American online users
has grown. Gorksi (2003) warned that a narrow conceptualization of the digital

41
divide only serves the interest of the privileged groups who from their vantage point
can continue to shape who has access and who does not.
Conclusion
Chapter Two reviewed literature pertaining to key aspects of this study on
low-SES students’ access and barriers to postsecondary education, the role of social
networking, and the importance of social capital attainment, as well as the place that
new digital technologies hold in the lives of today’s youth. Chapter Three will
outline the scope of the study which is grounded on the understanding that low-SES
urban students lack critical knowledge about how to become strong college and
financial aid applicants. The under-resourced schools and home environments of the
students at the center of this study, consisting of families and peers who likely do not
have a full awareness about how to access and afford a college education, limit the
postsecondary prospects of these students.

42
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study examines how low-SES college-bound students from under-served
urban high schools responded to the paper prototype of a video game aimed at
informing them about creating strong college and financial aid applications. Because
the game prototype will eventually be disseminated via online social networking
sites, the study also briefly explored how students use those sites, in addition to their
real life networks, to develop or reaffirm social ties as they prepare for the transition
from high school to college.
Low-SES first generation students were at the center of this study because
they overwhelmingly represent the type of prospective college attendee who receives
little if any guidance in high school on the importance of building strong and
purposeful social networks that can help them develop new social capital before and
once they arrive at their respective college or university (Gonzales, Stoner, & Jovel,
2003). The game prototype, then, was meant to supplement information and
strategies which can help college applicants become stronger candidates for college
admissions.
The following sections outline the research question which guided the study,
the research environment, the study population, the formal study methods employed

43
to carry out the study, and a brief recounting of the early assumptions about how the
study would unfold and its limitations.
Research Design
The purpose of this study was to gather data about students’ engagement with
a specific game prototype and to deliver findings to a group of game designers.
Additionally, the study aimed to understand the composition of study participants’
real-life and online networks. These concerns were best addressed using a qualitative
approach.
Primary Research Question
1. How will low-SES urban high school students respond to the paper prototype
of a pending video game aimed at informing them about applying to college?
Secondary Research Question
2. What are the social networks study participants operate within?
Sample and Population
All students who participated in this study attended low-performing urban
high schools with low college-going rates. In all, 120 college-bound juniors and
seniors from ten large high schools were selected in collaboration with their college
counselors to voluntarily consider participating in the study—100 seniors and 20
juniors. Not all students play-tested the prototype or participated in focus group
discussions but all completed in-take forms with questions about their college plans

44
and aspirations. A final participant count and demographic composition is discussed
in Chapter Four.
The seniors who play-tested the game prototype also participated in a
mentoring college preparation program based at the same university where this study
was housed. Well-established relationships with school-site staff allowed for greater
flexibility in reaching students and conducting data collection. Some students were
recruited for participation in this study through a local community-based after school
program with close working relationship as well. The community-based program
shared a mission to prepare low-SES students for applying to and transitioning to
college.
The Research Environment
The ten schools from which students were recruited are part of the largest
school district in urban Los Angeles (the second largest public school district in the
United States). The district is comprised of Latinos who represent nearly 73 percent
of the student body, followed by African Americans at 11 percent, Asian Americans
(including Filipinos) account for nearly four percent, and the remaining students are
identified as Caucasian, middle eastern or listed as ‘other’ (LAUSD.net, retrieved
October 10, 2009). The schools are located throughout the district in the east, south,
and central regions of the city.
To fulfill all expected institutional ethical protocols, an Internal Review
Board (IRB) application was submitted at the university where this study was based.

45
A separate application for conducting research at the school district where all
participating students attended was filed with the corresponding department at that
entity. School site support was confirmed not only with the college counselors who
are usually the first points-of-contact for studies like this one, but also the school
administrators including school principals. Appendix A is the Request for Review of
Project Involving Human Subjects.
Several study participants were over the age of 18 by the time this study
began so parental consent was not required from those students in order to participate
in play-testing sessions and focus groups—all others needed to complete a parent
consent form and a student assent equivalent. All seniors in the study knew that their
participation in the mentoring program would not be affected or contingent upon
involvement in the research project discussed here. Participants understood they
could withdraw from the study at any point if they chose and no negative
repercussions would have followed their choice to do so. All data collected during
the course of this study was maintained at the research center. Data which
individually identified students was stored in computer drives or digital storage
devices used only by authorized staff. No third parties were allowed to review raw
data.
Data sources/Research Methods
McFee (1992) proposed that triangulation in education research allows for
greater validation between methods or within a single given method. The data

46
collection methods in this study included an intake form, observations of game
prototype play-testing, and focus groups discussions (after play-testing the game at
least once). The latter were related to participants’ perceptions of the game and their
college plans and aspirations.
Student Intake Summaries
Study participants completed an intake form before engaging in play-testing
of the video game prototype. The intake form collected basic demographic data in
addition to information about each participant’s awareness about the college and
financial aid application process, their college plans, and responses about their use of
video games and social networking sites. Refer to Appendix E for the actual Student
Intake Form constructed for this study.
Play-testing Sessions
The video game developers and researchers affiliated with this study adhered
to a play-centric approach. This method assumed that principles and methodologies
behind the rules and play of games must be rooted in evidence collected from play-
testing a game prototype with individuals who would most likely play such a game if
this one were available to them in their daily lives (Fullerton, 2005). To this end, the
game prototype discussed here was played in groups of three or four students (high
school juniors or seniors), and students were prompted to provide feedback. The
participants were encouraged to learn the rules of the game entirely on their own.

47
The Play-testing Observation Field Notes constructed for this study are included as
Appendix F.
A play-testing session with 3-4 players typically lasted between two and three
hours. In an effort to meet student scheduling needs, play sessions were generally
conducted in the college centers at the ten schools involved in the study. Sessions
took place after school three-to-four times a week during a three-month period. Some
play-sessions occurred off campus and near the participants’ schools. A research
associate who also worked in the research center conducted parallel play-testing
sessions using the same study protocols.
Focus Groups
Study participants at four of the participating high schools were offered an
opportunity to join a focus group discussion. Focus group questions were related to
participants’ attitudes and perceptions about the video game prototype. Responses
during focus group sessions helped distinguish if participants had similar or varying
perceptions about the value of building diverse real life and online social networks.
Secondary questions during focus groups sessions focused on what students
perceived to be the advantages, disadvantages, or differences between online and off
line social networks. Data resulting from these data collection methods is detailed in
Chapter Four. Refer to Appendix G for the actual Focus Group protocol constructed
for this study.

48
Assumptions
This study operated under the assumption that participating students would
understand how to engage a video game prototype with complex and interrelated
rules. It also assumed that the current online networks that low-income first
generation college-bound students created or maintained reflected their real life
college plans and aspirations. As such, this qualitative study could not yield
generalizable data. Instead, the study assumed that the purposeful study sample
would be representative of other college-bound first-generation students from urban
under-served high schools. A final assumption was that not all students would find
the game to be useful to their particular circumstances.
Limitations
Some study participants could decide to be more or less forthcoming and
honest about their real-life and online interactions with peers and institutional agents
and about their attitudes/opinions about the game prototype. Participant responses
could be affected by their knowledge that their actions were being examined and
analyzed. The exact number of students who would participate in the study was also
purposely not firmly set at the time that the original study proposal was submitted—
this strategy allowed for greater flexibility to identify participants whose schedules
permitted study involvement. Still, with potentially a large number of participants
becoming interested in the study, every effort was made to limit the number of
participants to 110.

49
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF DATA
“It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about the choices you make in the future.”
“It’s interesting. It’s realistic – gives you real life scenarios. For example, the
questions you ask [in the game] are questions you really need to know when you are
applying to college.”
“It shows that you have to make hard decisions. I was going to submit an
application too early. Then [my friend] told me to hold off and I leveled up. You
learn you have to prioritize where you spend your time.”
Comments made by study participants during play-testing sessions.
Introduction to Study Results
The previous chapter outlined how low-SES students from select urban high
schools play-tested the paper prototype of a video game about applying to college
and for financial aid. Because the game stressed the importance of social interactions
between players, a related study objective was to identify the social networks
students operated within as they prepared to transition from high school to college.
Gaining insights into the types of social networks that study participants identified
with served as an opportunity to learn about the college-going capital that students
had access to (or not).
Chapter Four utilizes four strategies to organize research findings which
address the focal research question: How would low-SES urban high school students
respond to the paper prototype of a video game aimed at informing them about
applying to college?

50
First, a descriptive account of the study participants is provided. Secondly,
the game prototype’s design is outlined. Thirdly, James Paul Gee’s (2007) “Good
Learning Principles Built into Good Computer Video Games” is used as a measure to
identify the ways in which gameplay among study participants signaled the
prototype’s ability to approximate and meet this population’s perceived needs
regarding proper preparation for college admission. Chapter Four concludes with
descriptions of the five main themes (College Literacy, Collaboration, Real Life
Applications, Awareness, and Engagement) which emerged from observations of
play-testing sessions and refer to the social networks that students identified with and
the roles they said that these played in their lives.
Data were collected to describe the realities faced by study participants and
served the purpose of helping a team of university researchers to refine content and
rules of a pending video game. The aim of the final video game is to inform students
about knowledge and skills needed in preparation for applying to college and for
financial aid. While a video game like this could assist students from any
socioeconomic background, the premise of this study is that the students in question
would benefit significantly more from using the game than those who had college
knowledgeable adults in their lives already.
Descriptive Account of Study Participants
A total of 105 college-bound juniors and seniors participated in this study
over the course of a three-month data collection period (Figure 4.1). All seniors in

51
the study were in the process of submitting real college and financial aid
applications. While sophomores were originally not expected or invited to participate
in the study, on three separate occasions sophomores where allowed to join play-
testing sessions but only in the event that enough juniors or seniors were unavailable
to form a full game session—sophomores did not attend the focus group discussions.
Figure 4.1: Grade Levels of Study Participants

This study anticipated that more females than males would volunteer to
participate in the study—females often outnumber their male peers in joining
extracurricular college preparation activities. Figure 4.2 offers a breakdown of the
study participants’ gender. To counter the possibility that the study would be skewed
by gender, study investigators collaborated with college counselors at the schools to
secure a proportionate involvement of males and females. The total number of
students who participated in the study closely approximated the actual female to
male ratio at the schools overall.

