Replaying history: learning world history through playing

Bringing into classrooms elements of popular culture, which have been marked by cultural critics as cultural pollution and have become associated with anti-establishment values may feel like disingenuous to some, something akin to teaching mathematics with punk rock. Indeed, formal schooling and video game culture are very different activity systems with contradictory values, discourses, and social norms. As Jim Gee (2003) describes in What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, gaming is a complex social practice where computer and video game players routinely engage in complex thinking, the kinds of thinking that most educators want but cannot get students to do in school. As I will argue in this chapter, simply bringing games into school also does not ensure that students will engage in the robust kinds of practices that are typical for many dedicated gamers.

In these two cases, engagement, goal-formation, identity and learning were all entangled, dynamic concepts that shifted in response to the affordances of Civilization III, social groupings, and the superstructure of the classroom. Within the engagement and motivation literature, game play is frequently (and somewhat usefully) boiled down to a handful of variables, namely challenge, fantasy (or context), control, and curiosity. Others might add the social contexts of collaboration and communication (Malone & Lepper, 1985) ; or discuss the importance of how games maintain a dynamic tension between challenge and skills. All of these factors were at play in this case, although I would like to argue that how these goals formed and evolved and related to learning were much more important in describing learning than purely the presence or absence of particular variables. This section explores intersections between engagement and learning and their implications for the design of educational games, arguing that games that need to appeal to a broad market, such as educational games, might benefit by appealing to multiple game tastes.

Game play provided some students who were failing in school but successful in gaming (i.e. Dwayne) opportunities to excel academically in socially-sanctioned ways without giving up their personal values and identity. Most students in these cases said that they found school-based history boring, although once the unit got underway, it was clear that they found some aspects of history interesting, whether it be historical struggles between China and Japan or the history of colonization viewed from native perspectives. Learning through Civilization III gave them ways to explore ideas counter to common myths in American history, as they explored history from the point of view of Egyptian, Native American, or sub-Saharan African civilizations. Many of these students were resistant to authority and dominant state-sanctioned narratives, and learning through playing Civilization III gave them ways to explore history without necessarily giving up power to an instructor or state-sanctioned narratives. In an age of political contestation about world history curriculum, Civilization III is an interesting tool because it affords multiple paths of entry and significant opportunities for student expression through enacting history.

Good games afford multiple forms of play and are playable many different ways, allowing them to be adopted by multiple game tastes. Students each played Civilization III differently, with modes of play varying from student to student and across time. The goals that students formed include replaying (or changing) history, socializing with other students, exploring the globe, building a strong economy, building a dominant civilization, creating an efficient civilization, caring for peoples, meeting other civilizations, competing to see who could last the longest, or simply winning the game. These goals map loosely to game designer Richard Bartle’s four player types in MUDs: achievers (building civilization, economy, winning the game), explorers (exploring the globe, replaying history), socializers (social players, caring for others), and player killers (making it the longest, first to win the game). Players whose primary interest was in caring for other peoples mapped less closely to typical models of engagement (i.e. Lepper), suggest that altruism, or caring for others may be another aspect of motivation (See also Barab in press). Similarly, the act of building could be thought of as a fifth category, a practice much more creative than simply “achievement.” Further, this model does not account for some of the simplest pleasures of game play, such as seeing other civilizations’ clothing or humor. Students found these little touches compelling, and it is critical that educators and designers not overlook the importance of humor, style, and aesthetics in understanding why games are engaging.

Social and aesthetic factors including playing with other students, caring for citizens, meeting other civilizations, and comparing clothing were game factors that tended to attract girls to Civilization. Too often, game designers argue that girls are not gamers because technology-enhanced toys are boys’ toys, girls are not into competition, or games that appeal to girls (i.e. The Sims) are not “real games”. In these cases, we saw many girls show many different relationships to games. Some were initially turned off and became intrigued by the game; others never found anything in the game engaging. In game representations, including the lack of female characters (i.e. settlers) bothered some girls. At the same time, others enjoyed female characters such as Joan of Arc. One of the more interesting findings was that the girl game players picked up on subtle clothing and fashion cues, which represented success. Other games might leverage these kinds of different play styles and tastes, encoding success not only through statistics, armies, or powerful buildings, but through fashion, clothing, or powers to affect interpersonal relationships. Anecdotal evidence from social games suggest that such multiple modes of representation appeal to boys and girls alike, as anyone who has watched Ultima Online players pay a premium for a specifically-colored pair of pants with no functional game value will attest.

