Replaying history: learning world history through playing

What is striking about this last bias, a bias endemic to the medium, is not so much that Civilization III (or any game for that matter) has it, but that critics (e.g. Starr, 1994; Turkle, 2003) imply that such biases do not exist in other media. Sins of omission and inclusion are endemic to any medium, but the affordances of media themselves also mediate the way we understand phenomena. Just as we ask what is the significance of representing world history through simulated systems, we need to investigate the significance of representing history through oral stories, books, plays, or film. Representing phenomena in each one brings affinities and proclivities, and perhaps the questions that educators (and scholars) should be asking are how to mix these resources to produce deep understandings.

One final way to think about the affordances of Civilization III in learning environments is to step back and examine the range of activities that occurred and the kinds of experiences students had. Students interaction with the game itself followed a pattern of observation, problem identification, information gathering (frequently employing offline resources) enacting strategies and then observing their consequences. As Zimmerman and Salen (2003) describe, game play could be described as several overlapping observation and consequences chains. Early in each case, most students experienced confusion and failure as they were overwhelmed by a game system posing complex problems, employing difficult language, and representing geographical and historical phenomena in ways that may have been unusual. Students asked questions. Students asked a lot of questions. Most of these answers came from teachers, researchers, games, or eventually, the Civilopedia. Although students did a lot of asking of questions, they did relatively little offline research activities. Students did however, formulate “research” questions in response to issues arising in their games and issues of more general intellectual curiosity. They examined each other’s games, discerned patterns across games, formulated hypotheses about the game system, and acted on these emerging theories by enacting strategies. The extent to which playing Civilization III raised students’ curiosity about both game systems and historical issues was a unique, and perhaps defining aspect of these units.

Much of the analysis and reflection that occurred during game play naturally led to discussions of history and geography. Questions driving these discussions included: Which civilization should I play, Why is colonization not happening? How should my civilization expand? How can improve my economy? What resources might I capitalize one? or Why did the game deviate from history? Some of these questions were quite novel, piquing students’ curiosity in hitherto immaterial questions such as the geography of Greenland or the history of Madagascar. One of Civilization III’s most intriguing affordances may be how it engaged some of these students in lines of inquiry of genuine interest, particularly given how so many of these students resisted studying history. Civilization III also provided marginalized paths for studying and creating histories outside the context of dominant political and intellectual agendas. To a large extent, students framed the kinds of questions that they wanted to ask of the game, as mediated by teacher practices and other student relations.’ Minimally, Civilization III was playable in many different ways and recruited a wide array of gaming practices.

Although Civilization III is a computer game that typically consumes the attention of its players, when taken as a practice, playing Civilization III involved offline activities of interest to world history educators. Students observed other games, discussed strategies, and negotiated meanings with their peers. Meanings and play were mediated by others’ game practices, as students appropriated the game in particular ways (such as a colonial simulation), co-constructed reasons for playing (as in the “races”), and mediated specific practices, such as the domination of other civilizations or decision to stay out of war. Play occurred as a part of game playing communities, and in these cases, to discuss game play outside of the social contexts of that activity is to miss much of the activity at play.

This study examined how Civilization III might be used to support learning in two very particular contexts. In each case (as in any case) there were unique drivers and barriers affecting how Civilization III was appropriated both by teachers and students. Hopefully, the telling of these cases has persuaded the reader of the particularities of these cases and the importance of considering local social and political contexts (as well as participants goals and intentions) when characterizing activity. Nevertheless, these cases did present findings that challenged my initial assumptions about the role of games in this context, and suggest critical issues for instructional designers to consider when designing game-based learning environments. This section presents my revised model of an instructional unit using Civilization III with similar populations of students (See table 7.1).