52
Figure 4.2: Study Participants by Gender

Figure 4.3 outlines the racial composition of study participants. As detailed in
Chapter One, the school district where this study occurred is comprised of various
ethnic/racial groups, yet a majority of students are Latinos (73%). Similar to gender
representation, the study also aimed to recruit students who would proportionately
reflect the racial demographics found at the high school level across the district.
Because few participating high schools actually approximate equal population
distribution between ethnic groups, some of the play-testing teams were composed of
all Latinos, all African Americans, or all Asian Americans.
Rarely were play-testing teams fully diverse in terms of race. The study
design anticipated that racial diversity in play-testing groups could have allowed for
rich discussions between students about their real life networks in and outside of
school. However, an unintended result of less diverse groups was that it permitted
several teams to discuss topics that they could all relate to beyond the confines of

53
their school lives. More details about this aspect of the study will follow in other
sections of Chapter Four.
Figure 4.3: Study Participants by Race

The Structure of Play-testing Sessions
Play-testing sessions consisted of a minimum of two players or as many as
five. The game was designed to accommodate four players as there were four sets of
envelops that could be used for submitting college and scholarship “applications”
during gameplay. The optimal number of players permitted meant there would be
enough opportunities for every participant to potentially gain admission to a college
type and secure financial aid sources presented throughout the game (described in
the next section of this chapter). In the event that there were fewer than four players,
a study researcher sometimes joined play-testing sessions but always allowed the
students to make their own gameplay choices; the researcher’s role was only to

54
clarify game rules when asked by the participants. In the rare event that more than
four students attended a play-testing session, a fifth player would be paired with
another participant.
Students’ busy schedules and their availability in general also impacted the
total number of players who ultimately attended each play-testing session. Nearly all
play-testing occurred after school as the total time needed to play a game was
between 90 minutes and two hours depending on the number of players—this almost
always exceeded the time allotted for class periods during the school day and meant
that students could not play-test during school hours. Students were not allowed to
leave classes for more than one period at a time. One participating high school,
however, had a two-hour block schedule which on two occasions made it possible to
play-test during the school day.
School-based play-testing occurred in each school’s college center. A total of
four play-sessions also took place at a community after school program where some
study participants voluntarily sought additional college planning and support. One
session took place at a café near one of the participating schools.
Game Prototype Design
The following section depicts the prototype game rules. Study participants
were each encouraged to read the rules and instructions carefully before engaging
with the game. A significant challenge of the paper prototype was that only three sets

55
of paper instructions were printed yet there were often four players at each play-
testing session. The video game design team was repeatedly informed about this
issue but the matter was not received as a critical factor that would impede a
student’s success during the game. Still, when students wanted to expedite the start-
up process, some read the rules out loud to each other. In some cases, players would
forego reading the rules altogether and stated that they typically would not read game
rules when they played other games, instead they would simply begin playing and
would learn the full game rules as they played.
Although no such position was outlined in the printed rules and instructions,
on all play-testing sessions at least one student would tend to assume the role of
facilitator. Other students would wait for their turns during the game to ask
questions. The game rules and instructions were as follows:
GENERAL STARTING GUIDE
The Objective of the game is to apply to and be accepted to college. The
strategy for winning the game is the same as the strategy for getting into college – so
practicing with the game would potentially prepare the player for the real application
process.
SORTING THE TIMELINE DECK
Deadline cards needed to appear in a defined order every time the game was
played to mirror the actual deadline calendar for college applications. To keep the

56
game interesting, though, one COULD vary the order slightly. These were the
guidelines for sorting the deck:
1. The Community College card went at the bottom of the deck and would be
the last card to appear, ALWAYS.
2. Above that card, in any order, players were to place the Athletic Scholarship
and Full Ride cards.
3. Above those, in any order, players were to place the Renaissance Scholarship
and Very Selective Private University cards.
4. Above those, in any order, players were to place the Selective State School
and Affordable State School cards.
5. FAFSA card was next.
6. On top, in any order, players placed the Technical School, Art School, Small
Liberal Arts School, and Context Scholarship cards.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PAPER CLIPS
Nearly all of the cards in the game had additional functions that required
using paper clips; these were used to keep track of one’s progress in the game. For
example, attaching a paper clip to each activity card would mark the player’s level at
that time in the game. When a player leveled up, he or she slid the clip up to the next
level. On the back of the family finances card, a player could use a clip in the same
fashion to track how much money he or she had saved from scholarships and

57
working a job. A paper clip would also be used on the application envelope to keep
track of one’s score when evaluating applications.
BONUS SYMBOLS AND THEIR MEANING
When a player reached certain levels on some cards, he or she may have seen
a bonus symbol on that level. If so, he or she would have earned some kind of bonus.
TROPHY, ”$,” “A+” SYMBOLS:
AWARDS and TOP GRADES were highly valued on
certain applications. Some even came with MONEY
rewards attached, such as price money for winning a
contest. Those were collected immediately, but could
only be used once.
On a Work card, the Money symbol represented how
much money a player could have earned by spending
one action that turn to work at the job.
ENVELOPE & QUOTE SYMBOLS:
PERSONAL STORIES (represented by a quotation
“bubble”) and LETTERS OF RECOMMENTATION
(represented by an envelope) were requirements for
many applications. Those two symbols represented
insights or stories that the player gained from

58
activities, these were important bonuses to place on
applications.
QUESTION (“?”) SYMBOL:
This was a special power up. When a player upgraded
a card to a level with a Question, he or she got to draw
a question from the Question Deck to pose to fellow
players. The first player to answer the question
correctly would receive one extra action on their next
turn. The player that asked the questions received two
extra action points to spend as their turn continued.
DISCARDING CARDS AND THE PORTFOLIO
Players could have discarded cards in play for free. If the cards had been
upgraded at all, they should have been kept in a special discard pile called the
portfolio. Each player needed to keep a portfolio of all activities he or she had
participated in which would determine overall success at the college of their choice.
Cards returned from the application process were also discarded to the portfolio.
Cards without upgrades were placed in a general discard pile. At the end of their
turn, players needed to discard any cards they had not played in front of them.
Players could not have kept cards in their hand.

59
THE END OF THE GAME
The game would end when all deadline cards had passed out of the timeline.
Each player then needed to determine which school he or she would attend
(assuming the player had been accepted to at least one), whether he or she had saved
enough or would need a loan, and how successful he or she had been in the game.
Each Acceptance Letter had a list of Future Achievements on it along with
requirements to unlock those achievements. To see if a play had met the
requirements, he or she needed to look at ALL cards in his or her portfolio. The
player with the most points from Future Achievements would be the “winner” of the
game.
Step 1: CHOOSING A PATH
Each player would draw one CHARACTER card and one FAMILY
FINANCES card to start. This determined the player’s special skills and what need-
based aid he or she would have access to be successful in the game (to be accepted
into a college type of his or her choice and secure enough financial aid to attend).
These cards would define a player for the game session, but they did NOT
limit the play. “Artists,” for example, would not need to go to art school. “Jocks”
could focus on music and dance. There were ways to afford private school even if a
player’s “family” was not wealthy. The game encouraged the player to “become who
you want to be.”

60
Step 2: THE TIMELINE
Next, the players needed to place the DEADLINE cards in order and place
the stack to the left with space for four more cards. After every round, the top
deadline card would need to be pushed to the right and to reveal a new card
underneath. When a deadline card had reached the fifth space, applications were due.
Time moved quickly in the game, so players needed to give themselves enough time
to apply where they wanted to be considered for admission or financial aid.
Step 3: BUILDING CHARCTER
Players had to realize that a good application comes from a student with
strong character. All players started out the game by choosing five ACTIVITY
CARDS from the following categories: ACADEMICS, SERVICE, WORK, and
EXTRACURRICULARS. When all players had taken five cards, the game began
with the youngest player and proceeded clockwise.
Step 4: ON A PLAYER’S TURN
Every round, a player received five ACTIONS which he or she could use (or
forego, although foregoing a turn was not outlined in the rules—students could opt to
use it as a personal strategy). An Action could have been: 1) Drawing a new card; 2)
Placing a card in an Application; 3) Mailing an Application; 4) Leveling up on a
Card; or 5) Earning Money at a Job

61
When a player used all of his or her actions, that person’s turn was over for
that round. Players could only work on five activity cards at a time. Players were
encouraged to focus on the most worthwhile activities for pending “applications” and
could discard the rest.
STEP 5: LEVELING UP
Players used actions to build character and reach higher levels on the
activities cards. All leveling up started at the bottom level. Rules on the left of each
card indicated where to level up on the cards.
Players used paper clips to track their own progress.
THE RULE OF FIVE: Five cards were to be picked to start the game, there
were five cards in the timeline, five actions per turn, and a maximum of five cards in
front of each player.
STEP 6: APPLYING
Each player had two envelopes to be used as APPLICATIONS and could
put up to four cards in an envelope. Players were encouraged to choose the best cards
for each application. Applications were mailed by placing them above any preferred
deadline card identifying a college or financial aid source a player wanted to pursue.
At the end of the round when a deadline card had reached the fifth spot, it
was time to evaluate all applications above that card.

62
STEP 7: GETTING IN
A player who had volunteered to facilitate would need to flip over the
deadline card at the far left of the timeline to reveal the number of applicants who
would be accepted, and the criteria to be used to score them. All applicants needed to
meet the base requirements to be considered.
Each player who applied for college admission or for a financial aid source
could then use the scoring space on the envelopes and a paper clip to keep track of
scores. In the event of a tie, both players would be accepted or win the financial aid
amount for which they had competed. Everyone who “won” the item on the timeline
card received an ACCEPTANCE LETTER (if the item was a college) which
outlined the costs of the school and the badges you could earn by attending.
Summary of Play-testing Observations
The participants in the study played-tested and gave feedback on the card
version of a pending video game. The strategies they had to decipher in order to be
successful in the game they played were the same as if they were playing a digital
version. Because most study participants were already familiar with digital games,
some immediate questions they asked at the onset were, “So how will I know if I
win?” or “Can there be more than one winner in this game?” Other students asked,
“What if I get into college but I haven’t earned enough money to pay for it, does that
mean that I lose?” Some asked versions of the opposite question, “What if I have

63
scholarships but I don’t get into a college, what happens then?” The participants’
initial questions represented rational concerns since most were already familiar with
card, video, or board games. More importantly, these were questions that video game
developers would expect play-testing audiences to ponder and figure out for
themselves within the game prototype.
A critical reflective moment often occurred for each play-tester when he or
she understood that the game prototype did not involve “winning” or “losing” in the
traditional sense. When players assigned that key game concept a real world
applicability and compared it to the actual decisions they might make in their daily
lives (particularly for the seniors who were in the midst of submitting actual college
applications), they would begin to take better and more strategic actions in the game
that helped them achieve the equivalent of “winning.”
Allowing opportunities for a play-tester to learn new problem-solving
strategies and understand new challenges within a game is indicative of Fullerton’s
(2005) play-centric game design approach. Fullerton and her video game design
team were the creators of the game prototype used in this study. The play-centric
approach further sustains that when a play-tester can inform the direction that game
design ought to take based on objective feedback, the likelihood of developing a
game that meets its intended aim is increased. The ideal play-testing audiences are
composed of individuals from the target playing audience itself or at the very least of
individuals knowledgeable about the preferences and attitudes of that audience.