The most important point in understanding how games engage players in educational environments may be that good games engage players in multiple ways and the interplay between these different forms create dynamic learning opportunities. Different play styles and tastes enriched classroom conversations, often leading to discussions that produce important “taken-as-shared” meanings; for example, when Dwayne, who might be profiled as a competitor / explorer was quite ruthless in his negotiations with other civilizations, while Tony, an explorer / achiever had compassion for other civilizations and wrangled with decisions about whether to assimilate them into his civilization. Discussions between different player types drove them to articulate and defend different strategies, even rethinking their orientation to the game as when Marvin, a builder / explorer, implored Joey to rethink waging war. Bartle (1999) argues that it is the intersection among player types that makes MUDs compelling play spaces. It is not only that multi-player games are interesting social, exploration, achievement, or competitive spaces, but that interactions of these types creates dynamic play opportunities. Bartle maps out these relationships extensively; educational game designers might map out the multiple ways that games engage players and examine how they recruit players into articulating different points of view, encouraging players to take up differing view points for explicitly educational purposes.⁶²

One way to enhance the pedagogical effectiveness of game-based learning environments would be to create more pairings of different player types in order to help knowledge spread through the environment more quickly, help players confront areas of weakness in their understandings (in the game and in history), and support the formation of knowledge building communities. One can imagine the explorers functioning as “classroom geographers”, sharing knowledge about global resources and the affordances of physical geography with other players. Competitors might research historical cases such as the causes of World War I. Core to this logic is a belief that learning is most effective in game-based learning contexts when it functions as a tool for solving interesting dilemmas. Different students bring different tools to this enterprise. Through grouping and pairings instructors may be able to seed productive conversations where students argue for different theories of history. In these cases, we saw students adopting and defending different interpretations of game events, which could be connected to different positions on history. Finding avenues for students to articulate these views, or perhaps even exploring games with contrasting underlying assumptions may be an effective way for introducing students to historiographical issues. Students in the Media cases began to engage in this kind of talk, constructing arguments about the game as an authored text with inherent biases.

This argument for leveraging different player types draws from limited groups of students playing in very specific contexts. Different cases in different contexts (perhaps using different games) might reveal different goals and different practices. The affordances of Civilization III suggest that there will be consistencies across contexts, and further studies of Civilization III players might reveal such consistencies. Further study is needed in order to understand students’ goals and intentions in game-based learning environments, how these goals are fostered and developed, how they relate to learning, and how they relate to learning, performance and identities across contexts. If anything, these cases reinforce that the “motivating appeal” of games is anything but uniform, but rather malleable and contextual.

As such, game play is a very complex social practice, one that extends far beyond a simple computer-human interaction. Too often, we take a player and the game as a unit of analysis, overlooking the schoolyard talk, internet-based discussion, outside consultation, and mediating cultural factors that circumscribe game practices. For educators, this means that simply designing game structures without attending to how gaming is socially situated will likely prove ineffective. In these cases, Civilization III was appropriated differently across each context. Media studies students did not shy away from adopting strategies of conquest or global domination, whereas the YWCA class played in a much more subdued, school-like manner. Notably, the teacher / researchers attempted to seed several game playing strategies, such as becoming a democracy or replaying history. At times these goals appealed to students, particularly when they were consistent with their interests and identities; other times students rejected them, particularly when they already developed gaming goals.