In the MEDIA case, one of the biggest challenges was to appropriation was perceived relevance. In the first few days, students were not only confused, but they saw little relevance of the game play to their lives. On Day 4 drawing the map on the board drew students into the game, as they made more connections between the game and history and saw that they could change the course of history. These patterns suggest that putting students on realistic maps early, ensuring that they knew where they were located, and making clear that there are multiple modes of interacting with the game (exploring, building, replaying history) might also help more students develop goals. With these students, it seemed especially important that they see that the game would allow them to explore hypothetical histories, and several seductive hypothetical scenarios (such as an “African” Europe could be presented up front. I had conceptualized the first three days as primarily about introducing them to the game, but this early period of the game play might be better conceptualized as in facilitating the appropriation of Civilization III as a tool. Showing the relevance of this activity to students’ lives (and identities) was critical.

I had hoped that students would enjoy reading more about the civilizations or discussing conceptual issues raised in civilizations (such as the ethics of referring to native tribes as barbarians), but these students had little willingness to read assignments or discuss game concepts until well after they were engaged in the game play. On the other hand, they found the “civilization vote” interesting and they were willing (up to a point) to discuss which civilizations they might be. In a future iteration of this unit, I would present students with descriptions of the various civilizations (with maps) and ask present them with discussion activities whereby they evaluate the strengths and weaknesses (from a game play perspective) of each civilization. I would ask students to rank order each civilization along which ones they would want to play as in order to (a) grow the quickest, (b) generate the most trade, (c) become the wealthiest, (d) have the happiest citizenry, (e) interact with the most civilizations, (f) explore the most territory, and (g) last the longest. Each of these dimensions loosely corresponds with a game goal that engaged students. From a teacher’s perspectives, it would be very interesting to examine how students make these judgments, what factors they bring to bear in making these determinations.

Days 4-7: Facilitating informal gaming groups.

For these students, Civilization was so complex as to take several class periods to master. Whereas I had initially envisioned students learning most of the game through trial and error (and one another), it is apparent that in this case, such means were largely ineffective. First, I would prepare mini-lectures for the beginning of class on (a) how to defend cities against barbarians, (b) how to avoid civil disorder in cities (c) how to get more money, (d) how to build more cities, (e) how to have cities grow more quickly. Given students’ resistance to any mandated activities and disregard for most information presented in lectures, a key would be to phrase them in language and terms that students themselves identify with. Of course, demonstrating with a projector would be desirable, and perhaps help sheets for these five common problems would also be useful.

Across both cases, the students who were the most successful with the game (and perhaps learning) were those who belonged to informal groups of gamers. Thus, the first approach I would try is to encourage collaboration through informal partnering. At the beginning (or end) of class, I would ask students to find a partner and answer the following questions. Again, rather than framing the activity as one designed to “teach history,” I would frame it as an exercise designed to help them do better at the game. These activities would include: (a) Find where you are on a real map and anticipate what tribes will be your rivals; (b) Examine your cities and find the ones that are growing the fastest (and say why); (c) Compare the natural resources. On the following day, I would have students find two players playing different civilizations, analyze each game, and then report back what the three biggest advantages and disadvantages were of each. As a class, we would discuss these factors and then discuss which ones we thought were realistic and which ones were not. Perhaps students might also generate questions during this phase. Although there is some pedagogical value to these discussions, the primary goal of these activities is to habituate students to examining one another’s games, observing other games to pick up strategies, and encourage students to compare and contrast civilizations.

Days 8-11: Fostering Communities of Inquiry

In the MEDIA case, a game playing culture began to emerge by the ninth day. Students had defined goals and began to play with purpose. Students were invested in their games, and began to identify with their civilizations. Successful learning activities leveraged this engagement and queried students’ games to see what could be learned about improving game play, and used geography and history as tools to support game play. Introducing maps, timelines, charts, graphs and primary documents at this time in order to support game play would quite likely be effective. One can imagine having students use maps to identify natural resources, anticipate the growth of civilizations (like Marvin did), or to plan exploration routes. Maps of famous voyages and historical vignettes of events that were commonly raised in the form of just-in-time lectures (e.g. causes of World War I, isolationism vs. trade, the advent of agriculture, the role of horses in colonization, the historical importance of the Sahara Desert, the origin of the Bantu, germs and disease in North America) could be useful in supporting play, as well. Similarly, primary documents such as accounts of Cortez’s slaughter of Native Americans could help students understand the military importance of history through primary documents.