64
Gee (2007) also suggests centering the game player’s experience during
design and play-testing. To this end, Gee proposes a set of principles he identifies as
the key elements of what a “good” game ought to provide its players. This study
employed a subset of Gee’s principles constituting good video games to assess the
desired impact that the game prototype would have on the perceived choices and
options of college-bound students like those who participated in the study. Not all
study participants felt that the game addressed their needs. Depending on their own
access to sources of college-going information, some demonstrated frustration with
the game and others even suggested who they thought might constitute a better target
audience for the game.
The following section provides data from play-testing observations and
relates these to Gee’s principles. The original order of Gee’s principles has been
inverted to more closely align with the study participants’ experiences during game
prototype testing—this does not diminish the importance or meaning of Gee’s
principles.
1) Gee’s Principle: Problem Solving – When players are faced with complex
and unfamiliar problems (especially at the beginning of games) they are
likely to develop hypotheses that will serve them well during gameplay.
a. How this principle was apparent in the game prototype used in this
study: There was confusion about game rules among study
participants at the start of every play-testing session. Game

65
components such as the star system rules (described in a previous
section of this chapter) were difficult to understand for most players.
Some participants complained that the cards were “too wordy” or that
they had “too much information” which “distracted” them from
learning the steps to the game. Some students were unsure about
which tasks took precedence in the game such as building-up a
“character’s” skills, leveling up on cards to earn game points, or
applying to a college or financial aid source simply because a
deadline had arrived.
b. How study participants grappled with the challenges associated with
this principle: At several play-testing sessions, students reviewed the
game rules together before the game started until everyone seemed to
understand how to play. On multiple occasions though, even when the
rules were read by all, some students still referred to the instruction
sheets during their first initial turns in an effort to understand how
game actions were to be taken. Once “confused” students recognized
themes and patterns imbedded in the game processes, some would
adjust their playing strategies. Those students who were successful at
this latter step almost always remained consistent in their approach
throughout the game. Only a small number of students remained

66
visibly confused throughout the game. Still, most students helped
each other until everyone was clear about the game structure.
2) Gee’s Principle: Games Empower Learners – Learners must feel like
active participants while using the game.
a. How this principle was apparent in the game prototype used in this
study: While the game instructions did not call for choosing a game
facilitator before starting each play-testing session, in most cases at
least one student asserted him or herself into that leadership role. Self-
indentified facilitators tended to manage the timeline/deadline process
or explained game rules to those who continued to demonstrate
problems understanding them. Even participants who did not assume
a central leadership role, however, had opportunities to take “public
actions” before all of their team members. This at times prompted
them to proceed cautiously—in this sense, all players had to
demonstrate public leadership and confidence as they presented their
game strategies once college admissions and financial aid
“applications” were publicly judged by fellow players.
b. How study participants grappled with the challenges associated with
this principle: By the time a third or fourth deadline card had been
shifted (cards moved five times before being retired from the game),

67
most play-testers transitioned from a state of confusion to a more
competitive playing mode—at this stage, players typically started to
assess not only their own long-term “application” strategies but also
visibly and sometimes orally hypothesized about the actions other
players might take. Students who felt more invested in the game at
this point often personalized the games’ fictitious colleges with real
world institutions they really wanted to apply to (or in the case of
seniors, where they might have already applied) and worked more
aggressively to “get into” those institutions.
3) Gee’s Principle: Understanding (System Thinking and Meaning) within
a game – Players must be able to identify meaning that makes sense to them
personally within the larger context of a game.
a. How this principle was apparent in the game prototype used in this
study: Students who asked their peers (or the study leader) focused
questions throughout the game appeared to remain the most
competitive and invested in their respective play-testing session’s
outcomes. The opposite was true as well. Students who did not
demonstrate a good disposition to the game from the start or who
conveyed indifference about the game tended to be less proactive in
attempting strategies which could help them gain leverage to get into
a college or secure financial aid sources while at play.

68
b. How students grappled with the challenges associated with this
principle: Two possibilities were evident and depended on play-
testers experiences during the game: A) Study participants who
claimed to have enjoined play-testing the game made positive
suggestions about how to further improve the game; B) Students who
stated indifference about the game were often those who
demonstrated both visible and sometimes oral confusion about game
rules. These latter students sometimes suggested others (lower
classmen, or “students who don’t know anything about how to get to
college”) who could “really use it [the game].”
Summary of Focus Group Discussions
Less than five percent of study participants had parents, older siblings, or
other relatives or acquaintances in college. For most participants, their respective
college counselors were the only in-person sources of college-going information.
With the exception of the mentoring program in which most senior play-testers also
participated during the course of this study, the majority had not participated in other
college preparation programs and demonstrated a lack of basic college admissions
principles which could have helped them be strong applicants and future college
attendees. Similarly, most juniors had never participated in a college preparation
program before play-testing the game prototype. Overall, however, all study

69
participants indicated that they were on track to complete their required college
preparation coursework. Some students were retaking (or taking additional) classes
at local community colleges or at their high school campuses in preparation for
college. All participants intended to go to a four-year college or university after high
school and all seniors in the study had already submitted (or were in the process of
submitting) college applications.
The Importance of Family on Study Participants’ College Plans and Aspirations
Most study participants were first generation college-bound students with
parents who did not understand the college application process. Nevertheless, the
students repeatedly shared that their families wanted them to succeed academically
beyond high school—their parents simply did not know how best to assist them.
Consequently, several students during focus group discussions named their family as
an important factor they considered when making their college plans. Of these
students, most would only consider colleges which they felt their respective families
might approve of, either because their parents recognized the institutions’ names or
because those colleges and universities were located within a relative close proximity
to the family home.
At one focus group, where all study participants were first generation U.S.
born children of Asian immigrants, all students stated that they felt varying degrees
of pressure from their parents and older siblings to attend college. Some of those

70
same students claimed to have received very specific direction about the types of
postsecondary institutions they ought to consider and which ones to ignore. One
male student was conflicted about making his own choices or following his father’s
orders. The student confessed, “I was thinking, wow, college is a terrifying place to
go if you are going to have a terrible relationship with your father.”
A Latino male at another group appeared similarly concerned about meeting
his mother’s wishes in regards to attending college, “I am also the first in my family
to go to college and my mom has had influence on [me] going to college. My mom
tells me she did not come to this country so I can slack off. She wants a better future
for me and if I was not going to go to college, it would be through [student implies
that his relationship with his mother would be adversely affected] just like that.”
Not all students felt pressured to make choices based on their family’s
expectations. However, several stated they would make their college plans or shape
their aspirations in consideration of their family. At another focus group, an African
American female shared, “As for me, I guess just culture [influenced me], the fact
that I hear a lot about our parents not having the chance to go to college, we’re very
fortunate to have a free education, that really motivated [me] to go to college because
I really want to be the first in college in the family.” Still another disclosed, “I am the
first to go to college and she [the student’s mother] would be proud of me if I went to
a four-year university. She would be proud of me if I went to a community college

71
[too] but she would not be happy. As for me, the only expectation is for myself to go
to the best college I can go to.”
College Costs
Nearly all focus group participants voiced concerns about paying for their
college education. At one testing site, a student was skeptical about the financial aid
component in the game he had just play-tested and suggested instead, “Maybe make
it harder [in the game] to earn money so we can really see how difficult it is to pay
for college.” A female at that same site added, “I would also make it harder [in the
game] to earn money because in real life students are working.”
Another student who was specifically concerned about loans mentioned the
example of a college student he knew who had considerable student debt—he and
other study participants in that focus group feared this could easily happen to them.
The same male student commented and asked, “The cost, for example, when you are
done with school you might owe like 40K. And then you ‘up that’ in this financial
crisis. And what if you don’t have a job at all? What if when you come out of college
you have to pay right away?”
All students in focus groups were asked where they currently sought answers
to their questions about paying for college. Most stated that they went directly to the
websites of the colleges which most interested them. All students said they knew
about financial aid sources like the Free Application for Federal Student Aid

72
(FAFSA), the Cal Grant program, and scholarships—though few mentioned they had
been proactive about applying for scholarships. Further still, some students already
knew they would be ineligible for state or federal financial aid given their current
residency status and would need to depend solely on aid they could generate through
scholarships, donations, and any personal and family earnings.
Social Networking and Gathering Information: Person vs. Online
Study participants in focus groups overwhelmingly stated that besides
visiting the websites of individual colleges or the College Board website which
offered links to focused information about particular campuses, they did not typically
use the internet to communicate with their peers about their college plans. Most
students had either Facebook or MySpace profiles, but none claimed to use these to
hold meaningful conversations about going to college. Those students who had
social networking profiles used these for more casual purposes which sometimes
involved discussing school related topics, but these were most often about personal
daily occurrences and not about discussing future plans.
Only two students used a website called Zinch.com to gather college-related
information but did not claim to use it for connecting with other students or to
establish real life connections with college knowledgeable adults. Most participants
indicated that they had conversations about their college plans only with their
immediate friends which in many cases involved at least one other college-bound

73
student. No student claimed to be the only person in their circle of friends to be
college bound.
A limited number of students mentioned that some of their high school
teachers occasionally talked about their own college experiences and that those
exchanges were positive and encouraging to hear. One female student shared, “I felt
that the most influence going forward has been from my teachers. I felt that my
teachers cared about my education.” Not all students were optimistic about the
advice teachers could give their students however. A male student contested by
offering that, “Some teachers are not up to date and the college[s] might have
completely changed by now.” A second girl distinguished the connections she had
been able to make with her teachers and the college center staff at her school, “I
think when we talk to the college center it is more procedural, but with the teachers
it’s more about their first hand opinions and experiences [in college].”
During a focus group discussion comprised of five female juniors who
considered each other their own personal support network, one student also talked
about other sources of information and motivation she has received while in high
school, “I have an older sister [in college], so that made me want to go. But first I
wasn’t aiming for a big college because my sister goes to a community college. So I
was like, I’ll go over there. But then after I met a teacher, she influenced me and I
think my friends too, we should go somewhere together, to UC Santa Barbara. So
whatever, you know.”

