Reflection on my Personal Tutor Session

Date attended: 03/12/2009
Time: 12:00pm
Personal Tutor: Tom Scott


During the session, I was asked how I have found this semester, if I had any problems with any of the lectures and if I understood the relevance of each module. I found that I was finding University an enjoyable experience. This was a nice finish to a semester, as it made me realise that despite all of the stressful pressures of deadlines, I am still enjoying my studies.

I discovered what I will be studying in the next semester and how it is relevant so I am looking forward to an interesting finish to the academic year.

Overall, visiting my personal tutor was worthwhile experience.

Reflection on being Mentored

My mentor is my mother; as she has the most knowledge of how I work best.

I was rather sceptical as to how much of an influence she would have on my attitude towards my studies.

In hindsight, being mentored has not been an intrusive experience at all. Beginning University, I was unsure about a lot of things. I sat with my mentor, told her my concerns and my fears of not passing the modules. She listened and gave guidance.

In reflection, my mentor was a neutral bystander that showed an objective viewpoint, whether it’s proof-reading some work or shredding light on a personal dilemma.

Report: Video Games and Violence Bibliography

Anders, K. 1999 "Marketing and Policy Consideration for Violent Video Games" Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 18 (2) pp270-273

Bartholow, B & Anderson, C 2002. "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behaviour: Potential Sex Differences" Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38 (3) pp8

Dill, K. "Violent Video Games Can Increase Aggression" APA Online [Internet] http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html [accessed 10-10-2009]

Funk, J et al. 2003. "Playing Violent Video Games, desensitization, and moral evaluation in children" Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 24 (4) pp24

Horn, R V. 1999. "Violence and Video Games" The Phi Kappan 81 (2) pp173-174

Kalning, K. 2006. "Does Game Violence Make Teens Aggressive?" MSNBC [Internet] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ [Accessed 10-10-2009]

Uhlmann, E & Swanson, J. 2004. "Exposure to Violent Video Games Increases Automatic Aggressiveness" Journal of Adolescence 27 (1)pp12

Watton, V. Hobson, R. Walton, D. 2004. "General Studies An AS and A Level Course Text" 10th. UK. Gray Publishing.

References

Anderson, C. 2003. "Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts and Unanswered Questions" APA Online 16 (5) [Internet] hhtp://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

Anderson, C. & Bushman 2001. "Effects of Violent Video Games On Aggressive Behaviour, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal and Prosocial Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature" Psychological Science 12 (5) pp353-359

Bandura, A. 1961. Video of Bobo Study (Appendix 3) [Internet] http://www.youtube.com/ (Appendix 3)

Lynn, A. & Williams, D. 2005. "No Strong Link between Violent Video Games and Aggression" News Illinois [Internet] hhtp://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/05/0809videogames.html [Accessed 12-10-2009]

Report: Video Games and Violence Conclusion

To conclude, the results from the primary research did support the hypothesis that violent video games increase aggressive behaviour to a degree. However, not every participant stated that they had aggressive cognitions or behaviours after playing a violent video game. Instead, perhaps innate tendencies of the individual are also responsible for their actions. Each theory mentioned still have ecological validity today, simply due to each user is different and how they react to video games is going to be different because of their own tendencies, it may be a mixture of exposure, learning and their innate tendencies all put together.

Report: Video Games and Violence Findings and Recommendations

If another study were to be carried out, a larger sample would be required, but also it would be interesting to modify the study enabling the experimenter to witness the participants' behaviour immediately after playing a violent video game. If there are any irrational inhibitions which were not mentioned in responses in the questionnaire, they would be noted in observations instead.

Based upon the research results, it appears to support the theory (Williams, 2005) that there is no causal relationship between violent video games and aggression.

Although, it has already been noted that innate tendencies from the user may affect their behaviour after game play, however, the media and game developing community must also take responsibility that unnecessary violence will impact some users. The games that are being produced for some members of the public, these games are acting as virtual role models. Therefore, when the user executes a violent action i.e. slitting another characters' throat, when the user is then rewarded for this action by being able to continue further through the game, this is reinforcing the behaviour (Bandura, 1961) and could potentially be carried out in real life. Hence, a perfect example is the boy from Leicester murdering his brother after imitating the moves shown in the game "Manhunt", thus supporting the hypothesis that violent video games do in fact increase aggressive behaviour.

Report: Video Games and Violence Evaluation of Results

The sample that was used for the questionniare was far too small to show a correlation relationship from the results. If this research was to be executed on a larger scale perhaps finding a more empirical causal relationship between video game and behaviour could be identified. It is worth noting that due to such a small sample of participants any of the following results are only conclusive based on the eleven participants studied, rather than applicable on a national or even international scale.

