replaying history

8/7/2019 REPLAYING HISTORY

1/436

REPLAYING HISTORY: LEARNING WORLD HISTORY THROUGH PLAYING

CIVILIZATION III

Kurt D. Squire

submitted to the faculty of the School of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Instructional Systems Technology DepartmentIndiana University

January 2004

1


2/436

Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

_______________________________________

Sasha A. Barab, Ph.D.

_______________________________________

Thomas Duffy

_______________________________________

Lee Ehman

_______________________________________

Henry Jenkins

2


3/436

COPYRIGHT PAGE

c (2004)Kurt D. Squire

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

3


4/436

Kurt Squire

Replaying History: Learning World History through playing Civilization III

Digital games is an emerging entertainment medium that an increasing number of educators are examining as tools for engaging learners. Yet, few models exist for how touse contemporary gaming media in formal learning environments. A commercialhistorical computer strategy game such as Civilization III is an intriguing artifact toexamine in classroom contexts because of its wide appeal, design sophistication, andunique affordances as a world history simulation. Civilization III represents world historynot as a story of colonial domination or western expansion, but as an emergent processarising from overlapping, interrelated factors.

The purpose of this study is to explore what happens when Civilization III, a complexcomputer game developed in entertainment contexts enters formal learning environemtns.

This dissertation presents three naturalistic case studies in which Civilization III was usedas the basis for a unit on world history in urban learning environments. I examine howthe game engaged players, the social interactions that occur, how understandings emerge,and what role game play serves in mediating students understandings.

In all three cases, engagement was a complex process of appropriation and resistance,whereby the purposes of game play was negotiated among students identities, classroomgoals, and the affordances of Civilization III. Civilization III engaged each student inunique ways, and this engagement affected the kinds of questions students asked of their games, the kinds of conceptual understandings that arose through game play, and theinterpretations they made about history. History and geography became tools for game

play and successful students developed conceptual understandings across world history,geography, and politics. These cases suggest the potential for using simulation games inworld history education, but also the significant, unsolved challenges in integrating sucha complex game within classroom settings.

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

4


5/436

Dedication

Dedicated to James Douglas and Janet Kretschmer, two teachers without whom this

dissertation would never have been possible.

5


6/436

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 8

I. Introduction 10

II. Game-Based Learning in World History 25

III. Methodology 99

IV. Case 1: The Media School 147

V. Case 2: Media Summer Camp 220

VI. Case 3: After-School Computer Club 267

VII. Conclusions 328VIII. Implications 393

References 419

6


7/436

Acknowledgements

Although doing a dissertation can be a long, lonely process, fortunately I t isnt

done alone. And this project, like most could not have been done without the help from

several people.

First of all, I would like to thank Robyn Kaplan and Sarah Bettencourt for inviting

me to their classrooms. This dissertation would not have been possible without their

kindness and willingness to experiment with such an unusual curricular experience.

Second, I would like to thank Alex Chisholm, Henry Jenkins, and the

Comparative Media Studies Department at MIT for bringing me into the Games-to-TeachProject and being flexible with work schedule during the data collection portions of this

study. Carrying out this kind of research while working a full time job was difficult, and

it is only with the support of Henry, Alex and everyone at MIT that I could pull it off. I

owe special thanks to Henry and Alex for encouraging me to keep my writing going

during the hustle and bustle of MIT life and helping ensure that my career continued

forward. Perhaps most importantly, Eric, Philip, Chris, Susan, and everyone in CMS all

also provided close and dear friendship in my days in Cambridge. You are all missed.

I also would like to thank Geraldine Haas (and the Haas family) for all of her

emotional support and guidance throughout this dissertation process. This project could

never have happened without Geraldines commitment and dedication, and I am indebted

for her perseverance during the data collection phase which was grueling for both of us.

Many of the observations and interpretations included herein bear the mark of

Geraldines thinking, and without a doubt, this work benefited from her keen eye and

compassion for those not served by traditional educational means. Geraldine constantly

7


8/436

pushed me to understand each of these kids, and critically consider the consequences of

this research. I can only hope that this awareness and compassionate disposition can be

found herein.

I would like to thank my committee for their helpful feedback and additions to the

paper, as well as just wading through a fairly long manuscript. Id like to thank Lee

Ehman for helping me develop as a teacher while at Indiana and encouraging me to honor

the hard work of teachers and the blood and sweat of working with kids through this

research. Id like to thank Tom Duffy for his thoughtful critique, pragmatic approach and

pushing me to consider the instructional implications of this research. Finally, Henry, inaddition to being a great friend and mentor over the past two years continuously pushed

me to keep expansive views of learning and cognition, as well as a respect and

understand the worlds of these kids in these studies on their own terms.

Special thanks to Constance Steinkuehler for her clear thinking, and sharp

editorial eye during the final stages of this research. To what extent there is any tight flow

among the theory, methods, questions, and conclusions, Constance can be thanked for

that, having spent endless hours encouraging me to whittle and refine until the paper

found its coherence. Constances emotional support getting me through the grueling last

phases of writing up the paper and those final dark hours of dissertation editing.

I would like to also acknowledge the support of my new colleagues here at UW-

Madison who have gone out of their way to make me feel comfortable and supported

here. Thanks to Jim Gee, Michael Streibel, David Shaffer, Rich Halverson, Carl Grant,

Michael Apple, Katie Clinton, Alice Robison, and Rebecca Black for making Madison

my new home.

8


9/436

Last, Id like to thank Sasha Barab for not only his feedback on this research, but

his mentoring me through the beginnings of my career. This project could never have

been done without Sashas encouragement and confidence to try something new, as well

as patience with an occasionally precocious graduate student. I have no doubt that I

wouldnt be where I am today without Sashas willingness to bring me into his research

and as well as see me grow into an independent scholar. I must also thank Sasha for

reading through earlier versions of this text and editing it down to something manageable.

Finally, Id like to acknowledge all of the support from my parents in putting

together this study and helping me through my graduate career. Their constant andcontinuous care over the past few years have eased some of the burden of this difficult

process. Your love and kindness are deeply appreciated.

9


10/436

Chapter I: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

A growing number of researchers and scholars are acknowledging the cultural

impact of digital games (Gee, 2003; King & Borland, 2003; Poole, 2001). Digital gaming

is now an $18 billion global industry that many media scholars see as being a dominant

"lively art" in the upcoming decades (Jenkins, in press). As Jim Gee (2003) argues,

games are not only pushing the creative boundaries of interactive digital media but also

suggesting powerful models of next-generation interactive learning environments. Those

in the edutainment industry, as well as the teachers and students who support it, appear to agree. Year after year, social studies edutainment games such as The Sims , SimCity ,

Age of Empires , Railroad Tycoon and Civilization dominate the PC gaming sales charts

(Squire, 2002). Many social studies teachers seem eager to exploit this new medium, as

simulation games such as SimCity are installed on school computers throughout the

country and thousands of teachers download the SimCity 3000 teachers guide

(Bradshaw, 2002; Teague & Teague, 1995).

Despite the commercial success of and educators' growing interest in games

like Pirates! , SimCity 3000 or Civilization, very little is known about how such games

might be used as tools for learning. Although a growing number of educators, industry

leaders, and political leaders have suggested that SimCity or Civilization could be used in

social studies classrooms (Berson, 1996; Hope, 1996; Kolson, 1996; Lee, 1994; Prensky,

2001; Teague & Teague, 1995), there are to date no empirical research studies examining

their effectiveness in classroom environments. Important questions persist about how

teachers might use such simulations and how learners come to understand them. How

10


11/436

might we leverage these games for use in formal or informal learning environments?