74
Five Themes Made Evident Through Observations of Play-Testing Sessions
& Focus Group Discussions
One: College literacy: Study participants learned new college vocabulary which can
help them be better self-advocates during the college and financial aid application
process.
Two: Collaboration: Study participants cared about each other's success during
gameplay.
Three: Real Life Applications: Study participants drew multiple parallels between
their real world lives and their fictional characters in the game prototype.
Four: Awareness: Study participants expanded their awareness about college
admission processes—understanding that the financial aid and college admissions
processes are not mutually exclusive steps.
Five: Engagement: Study participants stated that they would play the game again and
would invite their peers.
Conclusion
During the course of fifteen play-testing sessions and four focus groups, 105
study participants shared their impressions about a college-themed video game
prototype they tested and about the kinds of social networks they were part of in and
outside of school. While all study participants play-tested the game at least once,
only 20 students also participated in one of the four focus groups. During

75
interactions with the study research staff who conducted data collection, students
generally stated that the game helped them learn new skills and knowledge about
applying for college, financial aid, and about transitioning to college in general.
All study participants claimed they would pursue a postsecondary education
at a four-year institution immediately after high school. Yet, their unfamiliarity with
key college-going knowledge suggested a lack of preparation for college among
several students. The five themes outlined in the preceding section point to the ways
in which study participants are committed to their options following high school. In
concert, the five themes revolved around two overall notions: Knowledge (themes
One and Four) and Actions (themes Two, Three, and Five).
Several findings exceeded the original expectations about how study
participants would engage with the video game and with each other during
gameplay. Theme two, for example, relates to a belief which became apparent
among students at every play-testing session regardless of gender, racial/ethnic
background or grade level: Students overwhelmingly wanted to help each other
succeed even when competition had been an initial factor of gameplay. Theme three
also signaled an unexpected outcome: Play-tester’s ability to immediately provide
examples of how game rules and actions translated into new knowledge with real
world applicability.

76
At length, the game prototype tested by this study offered an opportunity to
engage low-SES college-bound students in topics that they were not discussing with
other adults in their lives right before or as they were applying for college and
financial aid. As further evidenced through focus group discussions, the students also
did not hold substantial college-related discussions with similarly-aged peers.

77
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
All collected data were meant to describe study participants’ engagement
with a video game prototype, the nature of the students’ social networks, and their
general concerns about transitioning from high school to college. Data findings
served the sole purpose of assisting a team of university researchers to refine the
contents and rules of a pending video game in development to help high school
students understand the complex college and financial aid application processes. A
future version of the completed video game, based in part on the feedback of
students who play-tested the prototype used in this study, aims to inform game users
about the college and financial aid application processes in ways that are consistent
with the documented needs of this particular age group and low-income population.
While a video game like the one described in this study could benefit students
from any socioeconomic background, the premise here is that the students in
question would gain significantly more from using such a game than those students
who already have engaged college knowledgeable adults in their lives. Low-SES
first-generation urban students were central to this study because they
overwhelmingly represent the type of college applicants who receive little or no
guidance from school-based counselors on how to effectively prepare for college—
including learning how to build strong and purposeful social networks (Gonzales,

78
Stoner, & Jovel, 2003). Consequently, when low-SES first generation students are
more closely networked with other peers possessing the same limited awareness
about college applications and financial aid as they have, they limit their own ability
to gather important new and beneficial information.
Unforeseen Limitations
Before collecting data, the study anticipated that the general and prevalent
use of online social networking sites among today’s youth would translate into the
widespread use of these platforms by low-SES students (Lenhart et al., 2008).
Further, low-SES students would use SNS to discuss their college plans and
aspirations with others in their personal social networks. This latter assumption
proved to be a limitation to the study.
Most study participants claimed that they did not use their SNS profiles
extensively in relation to their college plans. Instead, study participants maintained
that most of their social connections and discussions about going to college occurred
through in-person networks in relatively small and focused circles comprised of
family members, schoolmates, and few school-based adults. In most cases, study
participants identified only a few teachers or a dedicated college counselor as part of
their own personal social network.
Analysis and Findings
This study did not employ a theoretical lens to analyze the data collected—
the purpose of the study was to produce raw data for a research team in the process

79
of developing a college-themed video game. A theoretical analysis of collected data
was unnecessary.
The Research Questions and Their Corresponding Study Conclusions
Primary Research Question: How will low-SES urban high school students
respond to the paper prototype of a pending video game aimed at informing them
about applying to college?
Data collected through observations of play-testing sessions and focus group
discussions supports the notion that student engagement vis-à-vis a college themed
video game could positively impact players’ knowledge about preparing for college
admission and about the kinds of future actions they would need to take to be strong
college and financial aid applicants. Over the course of play-testing and then
discussing their college plans, it became apparent that students were able to make
clear connections between new knowledge they learned while at play during the
game with important college-going behaviors they were unaware of previously.
The literature reviewed in Chapter Two served to contextualize the
development of a video game among an array of college preparation programs and
interventions to serve low-SES students in urban areas. The game prototype
discussed here was but one of many possible approaches to convey timely college-
themed information to the kinds of students who typically do not have consistent
access to college knowledgeable adults who could help them prepare for college.

80
Chapter Two also offered a focused review of related research pertaining to the
college access barriers faced by low-SES students in large urban schools, including
limited opportunities to receive counseling on how to get into college and how to pay
for it, limited academic offerings at under-resourced campuses, and a lack of
information (or its misunderstanding) by low income students and their families.
As an intervention of sorts, the video game prototype employed here shared
similarities with other college preparation programs described earlier in this study.
Nonetheless, the game offered an innovative approach which unlike other college
preparation models situated the student at the center of a knowledge
acquiring/generating experience. The students’ knowledge acquisition was obvious:
by playing the game and sustaining detailed conversations about unfamiliar topics
students learned new and valuable information. For the team of researcher
developing the video game, the personalized responses given as reactions to the
game were critical pieces of information that helped refine a new video game—in
this significant way, the students gave back as much to the study as the students
collected from it.
In summary, a non-theoretical analysis of the findings allowed for a better
understanding of how the game prototype impacted students who play-tested. In the
course of observing students at play and analyzing their reactions to the game, seven
learning objectives became apparent:

81
• The game enabled students to use a familiar media to learn about college and
financial aid as well as a full range of postsecondary options.
• The game involved students in filling out fictional college and financial aid
applications and subsequent discussions prompted them to follow through
with real-world actions while remaining aware of critical application steps—
since even highly motivated participants were often unfamiliar with key
processes in the real world.
• The game engaged students in activities to understand the different types of
colleges and universities and funding sources.
• The game helped students (rising seniors in particular) develop clear and
specific goals about what they wanted to do after graduating from high
school – including where they wanted to go and what they want to study, and
understanding the connection between high school, college, and future career.
• The game stressed the importance of connecting with individuals who can
help them apply to college (high school college counselors, university
financial aid officers, mentors, and knowledgeable peers) and understand that
applying to college is not an isolated activity.
• The game covered strategies to prepare for college including the value of
extracurricular activities and assuming leadership roles.

82
• The game provided a framework which encouraged players to think of their
peers as valuable resources—students could work cooperatively while
applying to college but were also free to maintain their independence.
Secondary Research Question: What are the social networks of study participants?
The secondary research question revolved around the assumption that the
study participants’ college-going social capital attainment could be positively
influenced by their use of social networking sites to connect with others in their
respective networks. This idea, however, was unsubstantiated by participants’
responses given during the study.
This study also included an introduction to the idea of college-going social
capital attainment. This notion, however, was only included in relation to the overall
objective of the prototype’s design and was not meant to operate as a conceptual
framework. In summary, the prototype’s purposeful design sought to encourage
discussion between game players about applying to college and for financial aid. A
key assumption of that design (and consequently of this study) was that students who
possessed a greater understanding of how to apply to college could share their
knowledge (or as labeled here, their college-going social capital) with less informed
peers during game play-testing sessions.
Implications for Future Study
Two issues relating to this study could be the basis for future research: 1)
This study play-tested the first version of a video game prototype. Since the

83
completion of this first attempt at data collection, at least one updated version of the
game has been produced and disseminated in card form to college access programs
throughout the country. Those programs have presumably begun to play the game
with students from backgrounds potentially more diverse than the ones associated
with this study. A future study could attempt to distinguish how varied audiences
engage with the game including by race, gender, or grade level; and 2) This study did
not employ a theoretical framework to analyze data collected through observations of
prototype play-testing or focus group discussions. A related study could employ a
social capital framework to further understand the ways in which students’ actions
are shaped by the knowledge they acquire through gameplay. Either of the issues
outlined above could provide the foundation for a future, more detailed study about
an innovative college-themed video game at various stages of development.

84
REFERENCES
Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The
Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-41.

American School Counselor Association (2007). Student-to-counselor ratios.
Retrieved in June 2009 from:
http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=460

Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 2141-258). New York:
Greenwood Press.
Boyd, D., & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity
performance on Friendster. Proceedings of Thirty-Ninth Hawai’i
International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE
Press.
Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K, R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2005). Pathways to a four-year
degree: Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In A. Seidman
(Ed.), College student retention: A formula for success (pp. 155-214).
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). Understanding the college-choice process.
In A. F. Cabrera, & S. M. La Nasa (Eds.), Understanding the college choice
of disadvantaged students (pp. 5-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
Inc.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard
University Press.
Contreras, F. (2005). Access, achievement, and social capital: Standardized exams
and the latino college-bound population. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 4(3), 197-214.
Corwin, Z. B., Venegas, K. M., Oliverez, P. M., & Colyar, J. E. (2004). School
counsel: How appropriate guidance affects educational equity. Urban
Education, 39(4), pp. 442-457.

85
Dickey, M. D. (2006). Game design narrative for learning: Appropriating adventure
game design narrative devices and techniques for the design of interactive
learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,
54(3), 245-263.
Dietz, T.L. (1998). An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in
videogames: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior.
Sex Roles, 38(5-6): 425-42.

Dika, S.L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital theory in educational
literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.

Durkheim, E. (1966). Suicide: A study in sociology (J.A. Spaulding & G. Simpson,
Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1876)

Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Summit on educational games:
Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Washington, DC: Author.

Flint, T. (1993). Early awareness of college financial aid: Does it expand choice?
Review of Higher Education, 16(3), 309-327.