Playing Civilization III recruited a range of practices, including competitive practices, collaboration, outside research, and using the game as a simulation for playing out power fantasies and understanding history. This power of games such as Civilization III to inspire sharing, criticism, knowledge seeking, and social relationships maybe its most important feature as an educational tool; games such as Civilization III are so complex that they are not easily mastered by any one person. Even broadly accessible games such as Zelda are purported to be designed so that they are unmasterable by one person in order to foster game talk. Educators designing problem-based, case-based or other kinds of challenge-based learning environments can learn from game design practices that inspire different forms of play and then rely on social networks to spread knowledge among players. In each of these cases, local divisions of labors did relatively little to encourage or inhibit such knowledge flows. Having students responsible for joint presentations that glean information from multiple games might be a way to better encourage collaboration and knowledge building.

Game-based learning environments share a good deal in common with problem-based learning, anchored instruction, and goal-based scenarios in that knowledge is mobilized for action. Game-based environments are unique in that knowledge is developed for action in a very specific domain – that of the fictitious universe of games. Indeed, the willing suspension of “normal” rules is a part of game play by definition. How students develop knowledge in the context of game play and how this knowledge is reconstituted in other contexts merits further study. This problem (historically considered the transfer problem) is a problem in any learning context (including problem-based learning environments), although the inherently fantastical nature of game environments may create extra obstacles for students in mobilizing and using knowledge across a diverse range of situations.

Interviews with students showed that students had complex ways of reading their game play off of history and that they framed the game as a simulation, using the game as one of many ways of interpreting specific historical events. Dan, who was among the players most committed to using the game to “replay” history became more familiar with the game concepts and was able to retell a few key facts he learned through the game, such as the importance of horses in history. Ultimately, though, the game only partially mediated Dan’s thinking about historical reasons for colonization, as he considered colonization a cultural issue as well as a materialist one. That playing Civilization III only partially affected Dan’s conception of colonization may also be encouraging to alarmists concerned that games are rewiring kids’ brains; these experiences would suggest that no single gaming experience is going to completely change students thinking. Dan had complex methods for reading Civilization III as a simulation, and he carefully considered where it was useful in understanding historical thinking and where it was not.

Interestingly, the one student whose game play seemed to have a profound impact on his understanding of world history was Marvin, whose game “taught him that war does not pay.” Marvin drew many connections between the game, history, and politics, particularly in regards to war. After playing Civilization III, Marvin thought that nations holding geopolitical power such as the United States had a moral responsibility to ensure world peace. No doubt, a belief as complex and politically charged as this one will continue to undergo transformation as Marvin grows. How these “lessons” from the game evolve with Marvin is worth further study. Seeing students play Civilization III to explore alternative histories, and then develop very different ideas about history, suggests that students have complex ways of reading games, relating game events to personal experiences, politics, previous beliefs, and assumptions about the accuracy of the game model itself. As more and more students grow up playing games such as Rise of Nations, Civilization III, or Age of Empires, it is important to examine how students make such interpretations and what are the long term implications of these interpretations.

Minimally, they may be remediating how students think about history, as suggested by Tony’s comment that “no matter how history ends up it plays by the same set of rules.” Indeed, the rule-based nature of simulations violates some cherished ideas for many historians. The notion of knowledge as a conceptual tool, while increasingly accepted in the sciences, seems to be less common among historians, where preserving the complexity of historical narratives and caution about overextending lessons from one situation to another are the norm. Packaging and presenting narratives such as the causes of World War I into simple just-in-time lectures may reify problematic practices already rampant in most schools, treating complex, debated ideas as settled-upon, decontextualized narrative accounts, or oversimplifying patterns so as to “dehistoricize” them. As Sam Wineburg argues, historians think of historical narratives in very particular ways, looking for contested evidence, counter claims, and perhaps most importantly, historical positionality. Historians are very concerned with identifying participants’ points-of-view and communicating historical uniqueness. Finding ways of incorporating original documents, differing historical accounts, or multiple voices into the learning environment either through direct inclusion in the Civilopedia or through other activities warrants exploration.

Such debates call into question broader questions about why we even teach history. In the wake of the “history as myth” movement, contemporary learning scientists typically call upon history as a worthwhile discipline because it helps contextualize current events, helps students understand argument, and helps them identify other perspectives in historical ways. Implicit in this discussion are arguments for both developing skills in the symbolic manipulations of text (i.e. argumentation) and the requisite skills for participating in a democracy (understanding others’ views, critically evaluating positionality). Most often learning scientists advocate having students write local histories or draw historical interpretations based on authentic documents.

While these activities are certainly valuable, there still remains a large problem space whereby we help students such as those at the Media School develop the broad background knowledge of concepts necessary for studying world history. Playing Civilization III gave them another way into some of these same ideas – examining history and politics from other points of view, understanding relationships between geographical systems and history, and seeing how historical narratives could be tools for solving problems. Historical thinking, as defined by Wineburg (2001) is a textually-mediated process of interpreting original documents and historicizing events. While valuable, historical thinking is only one way of helping students appreciate different perspectives or historicizing current events. Evidence from these cases suggest that games such as Civilization III at least have the potential to reach similar ends. The kinds of thinking these students displayed may share more in common with Jared Diamond’s analyses – patterns of change models of history -- than with traditional historical methods, but they seem to be valuable forms of thinking whereby history is mobilized to understand events. Learning through Civilization III dramatically repositions the role of historical knowledge. History, geography, or economics are tools that can be used for solving dilemmas.
Developing Educational Games

This study examined what happened when a commercial computer game was used as the basis for a unit on world history and may offer insights to projects and programs developing commercial-quality games but for the explicit purposes of learning. This section explores these ideas.

These cases remind us that Civilization III is an enormously complex game that takes dozens, even hundreds of hours to learn and master. Learning even the basics of Civilization took almost twenty hours for these students. This work involved learning new vocabulary such as monotheism or monarchy, the first-order properties of the system (river valleys produce more food), or the interaction of cultural structures and production (i.e. the effect of temples on the growth of organized religion), all of which have value in most world history classrooms and align to curriculum standards. Other properties of the game system such as interface elements or specific strategies (i.e. keep two spearmen in every city) are largely idiosyncratic to the game system and make less sense in formal learning environments. Balancing learning the game system with reflecting on the actual conditions of geography and history was a challenge throughout these cases.

Jim Gee (2003) argues that part of why games are engaging is that they are complex problem-solving environments. One of the primary reasons that Civilization III is so engaging to so many players is that it is so complex and difficult to learn. Once the player has learned all that there is to know about the system, some of the attraction of the game ends. As long as there is any split between learning the game system and having meaningful educational experiences, there may be obstacles to designing educational games that rival their entertainment counterparts in complexity and their ability to engage players. This finding suggests that educators need to work to make interfaces more transparent, or perhaps to make interfaces more similar to tools and resources used in the field so that the experience of learning the interface is one with transferability.

Custom modifications

Custom modifications are one way that educators can experiment with different methods for making games more usable in game contexts. This study used a custom modification constructed by the author to better simulate world history processes. Other options would be to experiment with smaller-scale scenarios which model regions more specifically, provide students more scaffolding through hints or pre-existing structures, introduce concepts more gradually, or limit the number of factors students have to consider at any one time. The possibilities that custom modifications provide are almost endless; in Appendix A I describe an instructional unit developed for an ancient civilizations modification game which is still in development. Custom modifications provide educational researchers doing design experiments wonderful opportunities to tweak variables, share materials, and compare their impact in use. Game modifications, if made open source and freely available to all, could easily be improved, expanded, and modified to meet classroom needs. One can imagine online communities of game using teachers, such as the nascent Teacher’s Arcade (Squire, in press), providing a both a service and a context for researching game development.

This finding also reminds educational game designers of the importance of making game systems open and refinable. Open source programming is one model for making games modifiable certainly with exploring, although this study shows how just providing game modding tools can help instructional designers create educational scenarios using more general purpose game engines. Educational game designers should be pushing the way in this arena, creating mod tools, level design tools, and other tools for teachers and designers to customize tools toward local contexts. If appropriating tools means “redesigning” them for one’s own purpose, then educational software designers need to be aware of the ways in which teachers are using and appropriating their games, and provide tools that are not only sensitive to local needs but flexible and transparent enough to be modified by users.