Considering Gender in Digital Games:

Implications for Serious Game Designs in the Learning Sciences

Yasmin B. Kafai, University of California, Los Angeles, 2331 Moore Hall, kafai@gseis.ucla.edu

Abstract: This paper reviews the research literature on gender and gaming in light of the
growing interest in digital games for learning. It outlines three different approaches that have
been developed to address gender issues in digital games: ‘games for girls’ that build on gender
differences by promoting different notions of femininity, ‘games for change’ that support gender
play by challenging stereotypes, and ‘games as designs’ that position girls as creators of their
own learning environments. The paper then discusses implications for design methods, choices
of game genres and features, research in learning environments, and approaches to data analyses
for learning science researchers interested in designing and using games for learning.

Introduction
Over the last ten years, we have witnessed some remarkable changes in the field of digital games. The
most obvious one concerns the move of digital games into mainstream entertainment. Now people of all ages and
backgrounds, and not just young boys and men, can be seen playing games. New gaming formats and platforms
have expanded participation into mobile, massive online and alternative reality gaming anytime, anywhere, and
with anyone. Equally important is the recognition of digital games for their educational benefits amplified by the
creation of the serious games movement. But arguably one of the most significant changes has been the increased
presence of girls and women as gamers. Recent industry reports (Entertainment Software Association, 2007) list
over 40% of women as gamers with casual gamers consisting of over 70% women players.
Thus the worry about gender issues in games, which has been documented so prominently in the
research literature (Cassell & Jenkins, 1998; Yelland & Rubin, 2002), might seem misplaced and could explain
why it has been put to rest in some discussions. No other than Jim Gee (2003), who has helped popularize video
games as examples of promising learning environments, articulated that he had “nothing whatsoever to say
about this issue” (p. 10) given the large number of existing publications. Gee admitted that videogames, like
other popular cultural forms, overstress sexualized women in their content and usually portray them as minor
characters but foresaw that this will change. As I will argue, this is an overly simplistic view because gender in
digital games has always been about more than just having larger numbers of female players and fewer virtual
bosoms in games.
Two different arguments have been prominent in discussions on why gender should matter in digital
games. The technology pipeline argument has been discussed most extensively because boys’ early access to
video games presumably provided them with a home advantage (see Hayes, in press). Consequently, increasing
girls and women’s participation in gaming has been seen as one way to address the lack of women’s
involvement with technology. Yet, the trends seem to indicate otherwise: over the last ten years the participation
of women and minorities in IT fields has decreased. Games as such have little changed, and women have made
few inroads into the game design industry (Cohoon & Asprey, 2006). A second argument as to why gender
should matter in digital games concerned the content of digital games, most notably the violence and
stereotyping (Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006; Provenzo, 1991) which were seen as another deterrent for girls. While
researchers have debated to what extent these messages are received as transmitted (Kinder, 1991), stereotyping
continues to exist even with strong female protagonists such as Lara Croft now prominent in many games (Jansz
& Martis, 2006).
These arguments have made gender in games an issue that we cannot ignore because they illustrate that
lack of participation and bias in representations have implications far beyond mere numbers. Within industry
and academia different proposals have been developed for addressing these issues: (1) ‘games for girls’ that
build on gender differences by promoting different notions of femininity and (2) ‘games for change’ that support
gender play by challenging stereotypes, and (3) ‘games as designs’ that position girls as creators of learning
environments. In the following sections, I will outline the premises of these different proposals, provide
examples of existing game designs, and then articulate implications for the choices of design methods, game
genres, features, research in learning environments, and data analyses for learning science researchers interested
in designing and using games for learning.

Gender in the Design of Digital Games

In the early 1990’s, video games were mostly seen as toys for boys. During those years, there was little
interest in the game industry to create and market games for girls because all the research had shown that girls
just weren’t interested in computers, and, by extension, in digital games. Yet, others wondered whether this
untapped market segment could be mined by designing games for girls. These discussions crystallized in the girl
game movement — an unlikely alliance between academics and industry (for an extensive discussion, see
Cassell & Jenkins, 1998). Within the girl game movement, games were created for girls only based on the
premise of gender differences emphasizing traditional notions of feminity. This approach to gender in game
design will be called ‘games for girls.’ In contrast, approaches under the premise of gender as a social construct
have favored games that challenge stereotypes and will be called ‘games for change.’ Finally, ‘games as
designs’ position girls as creators of learning environments. The following sections will provide more detail to
the different approaches using selected games as examples that illustrate similarities and differences in game
character design, mechanics, and context.

