Chapter II: Digital Games in World History Education

Research on Games and Simulations in Social Studies Education

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 by a 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.

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 that differ from those of real life as they strive to attain a challenging goal. The distinction between play and reality is what makes games entertaining…A simulation is an abstraction or simplification of some real-life situation or process. In simulations, participants usually play a role that involves them in interactions 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 Gredler’s 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 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 someone’s 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). Thiagarajan’s framework foregrounds the fact that any simulation is an artifact created by 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 a system 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 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 player’s 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 player’s 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 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 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 Sims¹). 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 Baldur’s 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 where 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 Baldur’s 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.


Hobbies

Contests

Final Fantasy

The Sims

Civilization


Unreal Tournament

Interactive Stories

Figure 2.1: Wright’s (2002) typology of contemporary games

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 not understood.

Since almost the inception of video games, psychologists have tried to understand how they engage or motivate learners. In 1981, Tom Malone’s 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 Lepper’s 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 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 Lepper’s day.