What happens when you bring a complex world history simulation game such as

Civilization III into the classroom? Does such a complex game one that often positions

players in situations where academic knowledge and understanding can be leveraged

for real use in problem-solving provide opportunities for supporting new kinds of

learning? Or might the simplifications (hence distortions) inherent in any simulation

reinforce, or even cause misconceptions about important historical, cultural, or

geographical phenomena?

That simulation games can potentially distort the phenomena they are meant tomodel has been widely acknowledged. In his critique of SimCity , city planner Kenneth

Kolson (1996) notes that SimCity distorts the powers of a mayor in public planning,

discounts the historical importance of race and ethnicities in the evolution of cities, and

overestimates the appeal of public transportation to most Americans. Similarly, Barkin

(2001) notes that in attempting to capture, quantify and operationalize the dynamics of

culture, Civilization III offers an ostensibly problematic concept of culture drawn from

French and German theories of culture that is foreign to any anthropologist. This problem

of simplification/distortion of reality in games is exacerbated by the fact that

edutainment products are typically developed and marketed as entertainment products

first, and then appropriated for use in classrooms second. Other tensions, such as the

tension between playing the game as a bounded semiotic system versus reflecting on the

game as a model representing some more substantial phenomena in the world beyond it,

may very well be endemic to the medium.

11


12/436

Civilization III , developed by Firaxis and published by Infogrames in 2001,

provides unique opportunities for thinking about the role of games in world history

(Squire, 2002). World history is an emerging area of scholarship and teaching which

seeks to understand broad patterns in human activity patterns that cut across

traditional anthropological, geographic, historical, and disciplinary boundaries. From this

perspective, the entire world is included, eschewing Eurocentric or colonialist

perspectives that have historically characterized similar research. Contemporary world

historians such as Jared Diamond, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer for Guns, Germs, and

Steel , are excellent examples of such interdisciplinary scholarship. Likewise, inCivilization III , the entire world is again incorporated into the game. In it, the player

leads a civilization from 4000 BC to the present, managing the civilizations natural

resources, finances and trade, scientific research, cultural orientation, political policies

and military. I believe that Civilization III makes a particularly intriguing tool for

studying world history in that it allows students to examine relationships among

geography, politics, economics, and history over thousands of years and from multiple

perspectives.

Contemporary digital gaming models such as that underlying Civilization III are

potentially powerful learning tools that are understudied as a viable educational resource.

Studying learning in digital games might teach instructional technologists valuable

lessons about how to design interactivity, support online collaboration, or engage users.

Understanding how such games are used in formal learning environments might

productively inform the design of educational games (Games-to-Teach Team, 2003). At

the very least, educational technologists could benefit from paying closer attention how

12


13/436

players are already interacting with such edutainment games and how they are being

used in classrooms (Squire, 2003).

Despite the lack of formal inquiry into the potential for digital games to support

learning, there is a long tradition of using paper-based games and simulations in social

studies classrooms (e.g. Clegg, 1991). Unfortunately, most uses of games have been

atheoretical; rarely, if ever are they tied to contemporary notions of how people learn or

the broader goals of social studies education. Digital games, which bring with them new

affordances, possibilities, and potential problems, have yet to be seriously studied in

classroom contexts.Building on this past research in (largely paper-based) games in social studies

education, I argue that educators need to examine not just the game player system, but

the broader social contexts of game play. Cooperative and competitive social

arrangements frame game play activity. In some cases, the social context of game play

the kinds of reflection activities, discussion, collaboration, and competition that emerge

in game play are as important as the game itself in determining what activity emerges and

what learning occurs. Prior research has assumed a priori what the learning goals and

outcomes of game-based learning environments should be, treating games as content

transmission systems as opposed to tools to think with. I argue that games might be more

conducive to constructivist instructional approaches, whereby learning is an inferential,

interpretive process and learning outcomes are intricately tied to the goals, intentions, and

motivations of the learner (e.g. Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy & Perry, 1996).

Indeed, if the activity outside of the game (discussions, research, knowledge

sharing) are as important as the game itself, then educational game researchers need a

13


14/436

theoretical model which accounts for both student-game interactions and student-student

interactions. I argue for a cultural-historical approach to understanding learning in game-

based learning environments, as it allows researchers to examine not only the role of the

game in learning, but how social structures mediate activity.

Theoretical Foundation

Underlying these debates about the potential of games to support learning are

theoretical questions central to instructional design, educational technology, identity and

learning, teaching world history, and the learning sciences more generally. Both proponents and critics of digital game-based learning have habitually assumed objectivist

epistemologies and transmission models of learning, whereby the game contains fixed

meanings which are broadcasted to a passive game-playing recipient (e.g. Prensky, 2001;

Provenzo, 1991). How players infer meanings from game play, construct understandings

about game worlds, and then relate these experiences to non-gaming experiences is not

entirely clear; where do players draw lines between fantasy and reality? How do players

know when a game is realistic and when it is not? How do players explore game worlds

as systems and how do they treat these understandings of game systems?

Most educational game research has treated game play as isolated psychological

phenomena, ignoring the broader social contexts of game playing and social relationships

that envelope most gaming experiences (e.g. Grossman, 2000, Malone, 1981). Treating

the learning context as an interaction between an isolated player and a game as an

isolated system is problematic on several levels; games are frequently competitive

endeavors where players test skills against other players, cooperative exercises where

14


15/436

players work together to solve problems (whether it be in single player or multiplayer

games), or simply excuses for friends and families to socialize. Minimally, game play as

social practice can be characterized by the social purposes it serves, the social

relationships which become folded into game play, and the formal and informal

communities that arise in support of game play.

For educators interested in harnessing the power of games to support learning

(e.g. Games-to-Teach, 2003; Media X, 2003; Prensky, 2001), this challenge of how to

account for both the person-tool interaction and the broader social contexts in which

gaming is situated and game meanings are created is crucial (Squire, 2002). Elsewhere(e.g. Squire, 2002), I have argued for adopting a socio-cultural learning perspective to

understand gaming (In What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and

Literacy , Jim Gee also draws from socio-cultural learning theory in describing how

learning occurs through gaming). Socio-cultural learning theory (defined more precisely

in the theoretical section) offers game-based educators several insights into learning

through game play: (1) Knowledge is described not as facts to be memorized but as tools

which mediate activity (Barab, Hay, Barnett, & Squire, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978); (2)

Socio-cultural learning theory encourages researchers to view game play not as purely a

human-computer interaction phenomena, but as a socio-cultural one mediated by

classroom microcultures and broader social contexts, including classroom culture; (3)

Socio-cultural learning theory provides a framework for understanding students goals

and intentions and how these contribute to trajectories of students identities, and (4) a

language (a theory of signs, or semiotics) for thinking through how knowledge is

represented in games and how this knowledge develops in a learning environment. Of

15


16/436

particular interest to me is how socio-cultural learning theory might provide a language

for examining classroom practice mediated by game play and situated within classroom

cultures.

Activity theory, a neo-Vygotskian socio-cultural theory emerging from the

Russian School of psychologists offers a particularly interesting lens for educators

interested in examining game-based learning environments. Activity theory takes human

work as its unit of analysis. For activity theorists, work is organized by an object, which

shapes activity and reciprocally is influenced by human actors, as mediated by tools and

social institutions. By taking work as the unit of analysis, activity theorists examine thetools, signs, and language which mediate human interaction with object, as well as the

social structures, including community norms and divisions of labor which frame

activity. As such, activity theory takes the person performing in social contexts, including

the social and political environs in which they are situated as the minimal meaningful unit

of analysis. Importantly, activity theorists regard humans and the objects of their activity

in dialectal relations, shaping and reshaping one another through time.