Games for Girls: Building on Gender Differences

A large body of research has established significant gender differences in various aspects such as
performance and experience related to video game play (for an overview, see: Greenfield & Cocking, 1996).
Other research focused on differences in game playing interests and used these as an explanation for why girls
were not playing video games (Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006; Klawe, Inkpen, Phillips, Upitis, & Rubin, 2002).
Industry designers and academics thus argued that games needed to emphasize different content, mechanics, and
characters in order to appeal to girls. The Barbie series exemplifies the characteristics of a typical girl game
aimed at 6 to 11 year olds. Barbie Fashion Designer released by Mattel in 1996 was the most popular package
produced in this series. It let players design clothes for the Barbie doll and model them on a catwalk before
printing them out on special clothes-like paper and gluing or ‘sewing’ them together to dress an actual Barbie
doll. The software provides dozens of clothes patterns that fit the actual Barbie doll body and a large array of
different colors and print patterns. Other software packages in this series let the player via Barbie explore the
ocean environment (e.g., Barbie Ocean) or create dresses for collaborative doll play (e.g., Barbie Print ‘n’ Play).
These game activities emphasized traditional notions of feminity such as being beautiful and fashionable.
Greenfield and Subrahamayan (1998) explained the success of Barbie Fashion Designer with its focus on girls’
traditional play patterns with dolls. When Mattel released Barbie Fashion Designer, the title outsold all other
console games in the traditional boys market. This commercial success indicated for the first time that girls
could be interested in computers given the right software.
Other efforts, most notably the Friendship series developed by Purple Moon under the direction of
Brenda Laurel, promoted different interests of girls, those of social interaction and helping. The Friendship
series focused on girls ages 8 to 12 years old. For instance, Rockett’s New World released by Purple Moon in
1997 presented a player with the situation of moving to a new school and navigating her way through the social
maze for making friends. In the game, Rockett would face different social situations with classmates and could
rehearse answers and experience their outcomes. Rockett and her six friends were dressed in casual fashion. A
diary provided additional information about Rockett’s feelings and interests (see Laurel, 1998). Other packages
in this series would allow Rocket and her friends to explore secret pathways in a forest and design friendship
bracelets. The game activities focused on gaining access and social status among peers. This group of girl games
has often been called ‘purple software’ because of its purple packaging while the Barbie software, and others
alike, were called ‘pink software’ because of their pink packaging. The successes and failures behind these two
developments have been extensively discussed elsewhere (Jenkins, 2003; Jenkins & Cassell, in press; Laurel,
2003). But what’s important here is that this focus on gender differences in game play and interests produced
clear prescriptions on how to design games for girls: offer female player protagonists, afford realistic feature
choices, use cooperation not competition, and provide positive but not violent feedback.