Funk, J.B. (1993). Reevaluating the impact of video games. Clinical Pediatrics,
32(2) 86-90.

Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating
innovative games (2
nd
ed.). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Firestone, W.A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied
to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 13-23.

Gándara, P. (1995). The educational mobility of low-income chicanos. SUNY Series,
Social Context of Education. State University of New York Press.

Gándara, P. & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K-12
intervention programs for underrepresented youth (NCES Publication No.
2001-205). For the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Access
Working Group. Washington DC: US Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.

86
Gee, J. P. (2007a). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video
games, learning and literacy. New York: Peter Lang.

Gee, J. P. (2007b). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2005). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like?
Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6). Retrieved from
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=80

Gerrard, L. (1999). Feminist research in computers and composition. In K. Blair & P.
Takoyoshi (Eds.), Feminist cyberscapes: Mapping gendered academic spaces
(pp. 377-400). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Gullatt, Y. & Jan, W. (2002). How do pre-collegiate academic outreach programs
impact college going among underrepresented students? Boston, MA:
Pathways to College Network.

Gonzales, K.P., Stoner, C., & Jovel, J.E. (2003), Examining the role of social capital
in access to college for latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework,
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, 146-170.

Gorski, P.C. (2006). Complicity with conservatism: The de-politicizing of
multicultural and intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 17(2), 163-
177.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78, 1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties. A network theory revisited,
Sociological Theory, American Journal of Sociology, 1, 201-233.

Grodsky, E., & Jones, M.T. (2006). Real and imagined barriers to college entry:
Perceptions of cost. Social Science Research, 36(2007) 745-766.

Hagittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social
network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 13(1)

87
Horn, L. J., Chen, X., & Chapman, C. (2003). Getting ready to pay for college: What
students and their parents know about the cost of college tuition and what
they are doing to find out. (NCES 2003-030). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA.:
American Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers and LifeCourse
Associates.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.

Junco, R. & Mastrodicasa, J., (2007) Connecting to the net generation: What higher
education professionals need to know about today’s students. Washington,
DC: NASPA.

Kirst, M., & Venezia, A.(Eds.). (2004). From high school to college: Improving
opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Kolek, E.A., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online Disclosure: An Empirical Examination
of Undergraduate Facebook Profiles. NASPA Journal, 45(1), Art. 2.
Retrieved October 2009 from:
http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol45/iss1/art2
King, J. (1996). The Decision to Go to College. Attitudes and Experiences
Associated with College Attendance Among Low-Income Students. New
York: The College Board.
Lee, V. E. & Ekstrom, R. B. (1987). Student access to guidance counseling in high
school. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 287-309.
Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., MacGill, A.R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008).
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’
gaming experience are diverse and include significant social interaction and
civic engagement. Washington, DC.

Louch, H., (2000). Personal network integration: transitivity and homophily in
strong-tie relations. Social Networks, 22, 45-64.

88
Marsden, P.V. (1988). Homogeneity in confiding relations. Social Networks, 10, 57-
76.

McClafferty, K.J., McDonough, P.M., & Nunez, A.M. (2009). Establishing a college
culture in secondary schools through P-20 collaboration: A case study.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4), 357-373.

McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Alexandria,
VA.

McDonough, P. (2004). Counseling matters: Knowledge, assistance, and
organizational commitment in college preparation. In William G. Tierney,
Zoe B. Corwin, & Julia Coyal (Eds.) Preparing for College: Nine Elements
of Effective Outreach. Albany, NY: Sunny Press.
McDonough, P. (2005). Counseling and college counseling in American’s high
schools. National Association for College Admission Counseling.
McNeal, R. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness
on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1),
117-144.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & James, M.C., (2001). Birds of a feather:
Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Murphy, K.R. & Myors, B. (2003). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general
model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests (2
nd
ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Morgan, S., (2002). Modeling preparatory commitment and non-repeatable
decisions: Information-processing, preference formation and educational
attainment. Rationality and Society, 14, 387-429.

National Center for Public Policy & Higher Education. (2004). The educational
pipeline: Big investments, big returns. Policy Alert, April, 1-4.

Paul, F. G. (2002). Bridging paradigms: A profession in transition. University of
California Office of the President. Oakland, CA.

89
Perna, L. W. (2004). Impact of student aid program design, operations, and
marketing on the formation of family college-going plans and resulting
college-going behaviors of potential students. Boston, MA: The Education
Resources Institute, Inc. (TERI).

Perna, L. W. (2006). Understanding the relationship between information about
college prices and financial aid and students’ college-related behaviors.
American Behavioral Scientist, 49(2), 1620-1635.
Plank, S. B., & Jordan, W. J. (2001). Effects of information, guidance, and actions
on postsecondary destinations: A study of talent loss. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(4), 947-979.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. In Presnsky, M. (Ed.) On
the Horizon. MCB University Press, 9(5).

Rosenbaum, J., Miller, S.R., & Krei, M.S. (1996). Gatekeepering in an era of more
open gates: High school counselors’ views of their influence on students’
college plans. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 257-279.

Rosenbaum, J. (2001). Beyond college for all: Career paths for the forgotten half.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Spooner, T., & Rainie, L. (2000). African-Americans and the internet. Washington,
DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Stanton-Salazar, R., (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 1-40.

Stanton-Salazar, R., (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school of kin
networks of U.S. mexican youth. NY: Teachers College Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction
of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school
students. Sociology of Education, 68(2), 116-135.

90
Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the
classroom? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6). Retrieved in
September 2009 from:
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=82

Tierney, W.G., & Venegas, K.M. (2006). Fictive kin and social capital: The role of
peer groups in applying and paying for college. American Behavioral
Scientist, 49(12), 1687-1702.

Tierney, W. G., & Colyar, J.E. (Eds.). (2006). High school students and the
challenge of access: Many routes, difficult paths. Peter Lang Press.

Tierney, W.G., Colyar, J.E., & Corwin, Z.B. (2003). Preparing for college: Building
expectations, changing realities. Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.

Valentine, B., & Bernhisel, S. (2008). Teens and their technologies in high school
and college: Implications for teaching and learning. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 34(6), 502-512.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. SUNY Series, The Social Context of Education. State University of
New York Press.

Vargas, J.H. (2004). College knowledge: Addressing information barriers to college.
Boston, MA: The Education Resources Institute.

Venegas, K.M. (2006). Internet inequalities: Financial aid, the internet, and low-
income students. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1652-1669.

Venegas, K.M. (2006). SummerTIME 2005 program evaluation. Submitted to Center
for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California.

Venegas, K.M. (2007). The internet and college access: Challenges for low-income
students. American Academic, 3, 141-154.

91
Venezia, A., K.M. & Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the dream: How disconnected
K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student aspirations.
Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

Wimberly, G.L., & Noeth, R.J. (2005). College readiness begins in middle school.
ACT Policy Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/index.html

92
APPENDIX A. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS

LAUSD Research Proposal Submission
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California
July 6, 2009
A: Title of Project
Technological Interventions for College Guidance: The Pathfinder U Project
B: Researchers’ Identities and Titles
Principal Investigator
William G. Tierney, Ph.D.
USC University Professor, Director of the Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis
wgtiern@usc.edu 213-740-7218 Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
Waite Phillips Hall, 701 University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089

Contact Person
Zoë Blumberg Corwin, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
zcorwin@usc.edu 213-740-0987

C: Institutional Support

Dean Karen Gallagher
Waite Phillips Hall, 1100
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031
rsoedean@usc.edu
213-740-5756

D: Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this multi-methods study is to learn more about how high school
students from low income and minority backgrounds engage with video game and

93
online technologies intended to boost college aspirations and convey concrete steps
for preparing for college through. The outcome of the study will be a list of effective
practices for making video game technologies relevant to high school students
interested in pursuing postsecondary education.
Students in overcrowded high schools often lack access to meaningful college
guidance. Without adequate college counseling, many students remain oblivious of
their postsecondary options, making applying to and choosing the right college
incredibly challenging. Despite efforts at federal, state and institutional levels over
several decades to improve college access, new strategies to promote significant
increases in college-going are still needed if the nation is to prosper in a global
economy. The Pathfinder U intervention targets low-income high school students,
many of whom will be the first in their families to attend college, and engages them
in the college preparation process in innovative ways. An interdisciplinary team of
educational researchers from the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
(CHEPA) at the University of Southern California (USC) and pioneering game
designers from USC’s EA Game Innovation Lab are collaborating on creating a
highly interactive, entertaining, online game that will: (1) boost students' college
aspirations; (2) emphasize connections among high school and extracurricular
performance, college degrees and career choices; (3) incentivize students to follow
through on college plans; (4) educate students about college affordability; and (5)
increase the likelihood of college completion.
Video games are one strategy that has been shown to be successful in engaging high
school students (Dickey, 2006; Gee, 2007a, 2007b; Jenkins, 2006). The Pathfinder
U project utilizes this strategy and responds to the need for improved college
guidance by developing a layered game experience that will draw students in with
fun, fast vibrant “microgames” cast in the style of Nintendo’s topselling WarioWare
titles and other popular casual and social games, but themed with the type of
personal development tasks high school students should be mindful of as they begin
preparing for college. As such, players will learn not only about college life and
college costs, but what they can do in high school in order to prepare for their college
applications and successful college careers. The game will then build on this initial
engagement and offer the opportunity for students to unlock deeper gameplay in
which the focus will shift from learning about college to actually applying to college.
Players will earn game points from the microgames and use those points for

94
“character building” where they advance to levels of play that incorporate actual
preparatory activities in the students’ online and real-world schools and
communities. For example, a player might play a series of microgames where they
learn about financial aid for college (i.e. how much college costs, what type of aid is
available). With enough points, they can move on to a more advanced quest where
they actually research scholarships and apply to one that fits their needs.
The online game will eventually be disseminated nationally and is intended to
significantly change the way that students engage with the college application
process and subsequent college experiences. This study will: (1) enable game
designers to continually improve the game product through an iterative design
process based on pilot testing; (2) assist the project team in determining the
feasibility of implementing the game in the high school setting; and (3) aid
researchers in developing a deeper understanding of how technology can benefit
college access theory, policy, and practice.
E: Research Questions, Hypotheses, Literature, and Anticipated Contribution
Research questions & hypotheses
In order to increase our understanding of the context and effectiveness of this
technological intervention, we will base our research on the following research
questions. We have also included working hypotheses with the understanding that
the hypotheses will evolve as research progresses.
1. What are the necessary iterative processes of developing a game that supports
college access for urban learners?
a. Hypothesis: A playcentric design approach as outlined by Fullerton
(2008) is conducive to designing a meaningful product for the target
audience.
2. What is the relationship of the video game play to high school students’
access to college?
a. Hypothesis: Video game play focused on access related problem
solving will improve students’ access to college.
3. How does the context of video game play inform students’ abilities to
effectively engage with digital technologies?
a. Hypothesis: Participant students will increase effective engagement
with educationally related digital technologies.