Activity theory is an intriguing theoretical framework for understanding gaming

because it focuses researchers attentions not only on how a tool such as Civilization III

mediates learning of social studies, but also focuses researchers on how game play is

mediated by social structures, which might include school cultures or informal groupings.

Given that games are profoundly social experiences (King & Borland, 2003), it is critical

that game researchers focus not just on human and computer interactions, but on how

emergent game cultures shape gaming activities and the impact that these activities have

on cognition. By examining the object, or focus of activity, activity theorists are also

16


17/436

interested in how participants view and understand activity, particularly participants

objects, goals, or motives. Emerging theory in game studies suggests that gamers

approach games in unique ways, and one cannot assume a priori to know a players goals

and intentions while gaming (e.g. Bartle, 2003).

Influenced by Hegel and Marx, activity theorists are very interested in the

material conditions of work, and adopt an historical approach to understanding activity

(Engestrm, 1999). Humans, their tools, signs, and language as well as the community

norms and structures in which they are situated are understood historically by

investigating their use in actual settings, frequently through traditional ethnographic,historic, or qualitative case study techniques (Engestrm, 1999). Activity theorists enter

activity settings, observing and interviewing participants and generating narratives of

what activity emerges (e.g. Engestrm, 1999). Critical to an activity theory approach is

understanding how activity systems are viewed from multiple vantage points and teasing

out contradictions among differing activity systems, particularly the contradictions that

emerge when activity systems overlap.

One might anticipate several contradictions, such as contradictions between using

games for enjoyment vs. using games to master social studies, or collaborative

communities of inquiry vs. competitive gaming structures. Game-based Educational

technologists working in other settings (e.g. Barab, Barnett, Yamagata-Lynch, et al.,

2002) have used contradictions to understand change and innovation in a system, finding

that contradictions can be a useful tool for refining design experiments.

Research Questions

17


18/436

Specifically, this dissertation examines what classroom practices emerge and how

learning occurs when Civilization III is used as the basis for learning about world history

in two learning environments (1) an Humanities enrichment course in a Media and

Technology Charter School (Media case) and an after-school computer club program.

Using qualitative case study techniques, I examine the following five research questions:

1. What practices and contradictions emerge when games are brought intoformal learning environments, particularly, how do gaming practices (e.g.,competition, learning through failure) intersect with the practices andculture of formal schooling?

2. How does Civilization III engage players in formal learningenvironments?

3. How does learning occur through game play, specifically, how does playing Civilization III remediate students understandings of history?4. What are the pedagogical potentials (affordances) of using games

(specifically Civilization III ) in world history classrooms?5. How should we design learning activities and environments when using

games in formal learning environments?

Dissertation Overview

Consistent with Cobb and colleagues (Cobb, Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer

2001), this study is a design experiment designed to examine what happens when

Civilization III is used as the basis for learning world history in three contexts. The first

case is a month-long unit on world history, as a part of a ninth grade humanities class at a

Media and Technology Charter School in inner-city Boston. In the second case, a subset

of these students participated in a week-long, half-day computer camp investigating the

potential of using Civilization III to learn about social studies. The third case is an after-

school computer club sponsored by the YWCA but occurring at a suburban, working

class Boston middle school. All three cases were convenience samples, chosen for their

18


19/436

willingness to participate in this experimental program and ability to illuminate research

issues, and each case involved approximately 20 hours of instructional time.

I use Stakes (1995) case study techniques to address these research questions.

Stakes case study technique is particularly useful because it is responsive to the

particularities of a case, including the unintended consequences. With no real empirical

research on what happens in game-based learning environments, little is known as to

what will happen when games enter classrooms, let alone what types of learning occurs.

There are other important questions about how classroom cultures will appropriate

gaming media, how non-gamers react to game-based learning units, how games competewith other learning activities for students attention, or how girls take to game-based

learning environments (See Cassell & Jenkins, 1998 for a discussion of gender and

gaming). Stakes methodology emphasizes the importance of not over-prescribing data

collection and research procedures, but of allowing data collection to emerge in response

to emerging themes. I use Stakes case study methodology (1995) for each, using

observations, interviews, and document analysis to build narrative accounts of each

classroom.

In each case I was a direct participant. Although I had planned to participate in

each case as little more than an observer, local needs demanded that I play an active role

in shaping classroom activity. As a result, I hired a research assistant to assist in data

collection and analysis. Consistent with Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, and Schauble,

(2003), I approach this design experiment equally as a teaching experiment, whereby

interacting with participants and the case yields fruitful data about the design of learning

environments. Researchers can modify the learning environment (e.g. introducing new

19


20/436

learning materials, manipulating social arrangements) in order to illuminate research

themes. In this these cases, I try to make this cycle of manipulating the environment and

examining results as explicit as possible, so that the reader can perhaps vicariously

experience some of the decision making process I experienced. Negotiating this role was

often tricky, and I try to give the reader a sense of these struggles in each case study.

Because the research questions involve examining what practices emerged when

Civilization III was brought into the classroom, as opposed to directly comparing a game-

based learning environment to a traditional environment, this study avoids some of the

more obvious threats to validity, such as tainting the research environment. At the sametime, my participation in the case makes the applicability of these findings to other

contexts somewhat limited, as I am not the typical teacher. These limitations are explored

further in the next section.

Limitations of Study

This study is designed to examine what happens when Civilization III is used as

the basis for a unit in learning world history. Very little is known about what happens

when a game as complex, abstracted, and simulation-based as Civilization III is used to

study world history, and although myself and others have argued for different models for

thinking about how games can be used to support learning, little is known about how

these approaches play out in practice. Importantly, this study examines one game

(Civilization III ) being used for select purposes in three very specific settings. As such,

this study has limited applicability how other games (such as Europa Universalis ,

Patrician , or 1602 AD ) might be used in world history, how games such as Colonization

20


21/436

might be used in colonial history, or how games such as Hidden Agenda might be used in

modern history. I believe that these cases should provide useful insights for educators

exploring such models, but caution against extrapolating too far from these results.

Contexts of the case studies

One of the biggest limitations of this study is the samples chosen. These samples

were chosen for convenience specifically, for accessibility and willingness to

experiment with an innovative unit. All of these cases involved students from working-

class backgrounds, populations of students who are known to resist learning history

(Loewen, 1995). Many of the Media students were highly resistant to authority, creatingsome tense moments as teachers and researchers tried to require outside learning

activities. Whereas students in traditional, middle-class or upper-class contexts might be

expected to engage willingly in outside research, readings, or discussion activities,

students in the Media case were reluctant to engage in such activities (See Chapter IV).

At the same time, this case is particularly illuminative of the tensions between students

and teachers intentions; as the case study shows, students who were not interested in

playing the game or more interested in playing the game than studying history were

quick to make their opinions known to researchers. Consistent with the case study

approach (Stake, 1995), I attempt to highlight the particularities of this case and support

the reader in generalizing my findings to his or her own learning contexts as deemed

appropriate.

In the after-school case, game players were perhaps more amenable to

augmenting game play with other learning activities, but having students do readings or

other activities would have run contrary to the purposes of the camp. At the same time,

21


22/436

these participants were unlike participants in many after-school environments. They

attended regularly, had little choice among other activities, and seemed to adopt the

social mores of school, perhaps because the camp occurred on school grounds and in a

computer lab. Designers of after-school settings such as Boys and Girls Clubs may find

that the social mores of this case bear little resemblance to those they face, and that there

is little transferability from this case to their situations.

Role of researcher

In both cases, I played an active role in shaping the learning environment. I

devised activities, offered help on game play, devised just-in-time lectures, and tried toconnect students games to historical events. I have spent thousands of hours playing

Civilization III and nearly that same amount thinking through this dissertation. It is

unreasonable to expect that a typical teacher would have the experience or energy to do

the same. I have attempted to capture what I learned from these experiences in unit plans

and through suggestions for designing curricula with Civilization III (see Appendices A

and B for sample unit plans using Civilization III in other areas of world history);

nevertheless, if the teacher is a critical component of a game-based learning environment,

then my role needs to be accounted for. (This issue is further explicated in design

research in general in Barab & Squire, in press).

Curricular Integration

At the same time, I came into each of these cases as an outsider to the school or

camp cultures and was disadvantaged in terms of integrating the game into school and

classroom cultures and anticipating how game play would meet students needs. One can

imagine that a world history teacher who plays Civilization III may be able to better

22


23/436

integrate game experiences into the curriculum, anticipate students misconceptions, or

understand how to negotiate moment-to-moment classroom interactions. In truth,

permanent school faculty would have a much deeper knowledge of how to integrate the

game in such ways.

Time limitations

Each of these cases was a fairly substantial unit, lasting 4-6 weeks and including a

minimum of 20 teacher-student contact hours. At the same time, Civilization III is a

complex game to learn and a single game can take dozens of hours to play. These

limitations on contact hours and students inability to take games home to play meant thatstudents had relatively little time to experiment with the game. A dedicated Civilization

III player might spend 20 hours playing Civilization III in a weekend; these students had

relatively little time to learn the game interface, experiment with alternative strategies, or

explore the game more generally. One can imagine how a unit that lasted the duration of

a semester, a learning environment with more flexible time allotments, or educational

programs where students had laptops or access to home computers where they could play

the game, might develop differently.

Particularities of Civilization III

There is a tendency for many researchers to treat games or game-based

learning environments as a meaningful category or variable with little respect to the

specific games or game genres that are being studied. Civilization III is a turn-based

resource management strategy game where players exploit natural resources, build

civilization and city improvements, set tax rates, and negotiate with other civilizations.

Civilization III is an open-ended game meant to be played in a multitude of ways and

23


24/436

support multiple game strategies. As an emerging medium, games are often treated

monolithically, as if the practice of playing Quake, a first-person action game is the same

as playing Civilization III , a relatively slow-paced strategy game (See also Games-to-

Teach Team, 2003). Much the same way that one would not want to do a case study of

students learning to read with the Bible and then generalize to books in general, one

would not want to take this study and generalize the findings to games in general.

Summary and Overview of the Dissertation

Chapter II provides a background for using Civilization III to support learning inworld history. I examine the practical, intellectual, and theoretical issues behind studying

world history. I cover the history of research of using games and simulations in social

studies education, and present a theoretical argument for the potential benefit of using

games in world history education, using activity theory as a lens for discussing how

learning might occur through game play and how game-based learning environments can

be investigated.

Chapter III presents my methodology. I describe the structure of the design

experiment, discussing the role of the researcher and the affordances of Civilization III as

a tool for studying world history. I also detail my methodology for generating case

studies and the analysis procedures I used for generating assertions and analyzing activity

systems.

Chapters IV, V, and VI present the three case studies. In Chapter VII, I offer my

conclusions, and Chapter IX presents my proposed implications for the design of game-

based learning environments.

24


25/436

Chapter II: Digital Games in World History Education

Monotheism, monarchy, or metallurgy may not seem like commonly understood

concepts for 12-14 year old kids, but they are for the millions of gamers who play the

Civilization series. In Civilization III , players lead a civilization through 6000 years of

history, exploiting natural resources and managing the civilizations economy, social

structure, technological advancement, and diplomacy. The game contains 233 game

concepts, spanning from the invention of writing to democracy. Most importantly,

Civilization III ties together complex and intersecting intellectual domains within onegame: players have opportunities to explore relationships among geography and politics,

economics and history, or politics and economics interdependencies that can be

difficult to discern through more conventional means.

At the same time that thousands of high school students play Civilization , many

report hating social studies. Social studies is widely considered boring, usually

coming in last when students are asked to rate their favorite academic subject (Loewen,

1995). Not surprisingly, a number of educators have suggested using commercial games,

particularly Civilization III , as an inroad for understanding history (Berson, 1996; Hope,

1996; Kolson, 1996; Lee, 1994; Prensky, 2001; Teague & Teague, 1995). In this chapter,

I pose a speculative framework for how simulation games Civilization III , in particular

might be used in world history classrooms. Most educators have argued for using

games in absence of any real theory of learning or domain expertise. This chapter

provides an argument for the usefulness of simulation games in world history education

25


26/436

based on the contemporary domain of world history and history pedagogy in middle and

high schools.

Perhaps justifiably, other educators may balk at the idea of bringing computer

games into the classroom. Computers games such as Civilization are very complex

artifacts. Game players develop expertise and mastery of the game system only after

hundreds of hours of game play. Further, even a very popular game such as Civilization

III does not appeal to everyone; questions persist about how non-gamers (or non-strategy-

gamers) might appropriate such a complex system of rules and symbols and how the

game, in return, recruits its players. Game play is a socially-mediated activity, and gamesfrequently engender both cooperative and competitive behaviors. How the social

dynamics of game play intersect with school cultures is unknown. Gamers quickly form

affinity groups and rely on them to achieve mastery over the game (Gee, 2003). Past

research on bringing digital technologies into schools shows how local cultures have the

power to reshape technologies, twisting and reforming them as they are accommodated

into classroom cultures (Squire, MaKinster, Barnett, et al., 2003). How a digital artifact

such as Civilization III , developed in commercial gaming contexts to be enjoyable, is

shaped by and reshapes schooling practices is unknown. This study examines what

practices emerge when Civilization III is brought into two learning environments. It is an

issue of theoretical interest that extends beyond world history educators to educational

technologists in general who are interested in appropriating games, gaming technologies,

or game design attributes to support learning.

I close this chapter by introducing activity theory, a cultural-historical approach to

understanding activity rooted in Vygotskys (1978) theory of social learning. I argue that

26


27/436

activity theory is a useful lens for understanding game play as it describes the reciprocal

relations among subjects, tools, the objects of their activities, and mediating social

structures. In the case of gaming, activity theory allows us to examine how tools mediate

our conceptions of phenomena while acknowledging how social and community

structures also remediate this process. Bringing commercial entertainment games into

formal learning environments means crossing two very different (if not conflicting)

activity systems that of gaming versus that of formal schooling. The notion of

contradictions within/among activity systems (Engestrm , 1999) gives us a theoretical

model for talking about how the alignments and tensions between these two systems of activity emerge and unfold. Finally, activity theorys notion of outcomes is useful for

describing what learning emerges from activity systems (e.g. Barab et al., 2002).

Research on Games and Simulations in Social Studies Education

Despite the long tradition of games and simulations in social studies education

(e.g. Wentworth & Lewis, 1973), very little is known about the impact of games on

learning (Clegg, 1991). Despite the popularity of games such as Europa Universalis ,

Patrician , or Civilization III which offer opportunities to study world history, little is

known about how game play remediates understandings of history. Research on digital

or computer games has been remarkably consistent with findings from research on paper

games, role-playing games, and board games as predicted by Clark (1983). Specifically,

games can be engaging but frequently learners have difficulty making connections

between the game system and the referent social/material system the game is intended to

represent (Clegg, 1991). While there has been extensive use of models and simulation to

27


28/436

support science learning, there is little compelling research on the benefits of using

educational games and simulations in social studies education. As Margaret Gredler

(1996) describes in her review of research on educational games and simulations, there

has been little consensus on what a game or simulation is, what their role in instruction

might be, or what educational goals they might be used to support.

Like many researchers, Gredler (1996) distinguishes between games and

simulations as experiential forms of instruction compared to more traditional forms of

instruction that are, presumably, not experiential. Gredler offers neither evidence nor

explanation for how or why games might be considered experiential whereas a lecture bya Nobel Prize winner or a well designed set of exercises is not. Digital games are also

purported to be faster-paced, more interactive, and more engaging than other

instructional forms (e.g. Prensky, 2001) even when it could be argued that a good debate,

discussion, or collaborative project-based learning exercise could be equally, if not more,

interactive or flow-inducing than most digital games (cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The

goals of this section are to re-examine existing research on the use of games and

simulations for learning and to suggest an alternative theoretical framework for how

games might be reconceptualized as an educational resource. First, I describe the existing

research on games and simulations in social studies education. Next, I develop a rationale

for games and simulations in world history by drawing together matches between issues

within the domain and the affordances of games (keeping in mind their limitations as

well). Finally, I suggest activity theory as a useful framework for the study of games in

social studies education.

Educational Technology Research on Games and Simulations

28


29/436

The terms games, simulations, and simulation games are frequently used

interchangeably to discuss interactive activities that are mediated by rules or materials

that shape behavior. Heinich and colleagues (1996) offer what has become the classic

distinction between games and simulations from an instructional technologists

perspective:

A game is an activity in which participants follow prescribed rules thatdiffer from those of real life as they strive to attain a challenging goal. Thedistinction between play and reality is what makes games entertainingAsimulation is an abstraction or simplification of some real-life situation or

process. In simulations, participants usually play a role that involves them ininteractions with other people or with elements of the simulated

environment (Heinich, Molenda, Russell & Smoldino, 1996, p. 326-329).Heinich et al. describe simulation games as activities that combine both. Gredler (1996)

fleshes out this distinction further, arguing that games and simulations differ in three

fundamental ways according to their deep structures: (a) games are competitive exercises

with scoring mechanisms to differentiate performance, whereas simulations tasks require

that players take on responsible roles or professional tasks, (b) games are linear

whereas simulations are branching, and (c) games represent consequences of activity

through rules and penalties, whereas the outcomes of simulations are a function of the

dynamic interactions among variables that (i) change over time and (ii) reflect authentic,

casual processes, the consequences of which are represented in the activity. (p. 523).

While Gredlers distinctions are helpful, they quickly break down when one

examines most contemporary digital games, particularly edutainment games. First, many

contemporary games, across genres (i.e. strategy, role playing, massively multiplayer,

action / adventure, adventure, puzzle) have abandoned or devalued scoring mechanisms,

use roles as backstory, metaphor for game play, or as a means of conveying interactive

29


30/436

storytelling. In games such as Quake , Thief , Deus Ex , or even Monopoly , players progress

through levels playing as a particular role. Most consider games by definition a non-

linear medium as game play is the emergent creation of players activity within boundary

rule sets. Finally, most games are rooted in some metaphor of reality and the

consequences of activities are communicated through that metaphor, as in the standard

role-playing game genre where a player has health, intellectual strength, and endurance.

As Janet Murray argues in Hamlet on the Holodeck (1997), the information is presented

in an emergent and non-linear fashion and individual, interacting characters are defined

through rule sets that govern behavior.A second problem with these definitions of simulations and games is that they

focus on the properties of the simulated system rather than on the interactions between

the simulation and the phenomenon that is being represented. Thiagarajan (1998)

provides a useful framework for thinking about simulations. For Thiagarajan, a

simulation is a representation of the features and behaviors of one system through the

use of another (p. 35). Thiagarajan reminds instructional designers that simulations are

never accurate reflections of reality but, rather, reflect someones model of reality. A

simulation of a management system might look very different depending on who is

building the simulation: A behavioral psychologist might create independent agents

responding to stimulants and reinforcers. A sociologist might emphasize organizational

roles and norms. An artist might emphasize the seemingly endless treadmill of work and

superficial rewards of some corporate work through a game like Doom (Young, 2001).

Thiagarajans framework foregrounds the fact that any simulation is an artifact created by

30


31/436

a particular someone in response to some particular features of the system at hand. Every

simulation, in other words, has a particular point of view.

While the notion that Doom is a corporate simulation may have some perverse

appeal, it also threatens to render the definition of simulation too meaningless to be of

use: If we accept little to no correspondence between referent and thing referred to in

order to count something as ostensibly a simulation, then everything is a simulation of

everything else and the concept is rendered ineffective. As a solution, Thiagarajan

(1998) argues that simulations can be characterized along a continuum ranging from

high- to low-fidelity. High-fidelity simulations attempt to capture every interaction of asystem in a physical manner that is consistent with their real world analogs. Low-fidelity

simulations, on the other hand, focus on only a few critical elements and use a

simplified model of the interactions among them. The physical artifacts and the

environment do not correspond to what is being simulated in any detail. (Thiagarajan,

1998, p. 37) Distinguishing between high and low-fidelity simulations is useful for

instructional designers as it opens possibilities for thinking about simulations not as direct

physical embodiments of physical systems but rather as interpretations of portions of

reality modeled through a symbolic system.

Further, if one assumes that the unit of analysis is not the game activity narrowly

defined, but rather the interactions among the player, the simulation, and the phenomenon

being simulated, all within a cultural context, then a new array of possibilities opens.

While a designer may create a game or simulation as one particular interpretation of a

given phenomenon, players of the simulation might very well draw their own related but

different, idiosyncratic interpretations from the gaming experience, based on their own

31


32/436

prior knowledge and experience in the world, that may be completely unintended by the

designer. As the Doom case suggests, a player might find consistencies between a violent

shooter game and his experiences in a corporate environment and thereby gain insight

about his workplace. Consistent with constructivist and pragmatist semiotic

epistemologies, this notion of simulation as activity conceptualizes the game playing

experience in essence, the meaning making process itself not as a simplistic coupling

of the player and the simulation but rather as a dynamic interaction between aspects of

the players prior experience and the simulation itself such that the idea, action, or artifact

resulting from game play is its meaning.To a certain extent, the necessity of considering simulations within their actual

use and in the context of the players experience has long been recognized by

instructional technologists. For many instructional designers, the debriefing activities

surrounding game play have been regarded as possibly more important for engendering

learning than the game-playing itself (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino,1996;

Livingston & Stoll, 1973; Thiagarajan, 1998). Heinich et al. (1996) recommend a four-

step debriefing process following game play involving the following questions: (1) How

did you feel while playing the game? (decompressing feelings); (2) What happened

during the game? (describing facts ); (3) How does this activity compare to other

phenomena? (drawing comparisons enhancing transfer); (4) What might you plan to do

differently in future activity? (deriving lessons application). While Heinich et al.

advocate these activities so that learners can appreciate the meaning or significance of

the activity (p. 336), Thiagarajan suggests that instructional designers be open to

learners exploring the unintended consequences of games. Rather than conceptualize the

32


33/436

goal of the simulation as to communicate information in the simulation, thus privileging

the associations and intentions of the instructional designer, Thiagarajan suggests that

designers think of gaming activities as experiences through which lessons can be learned.

As a rule-based artifact in which the player plays a role in interacting with a

simulated, dynamic system that is usually represented through actual or metaphorical

representations, most any interactive application can be thought of as a simulation.

However, there is an important distinction to be made between simulations and drill-and-

practice games or frame games where the primary gaming activity is recalling factual

information within a game framework that is independent of the content. Lloyd Reiber (1996) also makes this distinction, differentiating between endogenous games where the

content is inseparable from game play and exogenic games where the game play is a

reusable format that is layered on top of game content, as in crossword puzzles, matching

games, or trial-and-error games (e.g. Hangman). To make this distinction is not to

critique the value of such games in particular contexts or to deny the possibility of a

creative game designer or player using such a game as a simulation. Rather, it is to

highlight one typical genre of games and distinguish between it and games that might be

thought of as simulating aspects of reality.

Contemporary Theorizing of Game/Simulation Technologies

As computer gaming increases in sophistication, it is becoming evident that to

some extent, distinctions between simulations and games may be as much a matter of

socio-cultural construction, social purpose and context of the activity as it is any

underlying deep structure inherent of the artifact (Gredler, 1996). Indeed, a growing

number of researchers and game designers acknowledge that games encompass such a

33


34/436

broad category of activities that the term videogame may have outlived its usefulness.

For example, familiar activities such as Tic-Tac-Toe , Kick-the-Can , Monopoly , Risk ,

Quake , SimCity , Everquest , Final Fantasy X , Civilization III , The Sims , and Spades are

all activities commonly referred to as games despite the absence of any common

underlying structure. Some of these games have scoring, some do not. Some have real

win conditions (e.g. Monopoly ), some do not (e.g. The Sims 1). Some have real lose

conditions (e.g., Quake ), some do not (e.g., all single-player adventure and role-playing

games where as the player can always resume playing from where he or she left off).

Most players continue until they finish, although, in a game like Baldurs Gate II ,which has over 1000 hours of potential game play, the likelihood of ever finishing the

game (here, the story) is slim at best. Similar examples exist for pen and paper-based

role-playing games. In addition, many game designers have argued that multi-player

games like Everquest are really virtual communities and should be treated as virtual

societies, communities, or worlds, but not as games. Finally, thousands of games such

as The Sims or Railroad Tycoon either ship with no rules, or have rules that players

ignore outright in using the games to build virtual systems. Although all of these

activities are commonly referred to as games, it is obvious that they do not all share

common elements and that there may be drastically different reasons behind what makes

them compelling for players.

Will Wright (2002), designer of The Sims and SimCity argues that digital games

might be fruitfully divided into three overlapping activities: contests, hobbies, and

interactive stories (See Figure 2.1). Contests are interactive experiences where1 In reality, it turns out that there is a win-condition for Pac Man. There is only one known instance of someoneaccomplishing this fear. On July 3, 1999, Billy Mitchell successfully cleared 256 levels without losing a man whilealso gaining each and every power-up along the way. Mitchells game took over 6 hours (For more, see:http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,20607,00.html).

34


35/436

competition, winning, and losing are key elements of the experience. Wright cites Unreal

Tournament , Madden Football and Quake as typical of such games and compares them to

other competitive activities such as sports. Hobby games involve creating, collecting,

and sharing creations with other hobbyists. The Sims , SimCity , and RailRoad Tycoon are

examples of such games. It is worth noting that, in a hobby game, playing the actual

game is only a minimal part of the experience as building characters or scenarios,

publishing them on the web, and experiencing other players creations are all a critical

part of the experience. Finally, there are what Wright calls interactive story games,

where the game experience is about participating in an interactive story, such as in Final Fantasy X , or Baldurs Gate . Wright also acknowledges that there is overlap among

categories and that different users might play games differently. So, whereas Unreal

Tournament may be a contest activity for most who play the game, a significant number

of players also build skins, characters, levels, or mods. From this perspective, playing

Unreal Tournament might be seen as more of a hobbiest pursuit. Playing Civilization III

falls between a hobbyist pursuit and a competition for most players. Civilization is a very

competitive game; just keeping the game going involves fending off ruthless computer-

controlled civilizations that attempt to control and conquer your civilization. At the same

time, however, Civilization III ships with robust scenario building tools and has a robust

fan community in which players create scenarios and modify the game for their own

expressive ends. A large percentage of Civilization III players debate the historical

accuracy of the game and modify its parameters accordingly. In fact, the map being used

in this study was created by a fan dissatisfied with the accuracy of the standard map and

modified by a second fan to make the map historically more accurate.

35


36/436

Figure 2.1: Wrights (2002) typology of contemporary games

Wrights framework suggests that advocates of digital game-based learning might

benefit from being more specific about the types of activities that unfold through game

play. Restated, when defining game genres, it may be more profitable to examine game

play activity rather than the game itself. The activity of playing a contest-oriented game

like Number Munchers might be very different than a hobbyist-based game / digital toy

such as The Sims where a compelling part of the gaming experience is creating and

trading artifacts. Even in a more contest-based game such as Civilization III, the gaming

experience is largely a social one, where players compete against one another for high

scores, create and share maps, critique the rules embedded in the simulation, and modify

these rules to create more compelling gaming experiences.

Games as Motivating Contexts for Learning

36

Hobbies

ContestsInteractiveStories

Unreal Tournament

Final Fantasy

The Sims

Civilization


37/436

One of the most intuitive appeals of games is their ability to engage learners.

Historical strategy games such as Civilization III sell millions of copies and game

hobbyists spend thousands of hours playing games, developing strategies, mastering

arcane historical facts, critiquing game play, creating game scenarios, and arguing for the

historical accuracy or inaccuracy of scenarios in gaming communities such as

Apolyton.net. Civilization III is not unique in this regard: similar games that engage their

players in comparable ways include Rise of Nations , Pirates! , Gettysburg , Patrician , Age

of Empires , 1602 AD , and Europa Universalis . How these games engage learners and

how play remediates players understandings of world history, however, is hitherto notunderstood.

Since almost the inception of video games, psychologists have tried to understand

how they engage or motivate learners. In 1981, Tom Malones dissertation (working

with Mark Lepper) examined how Atari games engaged players, finding that fantasy,

control, challenge, and curiosity were the primary features that mattered most. Malone

and Lepper (1987) refined this model to include collaboration and competition as well.

More recently, Cordova and Lepper (1996) have used this model for developing

instructional materials, finding that giving students choice in fantasy effectively letting

them create their own pleasurable context led to increased enjoyment and learning.

Cordova and Leppers study, however, used a relatively simple Apple II mathematics

game originally designed for the Plato system, How the West was Won, that

emphasized the recall of math facts rather than the use of mathematics for complex

problem-solving (e.g. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1993). Recent

advancements in gaming technologies, particularly the increased simulation capacity of

37


38/436

games, has dramatically reshaped gaming, leading to the kinds of hobbyist and interactive

story games that Wright (2001) describes rather than the simple drill-and-practice

games of Cordova and Leppers day.

Cordova and Leppers (1996) framework of motivation, while useful in helping

psychologists distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, offers little help for

educators trying to develop endogenous educational games, games where the fantasy

game context and game goals overlap directly with educational practices. Recall Riebers

(1996) distinction between exogenous games, in which the fantasy context is largely

separated from the problem of the game space and is essentially interchangeable, andendogenous games, in which the gaming context is inextricably linked to the game play.

Cordova and Leppers research was conducted on the exogenous game How the West

was Won; Civilization III , on the other hand, is an endogenous game: The academic

content is inextricably linked to game play .2 That the content of the game and the

game play itself is mutually constitutive is important: As I have argued previously (e.g.

Squire, 2002), the biggest potential of games as an educational medium lies in using

games to create a rich context for thinking and activity one where the game induces

contextuality for the learner so that the learner is solving authentic, complex problems in

the game space.

2 The critical reader might note that total conversion modifications of Civilization , such as a Star Wars rendition of

Civilization exist, suggesting that the line between endogenous and exogenous games is more slippery than Rieber would suggest. The blurring of endogenous and exogenous games in the case of Civilization III can be thought of in atleast three ways: 1) The game has malleable rule sets that designers can adapt, suggesting that they are in fact creatingnew games through changing game rules; 2) Even if the game rules are not substantially changed, the core focus of thegame remains the same. In this case, the game is largely about marshalling geographic resources, deciding amongsocial objectives (i.e. science, military), and diplomacy; and 3) Simulations are always flexible entities which can bethought of along a continuum of low to high fidelity. Indeed, one can imagine thinking of this Star Wars game as low-fidelity or satirical historical simulation. The upshot of this discussion is that the flexibility of contemporary game toolssuggests that Riebers distinction may not be as hard and fast as once considered, although I believe that it is still auseful distinction for educators.

38


39/436

Underlying this notion of endogenous games as a motivating context for solving

complex problems is a socio-cultural model of motivation, one that views motivation not

as a static variable but rather as an emergent property between learner and context. From

this situated view, all learners are motivated; they just may not be motivated in the ways

that educators want them to be. Learners are active, goal-driven constructors of meaning.

This socio-cultural perspective ecologizes the learner. The problem of motivation is not

framed as a matter of high / low, intrinsic / extrinsic, but rather as a social-psychological

problem of engaging learners in activity when there are competing or differing goals and

intentions (e.g. Barab Cherkes-Julkowski, Swenson., et al., 1999). Problems of extrinsicmotivation might be reframed as issues with authority or differing agendas, of developing

differing goals, or of failing to detect paths toward meeting their goals in the

environment. From a cultural view, learning goals may not be compelling to learners or

may be at odds with their identities as learners (e.g. Scollen, 1981). Learners goals and

intentions are socially and culturally situated, and understanding learners goals and

intentions is a complex process that is fruitfully studied by examining relationships

among identities, communities, learning culture and practice (Wenger, 1998).

Within gaming discourse, a number of massively multiplayer designers have

begun adopting Bartles (1996) framework for understanding what motivates people to

game by characterizing game play as a social practice (Figure 2.2). Through qualitative

observation of gamers, Bartle finds that players can be divided along two axes: (a) acting

vs. interacting, on (b) the world vs. other players. Bartle labels these four roles killers

(acting on players), socializers (interacting with players), achievers (acting on the

world) and explorers (interacting with the world). Walking the reader through the

39


40/436

behavior of each player type, he argues that these four ways of playing are states that

players adopt while in game that are based on their current motivations. For Bartle, it is

the interactions among these differing players that give game worlds their life. Other

game designers seem to agree: Raph Koster, creative designer of Ultima Online and the

newly released Star Wars Galaxies , remarked that Bartles modes of play also hold up in

single-player games with explorers more motivated to play role-playing games and

achievers more motivated to play hyper-competitive games, particularly first-person

shooters (Kim, Koster, & Vogel, 2001). By foregrounding the fact that gaming is

thoroughly a social practice, Bartles framework is insightful for educators because ithelps specify the particular reasons that participants game in the particular ways they do.

Returning to Wrights notion of different game genres, there are often large distinctions

between game types and it may not even be sensible to talk about the practice of playing

Quake , for example, in the same way that we talk about the practice of playing

Civilization III . Educators hoping to use games in education need to understand different

game genres, game practices, and modes of game play in order to effectively leverage the

unique affordances of specific games to situate learners in academically valuable contexts

(Holland, Jenkins, & Squire, 2003; Squire, 2002).

40


41/436

Figure 2.2 Bartles (1996) taxonomy of motivation in multiplayer gaming.

Games in Social Studies Education in General

Digital games such as Civilization III open new opportunities to support learning

as players manipulate complex systems, test their assumptions about geography by

building virtual empires, and compare the unfolding of their Civilization with the

historical record. While such experiences may seem unprecedented to some (e.g.

Prensky, 2001), there is a long tradition of games and simulations in educational

technology and social studies specifically that provides some guidance for how a game

such as Civilization III might be used to support learning.

In his review of research on games and simulations in social studies, Clegg (1991)

makes the following observation:

Students using computer simulations demonstrated increases in affectiveoutcomes such as interest, motivation, enjoyment, sense of personal control, andwillingness to persevere in completing learning tasks. Cooperative strategies with

41


42/436

computer games increased both lower and higher order learning and tended to benefit female students more than males (p. 527).

Indeed, there seems to be strong agreement among researchers that game playing can lead

to increased enthusiasm, cooperative learning strategies, and goal-directed behavior

(Becker, 1980; Ehman & Glenn, 1987; Gredler, 1996; Livingston & Stoll, 1973). Most

researchers studying players attitudes toward playing games have found that that, on

average, players prefer game play activities to traditional lectures or homework activities.

For example, Garvey and Seiler (1966, cited in Wentworth & Lewis, 1973) reported that

players preferred playing Inter-Nation Simulaton to traditional lecture and homework

exercises. Wentworth summarize a number of other studies examining other games

resulting in similar findings (Baker, 1966; Cohen, 1970; Cordtz, 1970; Dooley, 1969;

Stadsklev, 1969; Wing, 1966). These studies, all of which fit the pattern of what

instructional designers commonly call smile tests, are somewhat useful for gauging

students interest in using specific games and simulations in specific gaming contexts but

do little to illuminate how game-playing affects players attitudes toward subject matter

or disciplinary abilities.

Instructional games and simulations in social studies may have hit their zenith in

the 1970s when dozens of studies were conducted examining the impact of most pen and

paper educational game playing on learning. In the majority of these studies, games fared

no better nor worse than other learning experiences in terms of their effect on student

achievement (i.e. paper and pencil scores) (Wentworth & Lewis, 1973, p. 435). Six

studies were the exception: Monroe (1968, cited in Wentworth & Lewis, 1973) found that

students playing a history game performed worse on content scores than those in control

groups. Wentworth (1972) found similar results with students playing a game called

42


43/436

Marketplace , although the game-playing students did perform better than the control in

understanding system dynamics. Duke (1964), Monroe (1968), Baker (1966) and Allen,

Allen, and Miller (1966) found conclusive evidence in support of using games; however,

as Fletcher (1971) and Wentworth and Lewis (1973) argue, the methodological issues

and lack of quality controls in each studies raise serious questions about the validity of

the assertions generated from the data. Within this generation of research, Boocock

(1968) is the only study that generated statistically significant differences between games

and simulations and other instructional exercises.

In a few studies where researchers have examined how game-playing experiencesshape attitudes toward or within a subject area (e.g. attitudes toward economics or

political science), they have again failed to find any changes in attitudes among students

(Clarke, 1970; Lloyd, 1970; Wentworth, 1972). The difficulties and problems with this

line of research might best be illuminated through a brief consideration of a set of studies

Livingston (1970a; 1970b) conducted using the game Ghetto to teach about urban

poverty. Ghetto is a turn-based board game where players role-play as participants in a

ghetto" community. They make decisions about whether or not to attend high school,

pursue employment, or engage in illegal activities. The game is weighted so that it is very

difficult to succeed. Players toil in low-income jobs and are then enticed into high risk,

high reward criminal activities. Other players become the victims of this crime, leading to

chaos. The typical game lasts about two hours. The game designers recommend a

standard briefing process and include reflection questions with the game. The games

potential to offend goes without saying.

43


44/436

On the surface, Ghetto may seem like a promising educational tool: Players learn

about the difficulties and hopelessness of poverty firsthand as they make choices in the

game. In my own experiences, I have found that players quickly realize that the game is

biased against them and that there is very little chance of succeeding. This experience can

give rise to conflicting emotions that can provide the fuel for fruitful discussion; yet, in

each of Livingstons studies, he failed to find compelling evidence that playing Ghetto

shifted participants attitudes toward the poor, even with solid debriefing exercises. For

example, Livingston and Stoll (1973) found that low-ability students had much more

difficulty making connections between their gaming experiences and urban poverty thanhigh ability students. Livingston and Stoll argued that low-achievers learn to play the

game rather than learn from the game.

This series of studies illuminates the difficulties in using one-shot gaming

experiences to change students attitudes through game playing. To think that a two-hour

gaming session would cause a dramatic shift in players attitudes attitudes built over a

lifetime of experience toward a topic as emotionally and politically charged as poverty

is nave if not impudent. The game world of Ghetto is clearly an artificial, constructed

world designed to elicit emotions. The game is not modeled on any particular community

or setting, so, without any clear grounding in particular historical contexts, players are

asked to make connections between the game and reality on a leap of faith. With topics

as emotionally charged as urban poverty, most instructional designers would devote

considerable time to its consideration, combining several methods of instruction in order

to make overt connections between concepts of poverty and how poverty is experienced

in specific historical situations. Good teachers might also use videos, case studies,

44


45/436

interviews with urban dwellers, or field trips to flesh out students own experiences with

urban poverty. Most research studies on games, however, isolate game play as a variable

in its own right in order to compare it directly to other instructional approaches rather

than examining intact activity systems involving game play. Despite instructional

designers acknowledgement that the use, context, and activity surrounding gaming is

critical to learning, none of the research on games and simulations investigates how

different activities can be used in concert with gaming exercises to produce a robust

learning environment.

Digital Games in Social Studies Education in Particular Although most of these early studies on game-based learning employed paper-

based or face-to-face role-playing games, a few studies did examine computer-mediated

games (e.g. Hetzner, 1972, cited in Clegg, 1991). As might be predicted by Clark (1983),

thus far there has been no real distinguishable differences between computer-mediated

and non-computer mediated games research. As Clegg (1991) notes, Although the

advent of the microcomputer in the 1980s markedly changed the potential of games and

simulations as classroom tools (Patterson & Smith, 1986), there has been little research

on their use (p. 524). The paucity of research on computer games continues today. As

mentioned earlier, many educators, political pundits, and marketers extol the virtues of a

game like SimCity to help students learn, for example, city planning, but there has yet to

be a single published study examining how learning unfolds through playing edutainment

games such as these. The little research that does exist is inconclusive but cautions

against over-enthusiasm for the potentials of gaming to transform social studies

education.

45


46/436

In one of the first studies of games and simulations in social studies classrooms,

Hetzner (1972), cited in Downey & Levstick, (1991), found that secondary school

students who played a political computer simulation had statistically significant higher

mean scores on tests of interest, goal-directed behavior, and application of principles

related to career development than students in a conventional class in career information.

More recently, Vincent (1986) used the computer-based simulation Foreign Policy: the

Burdens of World Power with sixth grade classes in Massachusetts. Vincent reported

greater increase in motivation and intellectual curiosity when using game-based

instruction than when using other instructional models. However, the study was published in a practitioner journal without data, evidence for validity of the assertions, or

peer review. More recently, Sawyer and colleagues have begun using the game Virtual

University with college administrators (Prensky, 2001); they have yet to publish any

research on this work, however.

The most compelling research to date on learning through digital gaming has

focused on the social interactions that occur in the context of game play. Johnson,

Johnson, and Stanne (1985), (cited in Ehman and Glenn, 1987) argue for the importance

of cooperative learning strategies over competitive and individual ones in using computer

simulations, locating much of the learning experience in social interactions and in off-line

learning activities. Consistent with standard instructional practice, Johnson et al. argue

that collaborative and cooperative exercises allow learners opportunities to reflect on

their understandings, articulate their ideas, and refine them through discussion exercises.

Despite the usefulness of studies such as Johnson et al. (1985), taken altogether as

a coherent body of work, the current research on digital games and simulations, like

46


47/436

earlier research on paper-and-pencil games and simulations, is sporadic, questionably

designed, and inconclusive. Reflecting on the lack of research in this area, Ehman and

Glenn (1991) write There are so few studies that bear on the question of the impact of

interactive technologies on the social studies teachers role that it would be presumptuous

to conclude that we understand this area. More naturalistic studies utilizing in-depth

classroom observations, open-ended interviews with teachers and students, and survey

and test data are needed (p. 515).

Implications for Future Research

I find three themes from past research on game-based learning social studieseducation that can guide future research:

The interdependence of gaming and other instructional strategies . At the

educational game design session of the 2002 Game Developers Conference (Squire,

2002), Marc Prensky and others argued for the systematic study of learning environments

comprised exclusively of gaming activities; in other words, situations where players sit in

front a computer, play a game, learn from the game, and then walk away. Jon Goodwin

responded that, from such an approach, a game would not only be required to provide a

robust, compelling context for learning activities but also would need to be able to adjust

to individual players abilities and preferences, provide just-in-time explanations and

background material, present divergent problems, include opportunities for reflection,

and track user behavior in order to assess learning and then adjust learning experiences

accordingly. The claim that any game can (or should) accomplish all this is dubious at

best. In fact, the body of research on non-computer-mediated games suggests that,

although players enjoy gaming experiences, game-play alone may actually lead to

47


48/436

decreased academic performance. Designing learning environments comprised

exclusively of gaming activities and nothing else appears to be rather short sighted.

Of course, the importance of the activity structure in which a given tool for

learning is embedded has long been recognized in the field of instructional technology.

For example, for decades, instructional designers have recognized the crucial role of

debriefing exercises following game play; perhaps educational researchers would be well

advised to forgo attempts to isolate the effects of gaming and instead focus on

researching the outcomes of intact pedagogies for learning through game play.

Educational designers need not start from scratch; goal-based scenarios (Schank, 1994), problem-based learning (Savery & Duffy, 1995), cognitive apprenticeships (Brown,

Collins & Newman, 1991), and modeling (Barab, Barnett, & Hay, 2001) all provide

pedagogical models in which student-directed activity is the focus of the activity system

and instructional supports are folded into the context of student-directed activity.

The limited value of traditional experimental research. Thus far, research on

games in social studies has mostly been conducted using classic positivist experimental

methodologies where a game-based experimental condition is created and then compared

to a control group. In most cases, only students perceptions of the experience and

attitudes toward social studies are the measured outcome variables. Such approaches

deny researchers the opportunity to examine how specific instructional strategies alone

or in combination support learning in specific ways. For example, instructional

strategies such as just-in-time lectures having been found to enhance learning when

combined with student-directed activities (CTGV, 1993; Barab, Squire & Barnett, 1999);

the research reviewed above, however, offers nothing that might bear on similar

48


49/436

pedagogical designs, designs that, in truth, are far more similar to actual instruction in

real classrooms. Moreover, these prior studies offer little explanation as to why various

approaches succeed or fail or how they might be improved.

Along these lines, Ehman and Glenn (1991) argue for more in-depth naturalistic

cases of how interactive technologies can be used to support learning in social studies.

Design experiments (Brown, 1992) and teaching experiments (e.g. Cobb et al., 2001) are

two models for how educators might create pedagogical models for game-based learning

that are grounded in theory, practice, and empirical research. In both methodologies,

researchers collaborate with practitioners to create instructional contexts and then studyhow learning unfolds within them. Using a variety of techniques including ongoing,

dynamic assessments, researchers are then able to gain a better understandings of how

students are learning in the environment and therefore can suggest specific changes to the

environment in order to improve its impact on learning. Such experiments frequently lead

to what Robert Stake calls petite generalizations (1995). Petite generalizations do not

hold true for all people in all contexts but can be taken up by others and applied to their

own contexts as they deem appropriate. Certainly controlled comparison studies would

have some value in highlighting the different affordances of various learning

environments; however, until social studies educators have a compelling ratio

replaying history

Documents