Games for Change: Supporting Gender Play

The pink and purple games that appealed to large numbers of girls (based on their commercial
successes) and used girls rather than boys as a starting point for their designs, created considerable concern
among feminist researchers (Cassell & Jenkins, 1998; deCastell & Bryson, 1998): the promotion of traditional
values about what it meant to be a girl, the limited choices of identification with femininity, and the creation of
separate, girls-only spaces leading to a possible ghettoization of girls (Seiter, 1993). But one of the most
problematic aspects was for many the “essentialization” of girls and boys — the assumption that all same sex
children share the same likes and dislikes. This view ignores the substantial differences that exist within a group
of girls or boys. A recent meta-analysis found that most of the observed differences between men and women in
psychological studies are rather small with the exception of motor performances and views on aggression
(Hyde, 2005). Many researchers now focus on contextual factors and their impact on situating gender. For
instance, a follow-up study of Kafai (1998) revealed that most of the observed gender differences disappeared in
children’s video game designs once the context for the instructional games was changed from teaching
mathematics to teaching science. More recently, research has expanded to focus on physical locations in which
games are played (Beavis & Charles, 2005; Bryce & Rutter, 2002; Carr, 2005; Schott & Horrell, 2000). In these
studies researchers examine the ways girls’ access to and participation in game play is supported when various
family members compete for access to consoles or how locations structure game play.
While games for girls movement was based on the premise that all girls are alike, games for change
was predicated on the notion that gender is a socially constructed identity (deCastell & Bryson, 1998). Theorists
like Butler (1990) have introduced the notion of ‘gender play,’ meaning that both girls and boys, and men and
women, experiment with gendered expressions within different contexts. Much of the research has focused on
where and how society places constraints on gender performances and thus impacts a gendered identity
formation. The basic premise of these games is to challenge existing gender stereotypes and provide room for
exploration. This take on gender obviously leads to games with different game mechanics, contexts, and
characters. One example is SiSSYFiGHT 2000 developed by Zimmerman and others (2003) to illustrate how
one can challenge norms about social interactions. SiSSYFiGHT 2000 focuses on girl groups who are all out to
ruin each other's popularity and self-esteem. The object of the game is to attack and dis enemies both physically
and verbally until they are mortified beyond belief. The game involves six online players and each round
establishes who comes out as a winner or loser; the final results are published on an online board reset on a
weekly basis. The game activities focus on abusive practices used by girls to establish popularity in their groups
and thus explicitly challenge stereotypes that all girls are nice and supportive.

Games as Designs: Exploring Gender Construction

A different approach provides room for exploration of gender by creating tools for learners to design
games (Kafai, 2006). In her early work, Kafai (1996) found significant differences in girls and boys’ game
designs but no differences in their abilities to make the games. In the project, students aged 9 to 11 years were
asked to design fraction games to teach other students at their school about fractions. Most of the boys’ designs
featured violent feedback, were situated in a fantasy settings and assumed a male player, while most of the girls
designed games with no violent feedback, selected realistic settings and made provisions for players of different
gender. An alternative interpretation of these findings would propose that the boys positioned themselves in
their games as savvy game players by choosing established conventions that reaffirm their gender while the girls
did the same with their choices (Pelletier, in press). A later study (Kafai, 1998), in which students were asked to
design and implement astronomy games found no differences in game designs suggesting that context plays an
important role in how students position themselves in relation to particular subject matters and game designs. In
the same spirit, Flanagan (2006) incorporated game mechanics such as cooperation, sharing and fair
representation in the multi-player game RAPUNSEL which is programmed by the players themselves.
RAPUNSEL, aimed at 11-14 year olds, presents a multi-player game world populated by two sets of creatures
called, Peeps and Gobblers, who like to dance. Peeps design and program dance moves while Gobblers learn
them from copying the Peeps. Players control Peeps characters by programming increasingly complex dance
moves that can be stolen by Gobblers. Players have the choice of two modes: battle or exploratory. In
exploratory mode, players can decorate their houses in their home base and make music. In the battle mode,
players confront Gobblers and put voodoo-like spells on them to protect their moves. Players collect credits for
their home designs, new music loops, dance moves, and character designs. RAPUNSEL includes both
cooperation and competition thus allowing players to choose whichever mode they prefer.
Each of these approaches incorporates expression of and play with gender in different ways. The
‘games for girls’ approaches stress different notions of feminity: Mattel’s Barbie series focuses on beauty and
fashion while Purple Moon’s Friendship series focuses on popularity and friendship. The ‘games for change’
approaches challenge these traditional notions: Zimmerman’s SiSSYFiGHT 2000 explicitly asks players to
engage in psychological and physical attacks whereas Flanagan’s RAPUNSEL allows players to choose their
mode of interaction of being either collaborative or competitive. In ‘games as designs’ girls can position
themselves either way as players. Each approach has built in challenging or confirming notions of what is
considered to be appropriate for a girl. It is clear that multiple factors — design, mechanics, and contexts —
impact gender differences and performances.