A number of reflection activities introduced in the third and fourth weeks of the MEDIA case were useful and suggest how teachers can better bridge game play with world history inquiry. Some reflection activities, such as listing the “unrealistic” aspects of the game were easily accomplished and could possibly leveraged in small research projects. For these students, outside readings were unfeasible, although one can imagine using film, lectures, or discussion to support students in comparing their games to world history. Although this is purely conjecture, I believe that introducing a small, constrained research project, such as describing the role of the Nile River in the history of Egypt at this point may work with these students as well. Regardless, a key goal of this portion of the unit is to facilitate the emergence of communities of inquiry whereby students’ goals shift from learning the game to using history and geography as tools for supporting their game play.

Group discussions in the MEDIA case suggest how gamers’ interest in comparing games can be leveraged to support deeper history learning. It was during this time period that I began aggregating information across students’ games and leading discussions in game strategy in order to help students build interpretations about the properties of Civilization III as a simulation. Structured design activities such as discussing the historical importanc of horses, discussing the issues surrounding isolationism and trade, or connections betweeen technological advancement and geographic location (See Table 4.2). In other classrooms (See Appendices A and B) I have suggested that students map their own game world and compare it with historical maps. Whether or not that would succeed in this environment is unknown but worth investigating. However, establishing the practice of having students examine games to deduce patterns in order to help their game play can profitably lead to the focus of the next unit, which will be using Civilization III as a simulation.

Having students develop arguments and create artifacts with representations of these ideas is one way to engage students in disciplinary thinking about world history. In the camp context, students built presentations describing what they learned from playing Civilization III, pulling data from just-in-time lectures, discussions, and their game play. The success of this activity suggests that having students build presentations for their peers in class may be feasible, particularly if students are given appropriate scaffolding. In the MEDIA case, we abandoned this activity because of time and resources constraints. I am suggesting here that small, focused research projects may be possible if students are supported in asking research questions early in the unit, given resources targeted to their questions, and enveloped within a supportive community of inquiry to share resources, talk through ideas, and provide encouragement. Specifically, I would hope to create such a community by having students playing as the same civilizations begin sharing experiences, information, and resources early in the unit and then assist one another through the completion of the unit. Another possibility would be to have students work in groups, although my sense is that most students’ game play is so unique as to warrant individualized projects.

In the MEDIA case, some of the most fruitful learning opportunities occurred as students such as Chris, Tony, or Kent observed one another’s games and deduced patterns about history, such as that isolated civilizations developed technological discoveries more slowly than civilizations connected in trade networks. These students used others’ as data sources, examining how patterns arose across games. At times during these discussions, students developed arguments about the growth and evolution of civilizations; one approach to fostering deeper learning about world history would be to have students who played as similar civilizations compare experiences and generate conclusions about their particular civilization which could be then shared as peers. Similar to the presentation discussions in the camp case, students could then compare findings across civilizations within a knowledge building environment (Scardamalia & Bereiter,1994).

One goal of this activity would be to have students ground their historical arguments in the particulars of civilizations, culling data from historical texts, primary documents, maps, film, and their game play. In the Camp case, most of students’ interpretations were grounded in game play, previous understandings, or just-in-time lectures. The more that historical texts could mediate game play, the more historically grounded these interpretations would be. Finally, a critical goal of this activity would be to have students critique Civilization III as a materialist representation of history. Students in the camp case quickly and naturally criticized Civilization III as a materialist reading of history; ensuring that other students had ample time to consider the inherent simulation biases of Civilization III is desirable as well. Indeed, learning from Civilization III as a simulated history appears to have some value in terms of introducing students to background concepts, expanding their vocabulary, and helping them deduce patterns across history. My hope is that through these discussion and research activities students will also learn to build and critique historical arguments synthesizing data across a variety of sources.