95
4. What role do online peer mentoring groups play in high school students’
college preparation?
a. Hypothesis: Online peer mentoring groups will improve high school
students’ efficacy about college preparation.
5. What role do teachers, counselors and family members/guardians play in
supporting students’ digital learning?
a. Hypothesis: High school students’ digital leaning will improve
resulting from combined teacher, counselor, and family
member/guardian support.

Literature
While more people attend college today than 20 years ago, most high school students
will never make it through the educational pipeline to college graduation. Thirty-two
percent of high school students never graduate, and another 41% do not make an
immediate transition from high school graduation to college enrollment the
following fall. Of those who do make it to college, 32% do not return for the second
year and another 33% leave before college graduation (National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education, 2004). Low-income and minority students leak out of
the college pipeline at higher rates than their peers from wealthier and racial majority
families.
In contrast to the experiences of students from upper socioeconomic backgrounds,
the path to college for students with low socioeconomic status is laden with
obstacles. A recent report issued by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2009)
points out that in order to meaningfully address college access, we can not simply
focus on academic rigor because “without strategies to support students in nurturing
their talents, building new skills, and mastering tough challenges, many will be
unable to meet these increased academic demands” (p.1). The report further
suggests that “a network of academic and social supports is critical to ensure that all
students – regardless of their socio-economic background or previous educational
experience – have the opportunity to succeed at high levels” (p.1). Through content,
social networking and game mechanics, our proposed intervention is designed to
address various types of support (emotional, instrumental and informational)
mentioned in the report.
Research illustrates the critical value of providing students with meaningful college
guidance so that they can make informed decisions about their high school

96
coursework and college options. Students have many misconceptions about college,
including the availability of student financial aid to offset the costs of attendance,
and what it takes to enroll and finish (Kane, 1999; Kirst & Venezia, 2004;
McDonough, 1997; Perna, 2004; Rosenbaum, 2001). Students who understand the
college process and have strong ambitions are more likely to achieve their
postsecondary educational goals (Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Hagedorn,
Maxwell, & Hampton, 2002; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005). Although the direction
of causality is ambiguous (Perna, 2004), research also shows that student and parent
knowledge of college prices and financial aid is positively related to college
expectations (Flint, 1993; Horn et al., 2003), college applications (Cabrera &
LaNasa, 2000), college enrollment (Plank & Jordan, 2001), college choice (Ekstrom,
1991), students’ willingness to borrow, students’ use of financial aid, parental saving
for college (Ekstrom, 1991; Flint, 1997), and student applications for financial aid
(U.S. Government Accounting Office, 1990). Without adequate and accurate
knowledge about college, some students and their families may view college as an
unrealistic postsecondary option and, consequently, engage in negative behaviors,
such as failing to enroll in college preparatory courses in high school and failing to
apply for college admission and financial aid. If they get to college, many students
experience “psychological shock” because they have little understanding of the
college environment and unrealistic expectations, thereby increasing the likelihood
they will drop out (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985). These factors are particularly
salient for minority students. For example, levels of awareness and understanding of
college prices and financial aid are very low among Latino and Black students and
parents (Grodsky & Jones, 2004; Horn et al., 2003; Immerwahr, 2003; Tomás Rivera
Policy Institute, 2004; Tornatzky, Cutler, & Lee, 2002). If students are well
informed, they are more likely to make sound decisions about college.
At overcrowded high schools, students frequently struggle to have access to
meaningful college guidance due to high student to counselor ratios and the fact that
counselors are often required to fulfill a myriad of non-guidance duties (Corwin,
Venegas, Oliverez, & Colyar, 2004). Across the nation, counselor to student ratios
far exceed reasonable numbers. For example, in the 2006-2007 school year, while
the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommended a
counselor:student ratio of 250:1, the national average hovered at 475:1. California
and Illinois held the worst ratios, at 986:1 and 1172:1 respectively (American School
Counselor Association, 2007; National Association for College Admissions

97
Counseling, 2007). College counselor duties and counselor to student ratios vary
tremendously between public and private schools (McDonough, 2005). While
African American and Latino students have been shown to be more likely to have
their college plans affected by their high school college counselors (Lee & Ekstrom,
1987; Plank & Jordan, 2001), these students are also more likely to have
underprepared counselors and/or counselors without dedicated counseling duties
(Paul, 2002). The differences in access to guidance resources has far reaching
effects not just on if students apply to college but on college persistence rates since a
good college fit increases the likelihood of college completion.
College guidance is not limited to counselor–student interactions. College
preparation programs, mentoring programs, college workshops and fairs, and stand-
alone resources such as college guides and technology-based tools have been created
to boost college going rates. Many programs have been developed to increase
college access for underrepresented students. Indeed, a veritable alphabet soup of
college access programs abounds. AVID, IHAD, MESA, TRIO, GEAR UP and other
programs all offer services aimed at increasing college-going. Yet these types of
program are costly and labor intensive, and entail complex and interrelated sets of
activities that impact limited numbers of students. For example, even though funding
for the federal TRIO programs approaches $1 billion annually, these programs serve
less than 10 percent of the eligible population (State Initiative Committee, n.d.).
Often projects are the brainchild of an individual, school district, or college, and are
dependent on the charisma and determination of a handful of individuals.
Implementation varies widely from site to site, thus jeopardizing the potential
benefits. Hence, even if these programs could be shown to be successful, they are
costly, and implementation is too variable to be scalable and sustainable in a way to
reach all eligible students in need of services.
Furthermore, these approaches generally do not acknowledge how technology is
changing the way we live, work, and learn. Today's youth are accustomed to
receiving information through electronic media: television, radio, DVDs, game
consoles, iPods, cell phones – to mention a few (Howe & Strauss, 2003). The ability
to engage students in different venues and formats is increasing dramatically.
Advances in information technology have moved from the mere availability of
computers and software programs to more sophisticated electronic delivery of
instruction and information. Federal and state governments, as well as some private

98
organizations and non-profit organizations, have established web-based resources
that include financial aid information, details on college application procedures and
more (see for example, the College Board website, the FAFSA website, the National
TRIO Clearinghouse web site and the like).
In recent years, organizations interested in increasing access to college have
heightened efforts to scale college preparation approaches and have developed a
variety of websites and tools to address varied aspects of the college preparation
process. Yet there still appears to be a disconnect between the information and tools
students access via digital sources and the actions students take to become college
ready, especially for students of low income and/or minority backgrounds. High
school students might know where to find financial aid information but not follow
through on applying for financial aid. Without taking action, college bound students
can slip through the cracks and not apply to college. This disconnect suggests that
passive dissemination of information is not sufficient. Rather, what is needed is an
interactive and engaging form of delivery that recognizes the interests of adolescents.
In order for students to search for and use information about college, information
must be presented to students in ways that are “accessible” to students, i.e., in ways
that recognize their backgrounds and worldview (Perna, 2006).
Anticipated Contribution
The Pathfinder U intervention proposes to develop a scalable, affordable online
college access service for students across the United States. The significance of this
intervention is straightforward. All students, but in particular first generation
students, need information about why they should go to college, how to enroll in
college, and how to succeed once there. The traditional means for applying to
college for first generation students has been through interactions with a student’s
high school counselor. Due to exorbitant counseling ratios, many students slip
through the cracks. If we are to increase access to college one key step is to develop
a scalable tool, such as Pathfinder U, that will improve upon the ability of students to
apply to college. Due to the diverse students within the district, we believe that
LAUSD provides an ideal location to develop and pilot the game and conduct
research on its feasibility and efficacy.

99
F: Sample, Methods and Analysis
We are seeking approval for four phases of research: (1) small-scale pilot testing of
the game; (2) a feasibility study involving a single high school classroom; (3) three
qualitative case studies aimed at understanding the context of game play; and (4)
surveys administered to the entire senior class at the ten high schools. The aim of this
mixed modal data collection and associated data analyses is to triangulate data by
using multiple informants.
Sample
We propose drawing the sample for the study from ten LAUSD high schools.
Target population We aim to conduct research with high school seniors who attend
schools with predominately Title I and diverse racial and ethnic populations.
Sampling frame & selection procedures Provided district approval, we will solicit
participation from schools with whom we already have established working
relationships through the two outreach programs we offer through CHEPA.
Participants in pilot testing the game (n= approximately 50) will be solicited through
purposeful snowball sampling; the feasibility study and case study participants will
reflect the entire population of the classrooms (n= approximately 120) and will be
selected through a purposeful strategy in order to ensure a viable working
relationship between researchers and the classroom teachers; survey participants will
reflect a complete population – all 12
th
graders from each of the ten high schools.
Methods
Pilot testing Throughout the development of the Pathfinder intervention, the design
team at the Game Innovation Lab will pilot and evaluate iterative prototypes of the
game to ensure that the content and mechanics resonate with the target audience.
This design process, called “playcentric design” (Fullerton, 2008) is a formal
methodology for involving participation by and consideration of potential players.
We seek to run playtests with groups of 4-5 students at 10 LAUSD high schools.
Feasibility study Feasibility for the game usage will occur in a single high school
classroom. The purpose of the feasibility study is not to pilot the game. Rather, it is
intended to determine the usability of the project in a high school classroom.

100
Accordingly, we will conduct a feasibility study focused on using the developed
game in a single high school. Three data sets will be collected during this feasibility
study: (1) a teacher interview that determines the feasibility of using the game in his
/her classroom; (2) a series of student focus group interviews (N=10 students); and
(3) a user satisfaction survey (all feasibility study participants). The goal of
collecting this data is to gather teacher and student focused data about usability and
implementation in the classroom. The interview data have been included as a
supplement to the survey data to obtain depth based feasibility data (interviews) in
addition to breadth based data (survey).
Case studies
In order to gather robust data and learn about the context in which students will be
playing the Pathfinder U game, the research team will conduct three case studies that
will allow for a cross-site comparison of the pilot data (Yin, 2003). Case study data
sets will include: (1) observations of game play environments; (2) focus groups with
10 students at each school at 3 different points during the school year; (3) collection
of pre and post efficacy, college going procedures, digital learning, and game content
knowledge measures with quantitative foci; (4) user satisfaction surveys collected
from teacher and student pilot participants; and (5) interviews with teachers,
counselors and family members/guardians (approximately 10 per case study totaling
30 interviews).
Surveys
Surveys will be employed to obtain broad-level data on the efficacy of the
intervention. By conducting 5 brief and targeted surveys with the entire senior class
at ten schools, we will obtain data that can be statistically analyzed. The following
table (A.1) provides a summary of all measures across participant groups aligned to
the project’s research questions (RQs) and their associated hypotheses (as
applicable). These include development measures, feasibility measures and pilot
study measures.