Implications for Serious Game Designs in the Learning Sciences

The purpose of this review was to present the quite diversified treatment that gender has received in the
research and design of digital games. There is not one easy answer how to address gender in the design of digital
games for learning but clearly multiple aspects to consider. The learning sciences community has not
extensively discussed the gender issue. For instance, the recently edited Handbook of the Learning Sciences
(Sawyer, 2006) did not include a chapter on this topic. This may come as a surprise given that so many learning
science studies deal with technology designs or interventions in schools where there has been an extensive
documentation of gender issues. Previous research has revealed significant gender differences in access, use,
attitudes and achievement in regard to computers in schools (Kirpatrick & Cuban, 1998; Volman & van Eck,
2001). Studies have documented, over and over again, that girls’ access and participation with computers is not
the same as those of boys. For instance, Schofield (1995) painted a dramatic picture of the cultural and social
forces that shape girls’ inclusion or exclusion in computer classrooms and school clubs. Some recent research
has also moved away from examining gender differences. Here researchers (Jenson, deCastell & Bryson, 2003)
propose opportunities for girls to develop and experience new identities as technology experts within their
school by allowing them to voice their concerns about inequitable access.
While games have always been around schools, they have been used mostly for motivational rather
than academic purposes. Many teachers use board and computer games in classrooms as a reward for students
completing their assignments. We found though that gender concerns often fall to the wayside when teachers
examine serious games (Kafai, Franke, & Battey, 2002). Few teacher reviewers considered whether the design
of game contexts, activities and characters could be biased towards one group. The reviews also revealed that
most teachers focus on motivational and not content-related criteria when discussing learning with digital
games. Ito (2006) and others have argued that we cannot neglect the social and cultural factors when
considering learning with serious games which situate when, how and who is learning what. In the following
sections, I will articulate the implications for considering gender when designing and researching digital games
in the learning sciences by focusing on the design methods, game genres, and game features, and data analyses.

Design Methods
Since the field of the learning sciences considers the design of educational technologies and tools a central
part of its mission, it is particularly important to consider the design method itself. Why this is important is
apparent in early research conducted by Huff, Fleming, and Cooper (1987) who asked designers to develop gender-
specific educational software, they found game designs for boys and learning tools for girls. When asked to design
generic software, designers replicated the same patterns. While this is not a comprehensive body of research, the
few studies seem to suggest that bias can come into play in the design of serious games. Several researchers have
made proposals for different design methodologies to address this issue. For instance, Cassell (1998, 2002)
proposed what she called underdetermined design for software and games encouraging boys and girls (and by
implication, men and women) to express aspects of self-identity that transcend stereotyped gender categories. In
this approach, activities involving girls and boys are not neutral or isolated acts but involve the person becoming
and acting in the world as part of the construction of a complex identity. Flanagan and Nissenbaum (in press)
called for a design approach that reveals the values designers bring to their games’ designs as revealed in Huff,
Fleming, and Cooper’s (1987) research findings. They argue that designers and producers need to pay attention to
safeguarding critical values in all phases of the game design process: delineation of a project, specification of game
mechanics, implementation and revisions. These two proposals provide concrete suggestions of how learning
science designers can prevent potential gender biases when designing learning tools and environments.

Game Genres
Beyond the design method, learning scientists also need to be considerate what kind of game genre
they choose for their learning design. It is clear that we need to move beyond the drill-and-practice versions
often used in schools as motivational tools to reward students for completed assignments. It is only in the last
few years, since the publication of Gee’s (2003) examination of cultural and social aspects of learning in gaming
environments, that the academic appeal of games has gathered more momentum. Note that these games are
obviously not the type of first person shooter or violent games often discussed in the media for promoting
problematic cultural values or being of less interest to girls. The multiplayer online games considered here fall
more into the category of simulation games that already have a long standing history of successful classroom
use and learning, with or without computers. Learning scientists should be aware that there is considerable
discussion within industry and academia of what constitutes a game. For instance, within the game industry
casual games that are immensely popular with female gamers are not considered real games because they do not
require the time investment needed for participation in many commercial MMORPGs. On the other hand, in the
field of game research some find that Shaffer’s (2006) proposal of epistemic games is really more a simulation
than a game. Game researchers often invoke Johan Huizuinga’s (1938/1955) magic circle that describes game
play as a free and meaningful activity, carried out for its own sake, spatially and temporally segregated from the
requirements of practical life, and bound by a self-contained system of rules. While epistemic games are
described as imagined worlds with rules in which the player assumes professional roles, their close tie to
authentic professional practice puts them much more squarely into the field of simulations rather than games. In
addition, the proposal of epistemic games itself does not consider different epistemologies. Feminist researchers
in the sciences have argued for a long time to recognize alternative and equally important frameworks and
approaches within science. From this albeit brief discussion, it becomes apparent that the choice of a particular
game genre is no trivial matter but loaded with various assumptions about what is considered a game for whom.

Game Features
Within actual game design, there seem to be more controversial prescriptions for how to address
gender within the design of particular features. When researchers examine digital games for learning they have
considered gender differences in spatial reasoning skills (Loftus & Loftus, 1983), the impact of motivational
factors (Malone, 1981; Rubin, Murray, O’Neil & Ashley, 1997). For instance, Malone’s (1981) seminal work
“What makes things fun to learn” investigated various motivational features of a dart game that would increase
the learning and engagement of mathematical content. He found only one instance with significant differences
between boys and girls in what they liked about games: “The boys seemed to like the fantasy of popping
balloons and the girls seemed to dislike this fantasy. The addition of musical rewards, on the other hand,
appeared to increase for girls, but to decrease for boys, the intrinsic interest of the activity” (p. 226, Malone &
Lepper, 1987). The dart game investigated by Malone presented simple graphics on black screens with no
customization options for the players. In contrast, Rubin, Murray, O’Neil and Ashley (1997) examined students’
interactions with Broderbund’s Logical Journey of the Zoombinis, which focuses on discrete mathematics and
logical reasoning. They found both groups were equally engaged in the game but girls tended to spend more
time customizing the design of the Zoombini features (color and shape of eyes, mouth, hair, nose, and shoes)
while the boys spent more time on solving logical puzzles. These results suggest that boys and girls find many
(but not all) of the same game features appealing but that differential engagement could be consequential for
learning outcomes when girls don’t get to the core content of the game.

Game Modding
Gender has been a much more prominent concern in programs that promote and study the making of
digital games for learning, a very different paradigm that puts the players in charge of designing the game(s)
themselves (Kafai, 2006). It was seen as a particularly promising way to get girls interested in computers and
competent in technology by asking them to design applications rather than to focus on the learning of
decontextualized algorithms (AAUW, 2000). Today most commercial games are released with modding features
or game engines that allow players to customize their avatars, levels, and interactions (Seif El Nasir & Smith,
2006). Many games or player-generated environments such as Second Life by Linden Lab and Whyville by
Numedeon seem to suggest that players, girls and boys alike, are drawn to these participatory features. A new
genre of alternative reality games (MacGonigal, 2007) even uses player participation as a design directive for
creating the next steps in the game rather than defining upfront the end goal of the game. All these
developments in game design and play features should be of great interest to learning science researchers. There
is now a whole range of different game design tools under development ranging from modding to programming
tools. But even tools that allow for the design of games can be designed to incorporate features that promote
more equitable access as Kelleher (in press) has shown with “Alice”. Here the inclusion of the popular SIMs
characters engaged girls in storytelling and connected them to aspects of game design. Akin to this is the
“RAPUNSEL” program by Flanagan (2006) discussed earlier in this paper. Similar successes have been seen
with media-rich environments such as “Scratch” that allow for a range of game designs by boys and girls
(Peppler & Kafai, 2007). While there is some debate about the differences in using either modding or
programming tools for making serious games, in the end both efforts involve interfaces and some form of
scripting language designed to allow players to manipulate different aspects of the game.

Data Analyses
Finally, the analysis of data collected from observations, surveys, tests and interviews also needs to
include the consideration of gender. Few studies in the learning sciences actually examine gender in learners’
interactions or artifact production. Thus it should at least be a requirement to examine gender differences as one
way to gauge potential disparities. For instance, Nelson (2007) documented that girls ask for less instructional
guidance in River City but otherwise little attention, if any, has been given to gender issues. More importantly,
researchers need to pay close attention to various contextual factors that can impact learning outcomes. It might
actually be more helpful to identify different groups of learners and how they interact with learning games than
to resort to the traditional grouping that pitches boys versus girls. For example, Steinkuehler (2006) is
conducting extended investigations of how players collaborate with others to solve problems, search for
information, and engage in discussions. Attention to process, activities, and interactions rather than just outcome
measures might be helpful in revealing differential uses.

Conclusion
It is clear from this review that there isn’t one right proposal but many different aspects to consider. For
those who subscribe to the games for girls approach, the goal would be to offer games with more choices, and
different game mechanics. For those who favor games as designs, the answer would be to offer game modding
and making features that provide opportunities for players to define the meaning and personalize assets in the
games. Other proposals have focused on criteria for educational activities and content. One way to address a
wide range of activities and themes based on different interests is to create wide walls, not just low thresholds
for learners to enter the game (Resnick & Silverman, 2005). Our ultimate goal should be to make games for
learning more accessible and rich gaming experiences for all. Many of the changes in teaching and learning that
came out of the gender equity movement improved the situation for all students, and not just for girls and
women. In any case, digital games are not stand-alone applications but should always be seen in the context of a
larger learning community. Having learners become game designers and creators is a small yet achievable step
as the examples have shown — but one with considerable implications for those interested in closing the divide
or participation gap in the digital culture (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2006). Perhaps this
will lead us to lay the foundation to achieve more equitable participation in the technology culture at large.

References
American Association of University Women (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age.
Washington, DC: Educational Foundation of the American Association of University Women.
Beavis, C. & Charles, C. (2005). Challenging the notions of gendered game play: Teenagers playing the Sims.
Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 26(3), 355-367.
Bryce, J. & Rutter, J. (2002). Killing like a girl: gendered gaming and girl gamers’ visibility. In F. Mayra (Ed.),
Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference (pp. 243-255). Tampere: Tampere
University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
Carr, D. (2005). Contexts, pleasures and preferences: girls playing computer games. Proceedings of DiGRA
2005 Conference. Retrieved May 21 2007 at http://www.digra.org/dl/db/06278.08421.pdf
Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1998a) (Eds.). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cassell, J. (2002). Genderizing HCI. In J. Jacko and A. Sears (Eds.), The Handbook of Human-Computer
Interaction (pp. 402-411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
Cohoon, J. M. & Aspray, W. (Eds.) (2006). Women in IT: Research on Underrepresentation. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
De Castell, S. & Bryson, M. (1998). Retooling. In In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins, H. (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal
Kombat: Gender and Computer Games (pp. 2-45). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Denner, J., & Bean, S. (2006). Girls, games, and intrepid exploration on the computer. In E.M. Trauth (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology (pp. 727-732). Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Reference.
Entertainment Software Association (2007). 2007 Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game
Industry. Washington, DC: ESA. Retrieved May 28, 2007 at
http://www.theesa.com/archives/2006/05/2006_essential.php
Flanagan, M. (2006). Making games for social change. AI & Society, 20, 493-505.
Flanagan, M. & Nissenbaum, H. (forthcoming). Value added design. In Author C. Heeter, J. Denner, & J. Sun
(Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Computer Games.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gee, J. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave.
Greenfield, P. M., & R. R. Cocking (1996) (Eds.). Effects of Interactive Entertainment Technology on
Development. In P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting with video (pp. 1-5). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corportion.
Hartmann, T. & Klimmt, C. (2006). Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 910-931.
Hayes, B. (in press). Girls, Gaming, and Trajectories of Technological Expertise. In Author, C. Heeter, J.
Denner, & J. Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and
Gaming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Heeter, C. & Winn, B. (in press). Design of Gender-Enhanced Games for Classroom Learning. In Author, C.
Heeter, J. Denner, & J. Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender
and Gaming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592.
Huff, C. W., Fleming, J. H., & Cooper, J. (1992). The social bias of gender differences in human computer
interaction. In C. D. Martin (Ed.), In search of gender-free paradigms for computer-science education
(pp. 19-32). Eugene, OR: ISTE Research Monographs.
Ito, M. (2007). Education V. Entertainment: A Cultural History of Children’s Software. In K. Salen (Ed.),
Ecology of Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jansz, J. & Martis, R. G. (2006). The Lara phenomenon: powerful female characters in video games. Sex Roles,
56, 141-148.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: NYU Press.
Jenkins, H. (2003). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Further Reflections. In A. Everett & J. T. Caldwell (Eds.),
New Media: Theories and Practices (pp. 243-254). New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of
 participation culture: Media education for the 21st century. White Paper. Chicago, IL: The John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved on May 28th 2007 at
http://digitallearning.macfound.org/site/c.enJLKQNlFiG/b.2108773/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id={
CD911571-0240-4714-A93B-1D0C07C7B6C1}&notoc=1
Jenson, J., De Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). “Girl Talk”: Gender equity, and identity discourses in a school-
based computer culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 26(6), 561-573.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for
game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 34-40.
Kafai, Y. B. (1998). Video game designs by children: Consistency and variability of gender differences. In J.
Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games (pp. 90–
114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M., Ching, C., & Shih, J. (1998). Games as interactive learning environments fostering
teachers’ and students’ mathematical thinking. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 3(2), 149–193.
Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Gender differences in children's constructions of video games. In Patricia M. Greenfield &
Rodney R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting with video (pp. 39–66). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Children’s Learning. Norwood,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelleher, C. (in press). Learning Computer Programming as Storytelling. In Author C. Heeter, J. Denner, & J.
Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Computer Games.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kirpatrick, H. & Cuban, L. (1998). Should we be worried? What the research says about gender differences in
access, use, attitudes and achievement with computers. Educational Technology, 45, 56-61.
Klawe, M., Inkpen, K., Phillips, E., Upitis, R., & Rubin, A. (2002). E-GEMS: A project on computer games,
mathematics and gender. In N. Yelland, A. Rubin & E. McWilliam (Eds.), Ghosts in the machine:
Women's voices in research with technology (pp. 209-227/248). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Kinder, M. (1991). Playing with Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Laurel, B. (2003). Utopian Entrepenuer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Laurel, B. (1998). Interview. In J. Cassell and H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat (pp. 118-135).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (1983). Minds at Play. New York: Basic Books.
Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes computer games fun? BYTE, December, 258-277.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning.
In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.). Aptitude, Learning and Instruction. Volume 3: Conative and
Affective Process Analyses (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
MacGonigal, J. (2007). The Success of I Love I Love Bees: Study in Massively Collaborative Puzzle Gaming.
K. Salen (Ed.), Ecologies of Games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nelson, B. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual
environment. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83-97.
Pelletier, C. & Olivier, M. (2006). Learning to play in digital games. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(4),
329-342.
Peppler, K. A. & Kafai, Y. B. (2007). What video game making can teach us about learning and literacy:
Alternative pathways into participatory culture. In Akira Baba (Ed.), Situated Play: Proceedings of the
Third International Conference of the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) (pp. 369-376).
Tokyo, Japan: The University of Tokyo.
Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video Kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schott, G. & Horrell, K. R. (2000). Girl gamers and their relationship with the gaming culture. Convergence,
6(4), 36-53.
Rubin, A., Murray, M., O’Neil, K., & Ashley, J. (1997, March). What kind of educational computer games
would girls like? Presentation at the annual meeting of the American of Educational Research
Association in Chicago, Il.
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and Classroom Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Seif El Nasir, M. & Smith, B. (2006). Learning through game modding. Computers in Entertainment, 4(1), 5-9.
Retrieved May 28, 2007 at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1111293.1111301
Seiter, E. (1993). Sold Separately: Children and Parents in Consumer Culture. New York: Rutgers University
Press.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games can help us learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian.
Steinkuehler, C. (2006). Games as a highly visible medium for the study of distributed, situated cognition. In
S.A. Barab, K.E. Hay, N.B. Songer, & D.T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International
 Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1048-1049). Mahwah NJ: Erlbuam.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1998). Effects of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and
boys. In P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting with video. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corportion.
Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between Worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Volman, M. & van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade.
Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613-634.
Yelland, R. & Rubin, A. (Eds.) (2002). Ghosts in the machine: Women study women and technology. New
York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Zimmerman, E. (2003). Play as research: The iterative design process. Retrieved at on May 28th, 2007 at
http://www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/iterative_design.htm

Acknowledgment
The work reported in this paper was supported by a grant (REC-0411814) of the National Science Foundation to
the author. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the
supporting funding agency or the University of California, Los Angeles.