Conclusions

In this section I have proposed a number of findings and curricular changes to my initial guesses of what kind of curriculum would be successful in supporting learning world history in these contexts. Much of these findings emanate from students’ resistance to appropriating Civilization III as a tool for studying history, unexpected difficulties in learning Civilization III due to its complexity, and time constraints in trying to learn such a complex game while also engaging in other academic practices. Consistent with the initial curricular models, the social practices surrounding game play seem to be as critical to learning as the game itself; however, examining these cases shows that leveraging the kinds of knowledge sharing and critique that arises naturally through informal gaming communities may be more productive than trying to layer extra activities over an already complex instructional process. A lot of these suggested revisions are about dealing with the unexpected complexities of bringing a game into classroom contexts.

Many of these unexpected complexities arose from the particulars of this environment, where students resisted externally mandated activities, were reluctant to do outside readings, and unable to do homework assignments. Being able to send home even short, simple reading assignments or map making activities would change things considerably. Perhaps most importantly, having even a few hours of time to play Civilization III outside of school would have been immensely helpful. Indeed, on the few days where students did start playing Civilization III after school, there were tremendous gains in students’ confidence and skills with the program. My hope is that this model can inform the design of other game-based learning environments, but that in future studies, researchers will examine the use of the game (and other games) in more contexts and develop a variety of instructional models using games to support learning.

Days	Game Play	Activities
1-3	Facilitate appropriation of game	Discussion activities designed to make connections between world history and game play more apparent.
4-7	Master game basics; go over common “failure points;”	Encourage formation of informal game groups; Encourage semi-structured discussion
8-11	Fostering purposeful game play & communities of inquiry	Consult maps, timelines; discussions that aggregate students’ experiences; geography and history as tools.
12-15	Recursive play and examining Civilization as a simulation	Examine outcome of simulations, compare to history, create presentations
16-18	Finish games	Discuss presentations, aggregate findings across games

Table 7.1 Suggested Curricular Outline for Civilization III

Chapter VIII: Implications

In the past few years, a number of game-based learning initiatives have sprung up, ranging from the Serious Games initiative sponsored by Woodrow Wilson, The Microsoft MIT iCampus Games-to-Teach Project, to more recently, Stanford’s Gaming X workshop. It is almost taken for granted that games are engaging to players and will appeal to a generation of students raised in a fast-paced, changing media environment (Prensky, 2001). At the same time, examining gaming trends in greater depth indicates that there is wide variation in amount that youngsters game, the types of games they play, and the reasons they are attracted to games (c.f. Squire, 2001). Given that game players identify with particular games and genres – to the point where many players play one or two games exclusively – it is not at all clear how any one game would engage an entire class, school, or generation of players. Finally, in the US and indeed in most countries, gaming culture has often arisen as a sub-culture and how these artifacts can be ported into educational environments or how these design features “port” into educational products is not a given.

A goal of this dissertation was to examine some of the issues in using complex, commercial-quality gaming software in classrooms to inform the design of next-generation educational games, as well as explore some theoretical models for understanding the design and enactment of game-based learning environments. This chapter explores the implications of this study for these issues.

Schools have long had an uneasy relationship with popular culture (Jenkins, Squire & Tan, in press). Although television and film are occasionally brought into classrooms, artifacts of popular culture are often looked down upon, if not held in scorn for their commercialism, prurient content, or social values (Jenkins, 2003). Video games are no different. In fact, throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s the bulk of the discourse around games and education focused on how games constrained the play of children, encouraged anti-social behavior, promoted questionable gender roles, or reinforced violent behavior (e.g. Provenzo, 1992). Although a few educational psychologists and technologists were intrigued by games motivational capacity, prevailing attitudes might best be characterized as suspicious toward games.