101
Table A.1: Metric Comparisons/Descriptions of Measures
Measure/description GD/
T
T S Timeframe RQ(s) &
Hypoth.
1. Game Tester Focus Groups- These
focus groups allow for “just in time”
adjustments to the game during
development
Development 1
2. Teacher, Parent, and Counselor
Interviews- These interviews inform the
researchers about the feasibility, usability,
and teachers’, parents’ and counselors’
perceptions of the success of the game for
the participant students
Feasibility and
Pilot
RQs: 3,
4, 5, 6

3. Student Focus Group Interviews-
These interviews are intended to
understand the role that the game has
played in informing the students about
college access, in addition to informing us
about the students’ attitude about the
game.
Feasibility and
Pilot
RQs: 3,
4, 5, 6
4. Pre/Post Student Digital Learning
Concept Inventory- a 4 point multiple
choice type questionnaire to assess
student knowledge of critical elements of
digital media usage pre & post pilot.
Pilot RQs: 3,
4, 5, 6

5. Pre/Post Student College Going
Concept Inventory- a 4 point multiple
choice type questionnaire to assess
student knowledge of critical elements of
accessing college pre & post pilot
Pilot RQs: 3,
4, 5
6. User Satisfaction Survey: A 5 point
Likert type scale measuring user
satisfaction for all who use the game
Development
Feasibility
Pilot
RQs 3, 4,
5
7. College Self-Efficacy Scale: The CSEI
(Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel, &
Davis, 1993) is a 14-item measure of an
individual’s sense of perceived college
self-efficacy on an 4-point Likert-type
scale.
Pilot RQs. 3,
4, 5

102
Table A.1, Continued
8. Student Application Incidence: This
measure includes summative calculations
of students’ applications to college from
the pilot.
End of Pilot RQs 3, 4,
5

9. Game Playing Environment
Observational Notes: This measure
includes qualitative field notes of
observations in the game-playing
environment.
Pilot RQs 3, 4,
5, 6
Note: GD/T= Game Developers/Testers; T= Teachers; S= Students

Qualitative analyses
The piloting, feasibility, and case studies will generate several qualitative data sets
for the study. These data will be analyzed qualitatively using both grounded theory
and, when applicable, the college access literature as a guide. Interview and
observational data will be coded and thematically categorized using the constant
comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In analyzing this qualitative data,
special attention will be paid to disconfirming evidence and outliers, as well as
elements of frequency, extensiveness, and intensity. Ideas or phenomena will be first
identified and flagged to generate a list of internally consistent, discrete categories
(open coding), then fractured and reassembled (axial coding) by making connections
between categories and subcategories to reflect emerging themes and patterns.
Categories will be integrated to form a grounded theory (selective coding) to clarify
concepts and allow for interpretations and conclusions. Frequency distribution of the
coded and categorized data will be analyzed for frequency distribution using a
computerized qualitative analytical tool, Hyperrresearch® version 2.7. The goal of
this intensive qualitative analysis will be to identify patterns, make comparisons, and
contrast one set of data with another. The trustworthiness of the conclusions will be
established by having multiple informants (i.e., different interviewees), member
checks at the end of each interview, multiple researchers and analysts, coding checks
of categories, and verbatim transcripts that will provide thick descriptions that
inform a subset of our research questions.

Quantitative Data Analyses

The knowledge based data will be statistically compared to student efficacy and
application and college access related data. SPSS Version 17 will be used to analyze
the quantitative data. Descriptive statistics will be calculated on all quantitative
instruments (concept inventories, college efficacy, user satisfaction, application

103
incidence). Correlational analyses will be used to explore the relationships among
the student variables and their associated measures, and multivariate techniques will
be used to model the relationships of the variables and their relationship to each
other across the pilot. The intent of the pilot is not to determine causal relationships.
Rather it is to explore relationships among the variables for game design and user
related pilot purposes.

Power Analyses Although the quantitative measures described in this proposal are
intended for a pilot study, it is important to conduct a priori power analyses of these
measures as appropriate to the design. Accordingly, using the computer program
G*Power version 3, we determined the necessary statistical power for the study. The
minimum sample size on both the CSEI and the Pre-post college concept inventory is
179, for pre and post statistical comparisons with statistical power at .95 (Cohen,
1989). Given our study’s sample ~ 500 students, we estimate that the power of our
analysis of treatment effects approaches 1.00. According to Murphy and Myors
(2003), the total number of students needed to detect an effect size as small as .10
standard deviation units for a design such as this one is 169, which is well below the
500 students that will be assessed during this pilot study. As such our pilot sample
size of ~500 high school students will provide ample statistical power.

Instrument Reliability The quantitatively focused instrumentation has been and will
be tested for reliability and validity. The CSEI (Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel,
& Davis, 1993) consists of 20 items related to different areas of college life assessing
an individual’s sense of perceived college self-efficacy and uses an 11-point Likert-
type scale. Reliability was strong (Cronbach alpha= .93; Solberg et al., 1993; DeWitz
& Walsh, 2002). Additionally, with regard to the concept inventory, these particular
statistical procedures will be utilized during the pilot to test for instrument reliability
as was applied with the CSEI.

G: Instrument(s)
Due to the qualitative nature of the focus groups we propose, protocols will evolve in
response to data collection. Potential focus group questions are included in
Appendix A. We are in the process of designing survey instruments for the study.
Surveys administered later in the year will be shaped by pilot testing and qualitative
data. Attached in Appendix A are two examples of the brief type of surveys we
intend to administer and analyze.

104
H: Legal and Ethical Principles
We are currently in the process of ensuring IRB approval from the USC IRB and will
submit proof of IRB approval to LAUSD upon receipt of the paperwork.
With respect to legal and ethical issues, we understand and are committed to making
sure that: the identities of all research participants remain confidential; study
participants understand written consent procedures and sign consent before
participating in the study; potential participants understand that their participation in
the study is entirely voluntary.
Included in the Appendix C are copies of the informed consent forms that we will
use in conjunction with data collection. Attached you will find: 1) an assent form for
students to participate in the pilot/feasibility/case study; 2) a parent/guardian consent
for their children to participate in the feasibility study; 3) an assent form for students
to participate in the survey; and 4) a consent form for adult participants.
I: Anticipated Benefits of Research
When President Obama recently outlined his plans to dramatically “expand the
promise of education in America,” he called for innovation, excellence, and an
emphasis on access to college. The program we are developing – with the
Pathfinder U game at its center – reflects these themes through the objectives of the
intervention, scope of the project, and expertise of the project team. Obtaining a
college education is critical to ensuring the economic and social well being of
America’s youth – especially those from underprivileged backgrounds.
Unfortunately, many students do not receive the appropriate support as they prepare
for college. The Pathfinder U intervention capitalizes on cutting edge technology
and a pioneering design process to develop in students the knowledge, confidence,
and drive to enroll in and persist in college. Through game content, peer-powered
social networking and personal development tasks that are embedded into game
activities, players will meet the high standards put forth by the Obama administration
to become college ready.
Beyond readying the game product for national level dissemination that will benefit
thousands of high school students, we aim to develop a list of most effective
practices that can be immediately employed by teachers and counselors within

105
LAUSD. As with previous research conducted through CHEPA, we are committed
to translating our research findings into practitioner-oriented materials, sharing
preliminary findings and receiving critique from colleagues within LAUSD and
disseminating study findings to various stakeholders within the high schools and
district.
J: Burden on Research Subjects
CHEPA researchers have experience working with teachers and counselors and are
strongly committed to creating as little an inconvenience as possible to school staff.
We recognize that teachers, counselors and students have limited time in the
classroom. Consequently we design research activities that can be carried out during
times of students’ and teachers’ choosing – ideally at lunchtime or after school.
Only surveys with brief time constraints will be administered during classtime.
Classroom observations for the case studies will not disturb instruction. The
proposed pilot study will include an hourlong session of playtesting the game and
holding focus groups with five students at ten high schools. The feasibility study
will include interviews with one teacher, focus groups with the class population at
four times during the year, and one ten minute survey. Interviews will not last more
than one half hour and will be conducted at a time convenient to students and
teachers. Case studies will involve a combination of observations; interviews with
students, teachers and family members; and a series of surveys. We estimate
interview time over the course of one year will amount to four hours with students
and one hour with teachers/families, again at times of the participants’ choice. The
surveys will be conducted with approximately 600 students at ten high schools.
Surveys will average ten minutes and will be administered at a time set by the school
principal.
K: Data Request
We will be seeking information about graduation rates, % of students meeting A-G
requirements, and college going rates. The majority of this information is accessible
through the California Department of Education’s Dataquest site. We do not
anticipate requesting additional district or school level data.

106
APPENDIX B. STUDENT ASSENT FORM FOR RESEARCH
University of Southern California
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
Rossier School of Education
ASSENT FORM FOR RESEARCH

Page 1 of 2

ASSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Pathfinder U: Adventures on Your Course to College

1. My name is Bill Tierney, and I am a faculty member at the University of
Southern California in Los Angeles.
2. Dr. Giselle Ragusa, Dr. Zoë Corwin, Victor Garcia and Diane Yoon and I are
asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about how students interact with technology and how video games can promote
access to college.
3. If you agree to be in this study, I will ask you to meet and talk with me or one of
the other researchers for approximately ½ hour at four times during the year. I
would like to ask you questions about your experiences in playing the Pathfinder
video game and preparing for college. If necessary, I might also need to phone
or email you after our interviews to ask some follow-up questions. We will meet
at a time and location of your choice.
4. There are no risks involved in your participation in this project. All of your
comments and answers will be kept confidential.
5. There are no direct benefits to you for your participation in this study, and you
will not be paid for your participation. However, your participation will assist us
in learning more about how technology can be helpful for students like you.