One participant's answer to question four stated that when they were younger they enjoyed copying moves from violent video games and television. This can be linked to the news story in Leicesterm as well as Bandura's Theory of Behaviour through Learning (Bandura, 1961), thus emphasising that the theory still has ecological validity forty years on, therefore meaning it can be applied to everyday life.

Another participant stated that they took their frustration out on their siblings; surely this supports Anderson's theory that violent video games increase aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, this supports Anderson and Bushman's theory that measuring aggression from video games does not need to be executed within a laboratory environment to show aggressive behaviour.

It would be foolhardy, based upon the results, to suggest those violent video games are solely responsible for increasing aggressive behaviours and cognitions. Simply because there would be an international outcry and all violent video games would be banned due to each person who is exposed becomes violent. Surely, there must be some input from the user; innate tendencies must play some part. This is shown by the varying results given in the questions four and five. If aggressive behaviour and cognitions were solely due to violent video games, the results from the study would have a unanimous result showing that all participants felt aggressive tendencies after game play. Furthermore, in everyday life, the world would be very different. The case study of the boy in Leicester, whom murdered his brother wouldn't be of a special case anymore, as it would be a growing concern of great proportions. Violent video games would cease to exist due to the psychological impact on its users.

Indeed it is important to acknowledge that question four and five ask for personal responses from the participant. Furthermorem in the brief the participant is already fully aware of why the questionnaire has been created. Thus meaning that there was experimental bias, when it came to giving their response the participants may have felt encouraged to give their responses in a particular way and make their answers conform to what they thought the answers should be. Sadly, if this is the case, this affects the validity and reliability of the results.

Although, due to ethical debate, to get informed consent before the participant answers the questionnaire, the participant must be fully aware of what they are partaking in and why the questionnaire is being executed. Due to the participant already having the knowledge of why they are partaking, it could be argued that the participant will adapt their response so that it conforms to what the participant thinks the response should be. Howeverm if the participant is misled as to why they are partaking in the questionnaire, this would be deception. If the participant were to realise that this had occured, their responses would perhaps be more valid, however, it is likely the participant will not be impressed that they had been deceived.

One of the responses to question five was "watch porn". Perhaps watching adult entertainment can be linked to the Catharsis Hypthosis (Bennett, 1997). Frustration and aggressive cognitions and behaviours that have been pent up from playing violent video game, are then released by watching the adult entertainment and thus relieving the frustration and aggression by enjoying the content.

Due to such a small sample, it is difficult to show a relationship between aggressive behaviour and violent video games. However, when the participants gave their responses to question five, there was no response suggesting aggressive tendencies or cognitions after playing a violent video game. This emphasises the earlier point that there must be some innate tendencies of the individual to suggest an extreme response to playing a violent video game.

Report: Video Games and Violence Research Results

Eleven participants were asked to take part in the questionnaire. 27% were female and the remaining 73% male. 36% reported playing video games one to five hours per week, compared to 45% playing between six and ten hours per week and finally the remaining 19% playing over 10 hours(Appendix2.1).

When the question was asked for their opinion of whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that violent video games increase aggressive behaviour, 45% agreed with this claim (Appendix 2.2).

Interestingly, 54% said yes to question 4 when asked if they had any aggressive thoughts or behaviour after playing a video game.

Finally, the results for question five, asking what the participants did after playing violent video games varied in responses. Many responses mentioned eating, resting, watching television and in one case watching adult entertainment.

Report: Video Games and Violence Design Methodology

The questionnaire will comprise of combining and summarising the ideas and concepts described in the Literature Review by asking the participant questions related to those ideas. Once the entire sample has given their responses, the responses will be recorded and then entered onto a pie-chart diagram to clarify the results.

The questionnaire will link to Anderson's theory of video games and increasing aggressive behaviour, by asking the participant if they agree with this claim. Using a Lickert style questionnaire (socialresearchmethods.net, 2006) the participant will state how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement.

Later, the questionnaire will link to the news story in Leicester, and ask if the participant has been aggressive in their behaviour after playing a violent video game. Finally, the questionnaire will link to Bandura's theory of reinforced learning as well as Anderson's theory of increased aggression; the question will ask what the participant often does after playing a violent video game (Appendix 1).

Report: Video Games and Violence: Research Methodology

As part of the primary research, a questionniare will be carried out, to investigate whether the general public believe that violent video games increase aggressive behaviour and cognitions. A small sample will be used and the results will be shown to display each participant's response. The use of primary research will be used to test if existing theories and hypothesises are still current and still have ecological validity.

The secondary research as shown in the Literature Review, have come from a variety of sources such as Journals, websites and Textbooks.

Combining both primary and secondary data it enables the report to have both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data can be collected through open-ended questions in the questionnaire. Whereas, quantitative data can be collected by close ended questions and figures already collected from secondary data.

Report: Violent Video Games Introduction

For many years there has been contrast in opinions and theories of whether violent video games increase aggressive behaviour. There have been strong evidence to suggest that violent video games do in fact increase aggressive behaviour (Anderson, 2003); however, there are some theories which oppose this thought (Williams, 2005).
Alternatively, another theory suggests that violent behaviour is learnt through role models and reinforcement (Bandura, 1961). This report will investigate through primary and secondary research if violent video games increase aggressive behaviour.

Report: Video Games and Violence Abstract

Research has shown that violent video games have a strong influence on users's behaviour. Primary and Secondary research was performed to provide first hand results which show if previous theories still have ecological validity. The hypothesis for the report is violent video games increase aggressive behaviour. Lickert scale (socialresearchmethods.net,2006) questionnaires were used after receiving ethics approval due to the use of human participants. The results showed that 54% of participants felt aggressive in their cognitions and behaviour after playing a violent video game. The results supported the hypothesis; however, if the study was to be executed on a larger scale the results would have even more validity.

Literature Review for Video Games and Violence.

(Anderson, 2003) performed a meta-analysis focusing on video games and behaviour. Anderson found that consistently through the study increases in aggressive cognitions, behaviour and heightened physiological arousal, along with a decrease in prosocial behaviour. Furthermore, (Anderson & Bushman, 1997) found that the variables for increasing aggression such as exposure to a violent video game have the same outcome, whether it is conducted within a laboratory or is part of the user’s everyday life.


(Anderson & Dill, 2000) established that young men who were aggressive in nature were more vulnerable to an increase in aggressive behaviour when exposed to violent video games in comparison to their fellow participants.


Bandura supported an alternative theory that aggressive behaviour is learnt. Role models performed aggressive behaviour and reinforced it; the children within his study began to show more aggressive behaviour (Bandura, 1961).


This can be applied to a case study of a boy in Leicester, whom murdered his 14 year old brother by stabbing and beating him to death in 2004 after playing the video game “Manhunt”.

On the other hand, some studies have concluded that there were no significant effects, in the same way that some smoking studies concluded no causal link to lung cancer (Anderson, 2003).


Moreover, (Dr Dmitri Williams, 2005) found no strong effect on participants playing violent video games when exposed on average 56 hours per week.

Learning Styles Reflection using VARK questionnaire - English (version 3)

Kolb (1984) suggests that there are four types of learning. These involve 'Concrete Experience', 'Reflective Observation', 'Abstract Conceptualisation' and 'Active Experimentation'. Kolb explains that this is a continuous learning circle, and any person can begin the circle at any point. The person may start in active experimentation; thus meaning they have tried a new skill, which then gives them concrete experience into what they have just learnt that they can then reflect on and apply it to other subject areas.


The Vark questionnaire asks the reader different questions of how the reader would prefer to learn in different scenarios. The reader then uses the scoring chart, calculates their score and find what type of learning style best suits them.


For myself, I found that I am a kinaesthetic learner, meaning that I am suited best when I actively learn. Kinaesthetic learners generally tend to be tactile and have a more 'hands on' approach. However, in terms of adapting to different learning styles, people with this type of learning style tend not to enjoy reading vast amounts of material.


When I apply this to myself, I find that in most cases before anything will 'sink in’; I have to try it myself. Whether this is driving, cooking a new recipe or using a new computer game. In reflection, it would be prudent to mention, that many of the subject areas I have applied myself to over the years, many of them I wouldn’t be able to explain to another person clearly once I had had the exam. This prompts two questions; the areas we have supposedly learnt over these years, could we apply them to different scenarios showing that we have a semantic level of learning i.e. deep learning has occurred. Or have we trained our brains to with hold information for a brief period of time to only be forgotten once the exam is over?


In my scoring sheet, I did have some marks in other categories, such as visual learning. Meaning that I prefer flow diagrams and images, this enables me to ensure as much information as possible is retained in learning, by making use of the results from the questionnaire. It tells me that images as well as applying the new knowledge that I have acquired will result in the most effective learning for me.

SWOT Analysis of myself in University

My Learning Timeline

Timeline Reflection

Most of my time has been spent in education. However, by having breaks from education, it has allowed me to find, learn and develop new skills along the way, which may not have been available in a classroom environment.

Primary School taught me some invaluable skills such as writing; this has progressed from a primitive level to one that is competent in expressing and evaluating different ideas and concepts. Over half of my life was dedicated to Primary School, giving me the stepping stone to take these new concepts and develop them over the years to come.

Now, over these years my skills have had the chance to develop and flourish. In Primary School, I was a very guarded child, whom was not very proactive with socialising and joining in group activities. However, today working within a group environment both in my occupation and University life, my team working, co-ordination and working under pressure to deadlines have all considerably improved. My career has reached opposite sides of the spectrum, however, the experience I have acquired from them have given me a rainbow of different skills that I intend to take with me and develop further in my career.