107
6. Please talk this over with your parents before you decide whether or not to
participate. We will also ask your parents to give their permission for you to take
part in this study. But even if your parents say “yes” you can still decide not to
do this.
7. If you don’t want to be in this study, you don’t have to participate. Remember,
being in this study is up to you and no one will be upset if you don’t want to
participate or even if you change your mind later and want to stop.
8. You can ask any questions that you have about the study. If you have a question
later that you didn’t think of now, you can call me at 213-740-7218 or ask me
next time.
9. Signing your name at the bottom means that you agree to be in this study. You and your
parents will be given a copy of this form after you have signed it.

____________________________________ ____________________
Name of Subject Date

____________________________________
Subject’s Signature

___________________________________ ____________________
Name of Investigator Date (must be same as
Subject’s)
__________________________________
Investigator’s Signature

108
APPENDIX C. PARENT CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

University of Southern California
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
Rossier School of Education

******************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Pathfinder U: Adventures on Your Course to College
Parent Consent Form
Your child has been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr.
William Tierney, Dr. Giselle Ragusa, Dr. Zoe Corwin, Victor Garcia and Diane
Yoon from the Rossier School of Education Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis at the University of Southern California. Your child was selected as a
possible participant in this study because we are conducting a research study at your
child’s school. Your child’s participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to learn more about how high school students from low income
and minority backgrounds engage with a video game intended to boost college aspirations
and convey concrete steps for preparing for college through imaginative role play. The
outcome of the study will be a list of effective practices for making video game design
accessible to high school students.
PROCEDURES
If your child volunteers to participate in this study, we would ask him/her to do the following
things:
1. Spend approximately half an hour interviewing with one of the project investigators
at four times during the school year.
2. Answer questions about his/her involvement in the project, including activities and
experiences.

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

109
3. Answer questions about his/her academic and career goals.
4. Be available for follow-up questions via telephone, email, or in person. Follow-up
interviews will not exceed two hours.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts associated with this study. The only
inconvenience may be the time necessary to complete the interview and follow-up questions.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There is no direct benefit to your child for participation in this study. Your child’s
perspectives, however, are vital in helping us understand how technology might best
influence college preparation and the college application process.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Your child will not receive any payment for your participation in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with
your child will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.
Your child’s interview may be audio-taped as part of the study, and will be used for
educational purposes only. Interview tapes will be locked in the offices of the principle
investigator, and they will not be accessible to other staff or researchers. All tapes will be
destroyed at three years after the conclusion of this study. Your child has the right to review
and edit tapes and notes of his/her interview at any time.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information
will be included that would reveal your child’s identity. Data from your child’s interview
will be presented with a pseudonym only, and will never be presented with reference to
his/her real identity.
If your child agrees to participation in this study, he/she will be assigned a pseudonym that
will be used in place of his/her name. Your child’s real name will be linked to the
pseudonym, and documentation of the code will be filed and locked in the principle
investigators offices; this information will never be made public, and will never be part of
any reports or presentations. Once the pseudonym has been assigned, records will only be
indicated with the pseudonym, not your child’s real name.
At the conclusion of the study, all interview tapes and notes will be destroyed, including any
notes that link your child’s identity with the pseudonym.

110

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child can choose whether to be in this study or not. If your child volunteers to be in
this study, he/she may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. Your child
may also refuse to answer any questions he/she doesn’t want to answer and still remain in
the study. The investigator may withdraw him/her from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Dr. William G. Tierney, Principle Investigator
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
USC Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall 701
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031
213-740-7218
213-740-3889 (fax)

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
Your child may withdraw consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty.
You and your child are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your child’s rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research,
Bovard Administration Building, Room 300, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019, (213) 740-6709
or upirb@usc.edu.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, PARENT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE

I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to my child’s participation in this study. I have been given a copy of
this form.

Name of Subject
______
Name of Parent or Legal Representative (if applicable)

111

Signature of Subject, Parent or Legal Representative Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative and answered all
of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information described in this
document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator
______
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subject’s)
SIGNATURE OF WITNESS (If an oral translator is used.)

My signature as witness certified that the subject or his/her legal representative signed this
consent form in my presence as his/her voluntary act and deed.

Name of Witness

Signature of Witness Date (must be the same as
subject’s)

112
APPENDIX D: STUDENT CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

******************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Pathfinder U: Adventures on Your Course to College
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. William G. Tierney, Dr.
Giselle Ragusa, Dr. Zoe Corwin, Victor Garcia and Diane Yoon from the Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis at the University of Southern California. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because of your involvement with the Pathfinder U project.
Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine effective strategies for engaging low income and/or
minority students in the college preparation process through technological interventions.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following:
- Participate in a series of approximately six interviews over the course of an
academic year. The meetings will last for approximately one half hour and be held in
a location of your choosing.
- Possible questions during this interview might include: How do you use technology
in your classroom? Which program elements related to the Pathfinder video game
would you maintain and which would you change in the future?
- Interviews will be scheduled to take place between September 1, 2009 and August
31, 2010.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to participating in this study other than the time
it takes to participate in an interview.

113
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from your participation in the study. Your insight, however,
has the potential to significantly influence how people approach designing technology and
college access programs targeted at underrepresented youth.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no payment or compensation for your participation in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with
you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required
by law. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you
may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to
answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact William
G. Tierney at (213) 740-7218 during regular office hours- 8:30 am through 5:00 pm,
Monday through Friday.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty.
You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this
research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I understand the procedures described above, have carefully read the information contained
in this form and I understand fully the rights of a potential subject in a research study

114
involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I
agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
Name of Subject __________________________

Signature of Subject_____________________________ Date____________________
I have explained the research to the subject, and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator
__________________________________________Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

115
APPENDIX E. INTERNAL INTAKE FORM
Student Name: School: Date:
Email:
Social Networking
Site:
Grade Level:
GPA:
SAT Scores:
Critical
Reading
___
Writing
___
Math
___

1. What are your plans for after high school?
a. If college is mentioned, to which campuses will participant apply?
2. How much do you think it costs to attend college? (Probe: tuition; other
expenses)
3. Where do you get information about applying to college?
4. Where do get information about applying for financial aid?
5. What programs, events, activities, etc. have helped you prepare to apply for
college?
6. Are there barriers you personally face in getting into college? If so, what are
they?
7. Is there anyone who helps you figure out your college plans?
8. What do your parents or guardians say/think about you going to college? Do
they have concerns?
9. Has anyone in your family attended (or currently attends) college?
10. What kinds of extra-curricular activities are you involved in?
11. Do you currently play video games? If so which ones (If yes, proceed)
12. How do you usually play video games PC software, consoles, online, other?
13. What are your favorite kinds of video games?
14. What are our least favorite kinds of video games?
15. How much time do you usually spend playing video games per week?
16. Do you play board games?

116
APPENDIX F. PLAY-TESTING OBSERVATIONAL FIELD NOTES

Participant:
_____________________________________________________________
Clarity of rules

Feedback on game
details

Questions asked
during game/topics
of discussion

Level/type of
student engagement

Questions/issues for
further investigation

Reflections

Participant
“quotables”

Site: Date: Researcher:

117
APPENDIX G. FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
Play-testing a video game prototype; Familiarity with social networks
Introduction:
(Interviewer) I’m interested in your thoughts and opinions about how you prepare for
college and also about how you use sites like Facebook and MySpace. With your
permission, I’d like to use a tape recorder during our conversation. I want to make
sure I remember every part of our conversation. Later I’ll transcribe the entire
interview which should last about 1 hour and will use your responses in a study I’m
conducting about students going to college. This conversation is not meant to be a
test. There are no wrong or right answers and everything we cover will be
confidential. I will not include your actual name or school in the study. Thanks!
Background Information:
Let’s begin with some general details about our backgrounds.
1. Where did you grow up?
2. How would you describe your overall experiences in high school?
3. What does it mean to you to be the first person in your family to attend
college?

Targeted Questions Part I: Play-testing the video game prototype
So you’ve played the video game prototype. Let’s talk about that experience.
1. How would you describe the game?
2. Was the game easy or complicated to understand? Please explain.
3. How do you think did in the game?
4. What did you and the other players discuss during the game?
5. Who do you think should play the game and why?
6. What topics do you think should be covered in a game about going to
college?

Targeted Questions Part II: Online Social Networking
Let’s switch direction and talk about how you use Facebook, MySpace or both.
1. Which site or sites do you currently use?

118
2. When did you first start using one of these sites and has that use changed
over time?
3. How would you describe your personal online profile(s)?
4. Who are your online friends?
5. What topics do you usually discuss with your Facebook or MySpace friends?
6. How often do you check your online profile(s)?
7. Are any of your online friends adults? If so, who are they? (School-based,
family, community members)
8. What topics do you usually discuss with your online adult friends on
Facebook or MySpace?

Part III: Reaffirming and/or developing social capital via online social
networking
1. What roles do think your online friends play in your college plans?
2. Do you think you’ve learned things about your online friends that you might
not have learned about them in real life interactions? If yes, what are those
things?
3. Have your interactions with online friends affected your college plans in any
way?

Conclusion:
(Interviewer): I really appreciate you having taken the time to chat with me today!
Thank you very much! I’ll continue working on my dissertation for several months
but I would like to stay in contact with you. You’re welcome to review a copy of my
final study results once it’s complete.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The advanced placement program: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

Building a college-going culture: a case study of a continuation high school

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students

PDF

College choice of natural science students: the factors and sources that influence enrollment decisions

PDF

Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students

PDF

Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

PDF

High performing schools in high risk environments: a study on leadership, school safety, and student achievement at two urban middle schools in Los Angeles County

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Imparting social capital to educationally disadvantaged students: A study of the early academic outreach program

PDF

First-year persistence of rural high school graduates at four-year, urban colleges and universities

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

Self-perceptions of student identity in community college students with disabilities

PDF

The college selection process of high-achieving Latino students

PDF

Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study

PDF

Students in basic skills mathematics: perceptions and experiences of community college progress and help-seeking

PDF

Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students

PDF

Raising student achievement on the California Standards Test and California High School Exit Exam at the Phoenix Arts Charter School

PDF

Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students

PDF

Decision-making and graduate school debt: a focus on master's degree students

Asset Metadata

Creator García, Victor (author)

Core Title Play-testing a video game prototype with low-SES college-bound urban high school students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/17/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college access,High school students,low-SES,OAI-PMH Harvest,urban students

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tierney, William G. (committee chair), Jackson, Michael L. (committee member), Venegas, Kristan M. (committee member)

Creator Email vgarcia@collegeaccessfoundation.org,victorg@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3537

Unique identifier UC1262344

Identifier etd-Garcia-4031 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-410060 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3537 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Garcia-4031.pdf

Dmrecord 410060

Document Type Dissertation

Rights García, Victor

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu