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 Department Indiana University January 2004 1 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 COPYRIGHT PAGE c (2004) Kurt D. Squire ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3 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 to use contemporary gaming media in formal learning environments. A commercial historical computer strategy game such as Civilization III is an intriguing artifact to examine in classroom contexts because of its wide appeal, design sophistication, and unique affordances as a world history simulation. Civilization III represents world history not as a story of colonial domination or western expansion, but as an emergent process arising from overlapping, interrelated factors. The purpose of this study is to explore what happens when Civilization III, a complex computer game developed in entertainment contexts enters formal learning environemtns. This dissertation presents three naturalistic case studies in which Civilization III was used as the basis for a unit on world history in urban learning environments. I examine how the 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, classroom goals, and the affordances of Civilization III. Civilization III engaged each student in unique 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 the interpretations 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 in world history education, but also the significant, unsolved challenges in integrating such a complex game within classroom settings. _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ 4 Dedication Dedicated to James Douglas and Janet Kretschmer, two people who taught ** 5 Table of Contents I. Introduction 7 II. Game-Based Learning in World History 22 III. Methodology IV. Case 1: The Media School V. Case 2: Media Summer Camp VI. Case 3: After-School Computer Club VII. Conclusions VIII. Implications 6 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 teacher’s 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 7 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 to model 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. 8 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, in Civilization 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 civilization’s 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 9 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 10 theoretical model which accounts for both student-game interactions and student-student interactions. I argue for a cultural-historical approach to understanding learning in gamebased 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 11 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 12 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 the tools, 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 13 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 player’s 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 (Engeström, 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 (Engeström, 1999). Activity theorists enter activity settings, observing and interviewing participants and generating narratives of what activity emerges (e.g. Engeström, 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 14 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 into formal learning environments, particularly, how do gaming practices (e.g., competition, learning through failure) intersect with the practices and culture of formal schooling? 2. How does Civilization III engage players in formal learning environments? 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 afterschool 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 15 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 Stake’s (1995) case study techniques to address these research questions. Stake’s 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 compete with 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). Stake’s 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 Stake’s 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 16 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 gamebased 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 same time, 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 17 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 workingclass backgrounds, populations of students who are known to resist learning history (Loewen, 1995). Many of the Media students were highly resistant to authority, creating some 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, 18 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 to connect 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 19 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 that students 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 20 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-toTeach 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 in world 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 gamebased learning 21 environments. 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 civilization’s 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 one game: 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 22 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-strategygamers) 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 games frequently 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 Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of social learning. I argue that 23 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 (Engeström , 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 theory’s 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 24 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 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. Educational Technology Research on Games and Simulations 25 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 26 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 nonlinear 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 27 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 28 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 fourstep 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 29 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-andpractice 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 30 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 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 1 In reality, it turns out that there is a win-condition for Pac Man. There is only one known instance of someone accomplishing this fear. On July 3, 1999, Billy Mitchell successfully cleared 256 levels without “losing a man” while also gaining each and every power-up along the way. Mitchell’s game took over 6 hours (For more, see: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,20607,00.html). 31 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 computercontrolled 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 32 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 The Sims Civilization Unreal Tournament Final Fantasy Contests Interactive Stories Figure 2.1: Wright’s (2002) typology of contemporary games Wright’s 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. 33 Games as Motivating Contexts for Learning 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 34 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. Cordova and Lepper’s (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 Rieber’s (1996) distinction between exogenous games, in which the fantasy context is largely separated from the problem of the game space and is essentially interchangeable, and endogenous games, in which the gaming context is inextricably linked to the game play. Cordova and Lepper’s 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 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 at least three ways: 1) The game has malleable rule sets that designers can adapt, suggesting that they are in fact creating new games through changing game rules; 2) Even if the game rules are not substantially changed, the core focus of the game remains the same. In this case, the game is largely about marshalling geographic resources, deciding among social objectives (i.e. science, military), and diplomacy; and 3) Simulations are always flexible entities which can be thought of along a continuum of low to high fidelity. Indeed, one can imagine thinking of this Star Wars game as lowfidelity or satirical historical simulation. The upshot of this discussion is that the flexibility of contemporary game tools suggests that Rieber’s distinction may not be as hard and fast as once considered, although I believe that it is still a useful distinction for educators. 35 contextuality for the learner so that the learner is solving authentic, complex problems in the game space. 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 extrinsic motivation 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 Bartle’s (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” 36 (acting on players), “socializers” (interacting with players), “achievers” (acting on the world) and “explorers” (interacting with the world). Walking the reader through the 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 world’s their life. Other game designers seem to agree: Raph Koster, creative designer of Ultima Online and the newly released Star Wars Galaxies, remarked that Bartle’s 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, Bartle’s framework is insightful for educators because it helps specify the particular reasons that participants game in the particular ways they do. Returning to Wright’s 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). 37 Figure 2.2 Bartle’s (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 affective outcomes such as interest, motivation, enjoyment, sense of personal control, and willingness to persevere in completing learning tasks. Cooperative strategies with 38 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 39 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 experiences shape 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 game’s potential to offend goes without saying. 40 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 Livingston’s 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 than high 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 naïve 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, 41 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 paperbased 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. 42 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 43 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 teacher’s 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 studies education that can guide future research: The interdependence of gaming and other instructional strategies. At the educational game design session of the 2002 Game Developer’s 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 44 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 45 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 study how 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 rationale for using games and a sound pedagogical model for implementing them, such comparisons make little sense. Until the details of how such learning environments might be designed are better articulated, there is little rationale for presuming one variable more important than another. 46 The importance of social interactions in the gaming experience. Both common instructional design practice and empirical research on gaming suggest that the social interactions that envelop the formal game structures may be more important to learning outcomes than the game itself (Clegg, 1991; Heinich et al., 1996; Johnson, et al., 1985; Thiagarajan, 1998). Clegg (1991) notes that: There has been virtually no research on such intervening variables as interpersonal relations, leadership, team membership, and the decisionmaking process. Although there has been much theory and research in psychology and organizational development on these topics, there has been no carry over into the studies on simulation in social studies classrooms. Too often debriefing at the end of the game only gets scant attention … (Brooker, 1988) suggested that careful discussion and analysis of the issues during debriefing are as important as playing the game itself (p. 528). While most researchers are quick to recognize the socially situated nature of game play and the pedagogical allure of competitive and cooperative scenarios, most research designs have ignored the social dimensions of gaming. Instead, gaming is treated as a purely 1:1 interaction between the player and the game. Most often, the game is given ontological primacy in this situation and is assumed to transmit its values or embedded knowledge to players who are passive recipients throughout the learning process. The role of players’ goals and intentions are rarely, if ever, addressed and the social and cultural contexts of activity are not described. Indeed, Johnson et al.’s findings (1985) that cooperative game-play is more effective than competitive game-play underscores the importance of examining gaming’s social dimensions. Rethinking Digital Games and Simulations in World History Education 47 Over the past ten years, a new generation of edutainment games like SimCity and Civilization has become available for social studies educators, redoubling interest in using these applications in formal learning environments (Berson, 1996; Hope, 1996; Kolson, 1996; Lee, 1994; Teague & Teague, 1995). The increased graphical, communication, and computational power of desktop computers, combined with the increased design sophistication of computer games and simulations, creates new affordances for supporting learning. Digital games and simulations allow the player to examine the development of social systems in four dimensions (across three-dimensional space plus time) and to participate in such systems from otherwise unattainable perspectives – for example, from the perspective of an all-powerful emperor or the czar of a small island country in Tropico (Squire, 2002). Studies of how such simulation games remediate learners’ understanding of social studies phenomena are now more necessary than ever. Despite the intuitive appeal and growing grassroots popularity of using complex, information-laden, and robust simulation games such as Civilization III in social studies classrooms, little work has been done to connect the affordances of such games to contemporary issues in the learning sciences, particularly issues in the emerging field of world history education (e.g. Stearns, Seixas, & Wineburg, 2000). This section highlights several central concepts in history education, providing readers not familiar with the current discourse within the domain some sense of what issues and ideas have recently emerged. The main argument I make in this section is that historical simulation games such as Civilization III have the potential to address many of these issues. This is not to argue, however, that Civilization III – or any game for that matter – holds all the 48 answers for history education. There are important concerns that social studies educators ought to consider about the properties of games as instructional media. The discussion advanced here is intended to pose questions and open debate informed by world historyspecific pedagogical issues central to contemporary theory and practice, not to offer some panacea for history education in contemporary classrooms. Engaging the Identities of Learners in the Study of History In the past, history has been presumed to be an apolitical enterprise and learning history a linear developmental process whereby students enter the classroom as naïve thinkers and gradually acquire facts in order to eventually become skilled (Downey & Levstick, 1991). After reviewing the literature, Downey and Levstick (1991) suggest that the shallow “cultural literacy” approach to teaching history leads to misconceptions about the nature of the domain and drives students away from its study (see also Barnett, Barab, Schatz, & Warren, 2000; Goodlad, 1984; Greene, 1994; Loewen, 1995; Perkins, 1992; Seixas, 2000). Wineburg (2001) echoes these sentiments, arguing that most psychologically-inspired research in social studies has not been grounded in any recognizable model of expert practice or domain-specific reasoning and problem-solving. Seixas (2000), goes one step further, arguing that what passes as history – the memorization of a collection of facts, causal explanations and sanctioned narratives – might better be described as the construction of myth or heritage than doing history in any real sense. Indeed, critics of the "best story" approach have noted how little this process of “learning history” reflects how actual historians engage in historical inquiry (e.g. Stearns, Seixas, & Wineburg, 2000). Whereas students read textbooks, memorize facts, and recite 49 “ready-made” knowledge, academics, curators, journalists, and social activists consider research topics of theoretical and/or practical importance, consult original sources, produce arguments, interpret data in dialogue with existing theory, and negotiate findings within social contexts (Counsell, 2000; Greene, 1994; VanSledright, 1998). Wineburg (1992; 1999) argues that American students are presented the results of historical inquiry without any appreciation for the tentativeness of contemporary historical claims or the contentiousness of current debates in the field. As a result, the majority of students perceive history as the meaningless recitation of names, dates, and facts established by authorities and fail to understand the methods and practices through which historians construct and judge historical arguments (Seixas, 2000). Not surprisingly, most students dislike studying history, frequently listing history as "the most boring" of all 21 subjects studied in school (Loewen, 1995). Providing Marginalized Students Pathways into World History The most damning implication of this approach can be found where scholars have explored how marginalized or oppressed peoples negotiate these officially sanctioned histories with their lived experiences, family histories, and own interpretations of social conditions. Jim Wertsch and others have found that, even when students “learn” officially sanctioned school histories, they do not necessarily believe it. In the 1990s, Wertsch (2000) did a series of studies interviewing Estonian citizens about their understanding of the USSR’s annexation of Estonia in 1940. Surprisingly, Estonians knew both official and unofficial histories of how Estonia became a part of the Soviet Union, with most citizens knowing far more of the “official” historical account taught in Soviet schools. At the same time, most citizens disregarded this history as false, and instead subscribed to an 50 alternative history that challenged official historical narratives – one that developed through families, folklore, and underground channels. American educators from the critical pedagogy tradition have made similar claims about the teaching of race in American schools, noting that many American students learn officially sanctioned school history but retain their pre-existing beliefs about American history or contemporary culture (Ehman, 1980; Loewen, 1995; McLaren, 1994; Spring, 1991). Drawing on sociocultural theory of learning outlined in Mind as Action (1998), Wertsch distinguishes between students learning history and students appropriating historical texts, arguing that texts serve as “identity resources” that are mastered and employed according to situational demands. Noting Seixas’ (2000) work in Native American schools, Wertsch argues that people in less politically charged environments are frequently less aware of their duplicitous views of history and often call on a variety of historical narratives as needed when interpreting situations. As Wertsch’s study of Estonians would suggest, students come to history with lived histories and social and political identities. Loewen (1995) argues that, when presented with government-sanctioned history, students react in complex ways: On the one hand, many students reject school histories; on the other hand, students also incorporate parts of the received history into their identities. For example, Loewen describes how African-American students in rural Mississippi frequently adopted beliefs (which were reinforced in popular myth and media) that African-Americans were wholly responsible for their relatively impoverished living conditions in the rural South due to laziness, immorality, or stupidity. Critical theorists call this process of adopting the oppressive beliefs of a dominant culture hegemony, and argue that hegemonic histories 51 are one of the ways that social order is maintained. Schools, then, are one of the main social institutions that reify hegemonic structures. A challenge to history educators, then, is how to provide spaces where students can work through these issues of race, power, class, and identity. If Loewen (1995) is correct, then history educators cannot simply ignore prevailing stereotypes, myths, and historical accounts. Students need opportunities for exploring and confronting them, negotiating their lived identities with those promulgated in schools. How to go about this process is not exactly clear: If students come to school disinterested in, skeptical of, or even rejecting school-sanctioned histories, how do we engage students in the hard and painful work of engaging in identity politics – the processes of seeking out and engaging with multiple histories, practicing introspection, and exploring one’s own (multiple) identities? Within a world history context, how do we honor students’ desire to affiliate themselves with cultural traditions (whether European, Native American, Asian, or African) with the very real politics of colonial history? How do we help American students who identify themselves as of European descent understand historical events in a way that enables them to confront their historical and social position in a constructive manner? How do we engage students who identify themselves as having descended from colonized populations in the painful processes of confronting their social and historical positions while in dialogue with school-sanctioned narratives? Providing Background Knowledge An emerging body of research in social studies education shows that students frequently lack the background knowledge necessary to understand even the most basic history texts (Beck & McKeown, 1989). In an important study of how elementary 52 students encounter texts, Beck and McKeown found that concepts that teachers and textbook writers might take for granted, such as the fact that 1765 was about 250 years ago or that the colonists descended mostly from England (or even the fact of where England is, for that matter), were often confusing to students in the most basic ways. Students frequently lack knowledge of basic geographic facts, broad timescales, or familiarity with precise vocabulary (VanSledright, 1998). That students might not know specific names and dates might seem obvious, but Levstik and Barton describe how elementary and middle school world history students might not understand common terms such as cargo, voyage, exploration, encounter, or exchange – terms that litter social studies texts throughout. In reviewing studies of students’ pre-existing understandings of history, VanSledright (1998) concludes that the way in which students’ particular, experiences and unique socio-cultural factors mediate their understandings of history may very well render predicting students’ prior knowledge impossible. VanSledright writes, “these studies demonstrate the vastness of the range of understanding and the broadness of possible influences. To be sure, deriving generalizations from the data these studies produce might one day be possible if this research continues. But for the present anyway, the eccentricities of students’ prior knowledge appear to be the rule; that is, the ideas and images students bring to the learning context vary more than they are similar.” (1998, p. no page) A challenge for history educators, then, is finding ways to acknowledge the differing identities, backgrounds, and experiences that students bring to studying history while also designing learning experiences that meet students on their own terms. Levstik and Barton’s (2001) Doing History describes several approaches to engaging students in the study of history, including personal histories, family histories, using popular media as the basis for investigating history, examining current events in 53 historical contexts, creating history museums, or examining historical artworks. Levstik and Barton expand notions of history education to include modes of inquiry that cut across several fields, including material history, architectural history, cultural history, social history, and political history. One key feature of this approach to history education is respecting both the positionality of students and the activity of historical inquiry itself as socially-mediated intellectual enterprises (VanSledright, 1998). Historians do not ask questions or conduct history in a vacuum: History is always temporally situated through the perceiver’s questions, modes of inquiry, social purposes, and encompassing discursive communities. Levstik and Barton (2001) go one step further, reminding educators that there is no one “field” of history, and that documentarians, military historians, academic historians, preservationist historians etc. each approach their work differently. Depending on the purposes of the historical investigation and the communities of inquiry in which the history is framed, what counts as history might wildly differ. Thus, a challenge for world history educators is how to scaffold students in ways that allow students genuine inquiry. Games as Historical Simulations Models and simulations are commonly used as methods of inquiry in the physical sciences but are only recently being used in the social sciences (Wolfram, 2002). Most often, advocates of modeling and simulation in education emphasize the importance of having students build their own models and simulations rather than use pre-packaged models or simulations (Feurzig & Roberts, 1999). Creating models (and simulations) engages students in iterative cycles of inquiry whereby they ask questions, observe phenomena, construct representations of those phenomena, compare these representations 54 with observed data, construct arguments, and negotiate them within a community of inquiry (e.g. Barnett, Barab, & Hay, 2001). For many science educators, the value of modeling and simulation is not in the content per se but in the modeling-building process itself. As constructed models, digital games such as Civilization III contain representations of phenomena, embedded language, relationships, and ideas that students can explore. As a result, playing model-building and simulation games are a practical way to provide students opportunities to engage in more complex inquiry-based activities than traditional curricula materials provide (Klopfer & Squire, 2003). Simulation games allow players to participate in virtual social systems and to adopt perspectives that they normally may never have access to. In the role-playing simulations Hidden Agenda or Tropico, for example, learners can assume the position of a political leader in a Central American country, learning about economics, history, politics, sociology, and culture in the process. Getting students to adopt such alternative perspectives is a core facet of learning to think historically (Downey & Levstick, 1991; Wineburg, 1992), yet is often difficult to achieve in traditional learning environments. In contrast, games like Civilization III allow students to explore unfolding geographical processes, to investigate the interplay of factors causing social phenomena, and even to view global social systems over thousands of years of time by simply altering the model’s time scale – something not easily accomplished by other means. Simulation games like Civilization III are dynamic visualization and hypothesistesting tools that provide students windows into various causal sequences that are typically obscured. The user can dramatically shifts time scales, for example, speeding up processes that are normally spread out over thousands of years so that long-term 55 consequences of decisions can be not only predicted and also, and crucially, inspected as well. Because Civilization III also serves as an interactive map, players can also examine the interactions of physical features (e.g., waterways, mountains, natural resources) with cultural factors (e.g., trade routes, colonization patterns, war and peace). Their interplay is dramatically highlighted in such games: Cultural boundaries emerge in response to physical boundaries and, in turn, physical geography is shaped by cultural and political forces. In effect, players can experience the interactions of broad factors such as geography, culture, and politics at both the local- and systemic-level, rendering discernible relationship among factors such as natural resource scarcity, international trade, and local politics. Simulation games such as Civilization III, and SimCity allow players to explore the behavior of complex systems that emerges from simple local rules (Resnick, 1994). In Civilization III, players are encouraged to find links between economic, political, geographical, and historical structures as they construct viable strategies for their civilization to flourish by manipulating variables such as tax rates, luxury spending, form of government, or scientific research and observing the results. In SimCity, players learn that there is no one thing that they can do to drive down crime rates, revive an economically struggling system, or raise the standard living of a city as such variables are the product of many complex systemic interactions. Understanding social phenomena from such deep, systemic perspectives in these ways might help students see beyond common stereotypes, scripts, or simplifications of complex historical phenomena. This kind of approach to studying history suggests that games could remediate students’ experience of history in fundamental ways. History is presented not as a body 56 of facts to be memorized but as one unfolding of events among many possibilities. Certainly, game playing is not the only such technique: local histories, family histories, and interpretation of primary documents are techniques that can be used toward similar ends. However, Civilization III may be unique in opening up the annals of history for players to replay history from different angles. As players build a test civilization of their own, developing theories about how their civilization should grow and change. Each choice a player makes for their civilization represents a road not taken, raising questions about how and why historical events may have played out differently. Other strategy games – for example, Antietam or Gettysburg – attempt to simulate historical events with greater fidelity and derive their fun in part through encouraging players to pose hypothetical questions to the game system: Is there some way to lead General Lee to victory at Gettysburg? What might have the impact been on the war had Lee won? In such cases, games provide students opportunities to develop insights about the constructed nature of historical narratives, especially when the retelling happens to be of the history of player’s own real-world civilization. Critiquing the Positionality of Texts All games and simulations are authored texts and, as such, all games and simulations make assumptions and contain biases. As Thiagarajan (1998) reminds us, simulations never can represent reality in an impartial way: they reflect their designer’s conception of reality. Most players become aware of these biases very quickly since they can be manipulated to win the game. For example, SimCity is biased toward public transportation over roadways, reflecting author Will Wright’s fondness for public transportation (Herz, 1997). Of course, all social studies artifacts are texts authored from 57 some particular cultural-historical perspectives. Games, however, unlike textbooks or films, encourage players to identify these biases in order to exploit them. Encouraging players to compare game simulations with their own personal understanding of the phenomena that the game system purportedly represents is one way to encourage reflection on their own life experiences in a framework of alternatives. In such ways, educators can capitalize on a simulation’s bias and inaccuracies in order to foster critical reflection. How students encounter games as authored texts is still largely unknown, yet, regardless of whether an educator embraces world history simulation games or ignores them, they will, in all likelihood, continue to teach students already influenced by such texts. Learning Through Play: Transgressive Play and Liminal Spaces As Gredler (1996) points out, there has been a noticeable lack of any clear connection between educational games and disciplinary theories of knowing – between game design and some coherent underlying theory of learning. The earliest educational games research were mostly based on behaviorist models of learning left implicit or on no underlying theory of learning at all (Gredler, 1996). More recently, Rieber (1996) drawing heavily from Pelligrini’s notions of play (1995), suggests that games might be understood within a constructivist frameworks of learning. Briefly, Rieber describes four lenses for how play might be construed as tools for learning: (a) Play as progress, (b) Play as power, (c) Play as fantasy, and (d) Play as self. While these lenses are useful for thinking about play in terms of different social and psychological aspects, what play “is: remains highly ambiguous. As Brian Sutton-Smith’s (1979) edited interdisciplinary volume on play illustrates, anthropologists, developmental psychologists, and 58 sociologists all define play in terms of their own fields. Even within fields, definitions of play tend to flow from the encompassing theoretical system from which they spring: To a Vygotskian, play may look like a culturally-mediated activity that functions as a tool for mediating childrens’ appropriation of “objectives, motives, and norms of the relations in adult activity” (El’konin, 1971). To a Piagetian, on the other hand, play might look like a cognitive challenge whereby the child is playing through developmental stages, testing out possible new understandings of the world around them much. Consistent with an activity theory approach, I treat play as a cultural-historical activity, grounded in particular historical trajectories of activity and embedded in specific cultural contexts (Hakkarainen, 1999). Drawing from Rieber’s (1996) discussion of play and examining digital gaming as cultural-historical activity, I argue that there are two defining aspects of digital game play activity worth explicitly addressing: (1) transgressive play and (2) liminal spaces. Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen (2003) describe one of the primary satisfactions of game play as its transgressive nature – that is, the way that games allow us to temporarily adopt a fantastical set of rules, some of which may be contrary to the rules of every day life. In Civilization III, I can experiment with imperialistic strategies in a socially sanctioned manner since my activity is bounded within the social space of gaming and it is understood that I might experiment with different ideas (or even identities, e.g. Turkle, 1995). Given known issues with marginalized students resisting dominant historical narratives (e.g. Loewen, 1995), it seems quite possible that digital games could provide intriguing learning opportunities for engaging learners otherwise left outside the predominating narrative and pedagogy. As simulations, games allow 59 learners to ask hypothetical historical questions, such as “Under what conditions might Native Americans have colonized Europe?” or “Under what conditions might the Americas have been ‘Africanized?”. As such, perhaps it is important to look at Civilization III as a culturally-mediated object (or medium) and not merely another technology (Games-to-Teach Team, 2003). This notion of transgressive play suggests that the proper way to think about game spaces is not as information conduit spaces but as experimental spaces, spaces where learners can take on new identities. These spaces might be described as liminal spaces, drawing from anthropologist Victor Turner’s (1969) notion of liminality, which are chaotic, ritual spaces such as pilgrimages, walk-abouts, or retreats that exist between reality and other-worlds and where social norms are suspended. The suspension of conventional mores creates a hybrid social space where participants can reflect on society and themselves within it. As such, liminal spaces are sites for learning; they are cultural spaces where identities may be formed and transformed. Game designers such as Warren Spector (cited in Au, 2001) have already recognized this potential. The preceding discussion of issues in world history education and how they intersect with the affordances of digital games is meant to be provocative rather than conclusive: Research on how such games align (or misalign) with students’ development of a historical understanding is, in truth, largely absent. Until such work is successfully underway, there is no justifiable basis on which to claim that digital games are or could be a solution to challenges history educators face. Historical simulation games such as Civilization III have the potential to support learning in social studies. Like all educational technologies, however, they also have their limitations and drawbacks. 60 Limitations of Games as Learning Tools Despite their potential to support learning, game-based environments also have pose serious limitations. As the preceding review highlights, the research on games in social studies, though largely inconclusive, does suggest that game playing can be less effective than more traditional pedagogies in particular ways and in particular contexts. For example, students sometimes fail to build meaningful connections between simulation game activity and the real-world phenomena the simulation is meant to represent. Games can also sometimes foster ruggedly competitive cultures among players, thereby stifling cooperation and collaborative peer learning. And for learners adverse to that kind of rivalry, such competitive contexts can be downright alienating. In the following section, I examine some of these drawbacks and limitations. Oversimplification in game systems. By their very nature, simulation games simplify reality (as do historical narratives, case studies, or documentaries). Simplifications themselves are not inherently bad: They allow researchers or students to remove extraneous variables (noise) in order to reveal the most important variables and central features of the system (Colella, Klopfer, & Resnick, 2001; Roughgardner, Bergman, Shafir, & Taylor, 1996). However, simplification in simulation games are peculiar in that they abstract complex systems such as monetary reserves into hypothetical units such as gold. In Civilization III, multiple agricultural production systems are abstracted into “food” production, and knowledge production is abstracted into “science.” How students interpret such simplifications is not clearly understood, particularly in a simulation game as dense and complex as Civilization III, which 61 attempts to capture multiple complex variables within a single simulation and, as a result, necessarily abstracts out important levels of complexity. The semiotics of game play. Clegg (1991) identifies a pattern of students not using knowledge developed in game playing contexts in other contexts. From a semiotic standpoint, this phenomenon might be understood as players learning the symbols of the game system but being unable to tie those symbols back to their real world referents. One way of countering this is to supplement game play with learning activities in which players explicitly examine the actual referents of the social phenomena represented in the game. Teachers can accomplish this by supplementing game play activities with case studies, videos, primary documents, or just-in-time lectures. Minimally, researchers need to ask whether players are only learning the representational system within the game or if they are, more crucially, learning about the historical system the game is intended to represent. Are players merely becoming adept at manipulating the game’s sign system or are they also developing understandings of the phenomenon depicted by the simulation? Competitive structures: Engaging or stifling? Not all students are motivated by competitive structures; in many cases, competition can even be counter-productive to fostering learning. In their study of game players, Johnson et al. (1985) find that competitive structures were less successful than cooperative and collaborative structures in supporting learning. Games such as Civilization III have win conditions, lose conditions, and high scores make students’ progress public. In some instances such public display of performance can be motivating (e.g. Schwartz, Lin, Brophy, & Bransford, 1999); in other instances, such competition and reward can stifle students’ interest in learning (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). Even in one player games such as 62 Civilization III, the existence of high scores and win/lose conditions can feed competitive interactions among players. Johnson et al.’s work reminds researchers that competitive structures do not affect all players evenly: frequently the populations adversely affected are non-competitive players (Provenzo, 1991) which, in American contexts, have historically been predominantly women. Cultural assimilation of tools. Most research on games and simulations has treated the social contexts of game play as if they were purely a function of the game itself. Research in the use of other instructional materials, however, suggests that existing classroom cultures are powerfully persistent and can easily assimilate new tools into the present activity system. Case in point: My colleagues and I (Squire et al., 2003) examined how teachers used a project-based, online learning environment that employed modeling and simulation activities in four classroom contexts. The curriculum was designed to afford collaborative learning activities and to be used with collaborative communities of inquiry. However, the existing classroom cultures persisted through the month long units, assimilating the new tools and resources into the predominant activity systems. Such research suggests that investigators studying game play need to acknowledge the primacy of local context and activity systems in shaping the cultures of play that emerge when games are used in classrooms. Minimally, we need to acknowledge the fact that learning contexts are created through activity and therefore are not purely a function of a particular tool. Rather, classroom contexts are created by students and teachers actively engaging in particular activities which include interactions with texts, media, and conceptual frameworks that extend out into (or are reflective of) the broader school, community, political and cultural contexts (Engeström , 1993). 63 Complexity of games. Computer games such as Civilization III are complex artifacts that have evolved over decades of interactions between designers and users ; as such, they embody a good deal of complexity and require substantial relevant knowledge and skill. Contemporary strategy games contain dozens of interface controls and screen elements that, combined, can take several hours to master. Much of the learning occurs through failure as players form goals, devise strategies, see the outcomes of their play, and then revise strategies. Although most have tutorials and contextual help, such games are meant to be complex systems that require hours of trial-and-error experimentation and complex problem-solving to be learned. As Jim Gee (2003) notes, games are designed to be difficult, to provide novel experiences. Game players have devised a number of strategies in reaction to this complexity, relying on affinity groups, tutorials, fan sites, and even player-created models to understand game systems. Just learning to play the game, then, can be a consuming part of any game-based learning unit. Providing students adequate scaffolding while, at the same time, allowing them to explore and learn game dynamics on their own, can be a balancing act. Yet some claim such tempered assistance is a fundamental part of the appeal of games and what makes them effective tools for learning in the first place (Gee, 2003). Regardless, few educators (or researchers, for that matter) would be satisfied with students learning game mechanics at the expense of domain content. Gaming cultures vs. school cultures. My final caveat may very well be the most serious: Game practices and game culture may very well be at odds with predominant schooling practices. Gamers frequently collaborate, compete, share information, swap stories, and compare games. The lock-step, ‘everyone at once’ nature of most educational 64 environments means that teachers have little flexibility in creating novel learning environments, even if and when those environments have been shown to be more conducive to learning. In the case of games such as Civilization III, gamers frequently play for multiple hour stretches. A teacher wanting to use the game as a tool for learning in their own course faces the decision of either struggling to arrange some two or three hour stretch of time for students to game or running the risk of pulling students out of the activity right when they are finally settling in. How the culture of gaming translates to educational contexts – and the types of practical challenges (and solutions) that emerge as a result – is in dire need of further examination if games are ever to constitute a viable alternative to textbooks and, at (multimedia, interactive) best, film. Summary In the introduction to this chapter, I argued that computer games such as Civilization III are a powerful but untapped resource for supporting learning in social studies. Already, millions of players are exploring digital representations of social phenomena through games like Pirates!, Sim City, and Civilization III. Despite a lack of interest in games from current educational researchers, numerous other varied interest groups – teachers, students, community leaders, journalists, and even political leaders – are very intrigued by the possibility of using games to support learning. The research on games and simulations in the 1960s and 1970s, however, suggests that some social studies educators’ trepidation toward games is well founded. Studies conducted throughout this era fail to show any significant learning gains from gaming and, likewise, fail to produce any compelling rationale or theoretical framework for using them in the first place. However, contemporary educational research appears to be revitalizing this 65 area of research, suggesting new theoretical motivations for using games, more robust pedagogical models for supporting learning through game play, and new research models for developing and evaluating these models. On a final note, a word or two should be said about the alternative option to using commercially available games to support learning: developing games explicitly designed for education. The primary challenge to the development of explicitly educational games from the ground up is that most contemporary games have development budgets in the millions. Our preliminary research from the Games-to-Teach project (Squire, Chisholm, & Jenkins, unpublished) indicates that, if educational games were to ever succeed, they would need to produce products of the same technological caliber as those found on the market today. Expecting students to be engaged by shoddily produced educational games with flawed designs or questionable graphical, auditory, and interactive quality is much like expecting students to be enthusiastic about watching grainy, illegible, and muffled filmstrips. 3 Generating the capital to develop and support such games, however, is difficult without a strong business model in addition to a strong underlying pedagogical model and game design. In contrast, commercially available edutainment games (i.e. entertainment games with pedagogical potential) such as Civilization III are readily available for implementation in classrooms. Moreover, whereas university or government funded products are frequently doomed to short-term use limited to research settings, often abandoned once the funding dries up, educational resources produced for I am not suggesting that students are turned off by simple games or low-budget games. In fact, “classic” games such as Super Mario Brothers and Tetris were very popular among our respondents. However, students frequently shared stories of poorly balanced, aesthetically unappealing, buggy educational games and argued vehemently for the production of quality edutainment games in their stead. 3 66 entertainment such as the Bell Labs Science Films, Donald in Mathemagicland, or Nova are commonly used in classrooms for decades. Game Play as Cultural-Historical Activity As I described previously, most prior research on the use of games and simulations to support learning within social studies classrooms is not organized within a coherent theoretical framework. As Margaret Gredler (1996) points out in her aptly-titled chapter “Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a research paradigm,” on the whole, advocates of game-based learning have avoided connecting the use of games and simulations to theories of learning and building a theoretical rationale for using games. Instead, appeals to game-based learning have been made on pragmatic grounds such as common-sense assumptions that gaming environments might appeal to learners (Prensky, 2001). However, embedded in these implementations are implicit assumptions about what constitutes knowledge, learning, and effective instruction. Most often, these studies have drawn on objectivist traditions of knowledge (see Dick, 1991 or Duffy & Jonassen, 1991 for a critique of this position). More recently, Rieber (1996) has attempted to connect game play to play in general, drawing from developmental psychological, sociological, and cultural notions of learning. However, play is such a broad (and perhaps self-referential) way of thinking about game play that it has thus far failed to yield any immediate suggestions for how learning might be facilitated through games and simulations. In the previous section, I suggested how games might be used to address a variety of issues of concern to social studies educators. To be sure, these critiques of 67 contemporary social studies education have not developed in a theoretical vacuum; rather, they have grown out a broader concern in recent educational research regarding students’ inability to use information supposedly learned in school in their daily activities (Gardner, 1991; Resnick, 1987) based, according to the recent literature, on two main factors: the contextually impoverished nature of most learning environments (Salomon, 1993), and the severance of school activities from legitimate participation in social practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Such concerns are grounded in constructivist notions of knowing and learning, notions that are historically rooted in the pragmatic philosophy of Dewey (1938; c.f. Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). For the purposes of this dissertation, learning is conceptualized as participation in activity (Lave & Wenger, 1991). From this perspective, knowing is not the assimilation or absorption of information but rather an emergent, situated phenomena constructed from moment to moment and indelibly tied to local immediate goals, constraints, and contexts (Whitson, 1997). From this perspective, knowing and doing are inextricably linked. As Dewey (1929) argues, “We are so accustomed to the separation of knowledge from doing and making that we fail to recognize how it controls our conceptions of mind, of consciousness and of reflective inquiry” (p. 22). From this perspective, concepts are tools created for and constituted by the processes of every day activity (Barab, Hay, Barnett & Squire, 2000). So too from this perspective, examining learning becomes less a process of measuring isolated facts and skills in highly controlled laboratory settings, and more a matter of examining how humans actually perform in rich, authentic, purposeful contexts. 68 Game-Based Activity The few researchers who have studied patterns of game consumption in everyday contexts report results that some may find surprising. In 1985, Mitchell gave twenty families new Atari 2600 gaming consoles and found that game systems had positive impact on family interactions. Most families played the game systems together, using the game as a mediating artifact for shared leisure activity. Instead of leading to poor school performance or strained family interactions, video games were a positive force on family interactions, “reminiscent of days of Monopoly, checkers, card games, and jigsaw puzzles” (Mitchell, 1985, p.134). Indeed, most game designers acknowledge that digital game playing is fundamentally and thoroughly social. With roots in board games, face-toface role-playing games, sports, and arcades, many games are conceptualized by designers from their very inception in terms of “memorable moments” that can be shared with other players (Jenkins, in press; Salen & Zimmerman, 2003). Again, video game play is more than simply a human-machine interaction; such play is embedded in social and cultural interactions that are perhaps more important in determining the type of activity – hence, learning– that emerges than the game itself. Examining cultural-historical activity in dynamic settings demands that researchers recognize and capture the cultural patterns operating in a given learning environment and query how such patterns mediate experience. Therefore, in this dissertation, I explore not only how the game Civilization III functions as a tool mediating players’ understandings of social/historical phenomena but also (and just as crucially) how the context of game play affects the learning that occurs. Perhaps an 69 example scenario illustrates this best: Imagine a situation where a student playing Civilization III is struggling to develop her civilization and, toward that end, decides to attack another civilization. As a researcher, I am very interested in understanding the player’s experience with Civilization as a designed object, particularly in how she experiences the events happening within the game, how she reflects on these experiences, and what, if any, consequences this activity has on her understanding of how and why nations wage war. At the same time, however, the student’s local culture will mediate what understandings she makes of her in-game experiences – what meaning they are ascribed – perhaps by eschewing global military domination or by encouraging victory at whatever cost. One might also imagine how, ideally, a reflective community of inquiry might arise within the classroom in which students are encouraged to use the game selfconsciously as a means of exploring and reflecting on social phenomena constantly ongoing dialog with the teacher and their peers. Socio-Cultural Learning Theory As the title of Gredler’s piece suggests, game theorists have long struggled to develop a theoretical vocabulary for understanding games. In this study, I adopt a sociocultural, neo-Vygotskian framework for understanding learning. From this perspective, learning is a social process, arising through social practice. Vygotsky (1981) argued that language develops in children first as a social enterprise – as a means of communicating over shared actions with adults. In his "genetic law of cultural development," Vygotsky claimed that language first appears interpsychologically (in interaction between people) and only later as an intrapsychological (internal, personal) achievement. In a bold move, Vygotsky proclaimed that, "social relations or relations of people genetically underlie all 70 higher functions and their relations" (1978, p. 163). Vygotsky also introduced the notion of the “mediating artifact” – cultural symbols, tools, or signs that serve as the means by which we interact with the environment and one another (Figure 2.3), arguing that mental functioning arises as a means of interacting with and understanding the environment and that language arises as a symbol system for interacting with and understanding one another. From this perspective, consistent with more recent socio-cultural formulations of learning (e.g. Lave & Wenger, 1991), learning is conceptualized as a socialpsychological problem as opposed to a psychological one alone. How to educate learners is not seen as how to build representations in the head, but how to engage learners in social practice. Knowledge, from this social perspective is socially and culturally situated, meaning that knowledge arises from social needs, fulfills social functions, and is inherently tied with cultural conditions, as cultural artifacts in the form of language, symbols, and scripts constitute our cognition (Cole, 1996; Gee, 2003). Knowledge is thus tied to and rooted in specific social groupings (commonly called communities) (Wenger, 1998). Thus, learning is not just a process of mastering facts, or even doing complex tasks, but rather, participating in social practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Participating in social practice demands that learners develop identities in relation to these communities. The issue of identity in learning has come under increasing interest in educational psychology and cognitive science circles (c.f. Gee, 2000-2001). Wenger (1998) argues that learning, practice, participation, community, and identity are all overlapping, entwined concepts, any one of which one cannot speak of without invoking the other. To learn means to engage in a social practice of some sort (whether it be taking a physics test 71 or designing a rocket), and any display of this practice is to participate in communities. Gee (2000-2001) argues that identity and social groupings are central to learning, but perhaps psychologists have rushed to assume that such participation always demands any “community” in any traditional sense of the term. In any one point of time, we participate in several overlapping social groups, or in Gee’s terms, affinity groups. Affinity groups are collections of people who gather around specific practices or tasks. Gee contrasts affinity groups with communities, which, in anthropological terms, include very specific social organization, including (multi-generationality) methods for initiating new members. The main point of invoking Gee is not only to avoid problems in tying all learning and practice necessarily to established communities, but also to highlight the importance of grounding notions of learning and identity in real settings (as opposed to the idealized or abstract). Adopting a socio-cultural approach to examining learning through a single player game may seem odd, but I believe that it is a useful (and perhaps necessary) step in examining learning through games. A socio-cultural approach expands the investigation to not just look at the student playing a game, but to the purposes behind game play. game play is viewed not as a purely human-computer interaction, but as a socio-cultural phenomena mediated by classroom microcultures and social contexts, including classroom culture. Socio-cultural theory points us to examining students’ goals and intentions in game play, including their developing identities as game players and students, and forces us to consider how these identities interact with learning. As a result, knowledge is conceptualized as tools for doing work in the world. 72 One way to consider learning from a socio-cultural perspective is through activity theory, a theory of activity (and hence learning) that grew out of the social psychology of Leo Vygotsky who was interested in the social roots of cognition. In this chapter I propose activity theory as a useful theoretical lens for understanding game play in that it provides researchers a theoretical framework for understanding how human activity is mediated by both tools (such as games) and cultural context (such as classroom microcultures or affinity groups) (Engeström, 1987; 1993; Leont’v, 1989; Squire, 2002). Activity theory is a social psychology theory with roots in three distinct traditions: 1) German philosophy (i.e. Kant, Hegel), particularly the notion of the Hegelian dialectic, 2) Marxist historical sociology, and 3) Vygotskian psychology. As Engeström (1999) and other activity theory scholars have noted, activity theory also has affinities with other intellectual traditions, particularly American pragmatic philosophy, Wittgenstein, ethnomethodological research, and self-organizing theory. Activity theory is a useful starting point for understanding games because it provides a language for discussing the role games play within the social context in which they are situated, in particular focusing analysis on how competing forces drive change in within a system. Artifacts and Tools Subject Object Figure 2.3: Artifacts and tools as mediational forms. 73 Knowledge as Tools From a social-psychological perspective, knowledge is a tool used to mediate our relationships with the world around us. Consistent with a pragmatic epistemology (Dewey, 1929), knowledge does not exist independent of use and cannot be separate from how and why it develops. For example, Barab and colleagues (2001) examined how learning occurred in two modeling environments, showing how knowledge developed as a tool for activity and arguing that separating “knowing” from “doing” is essentially meaningless. “We are so accustomed to the separation of knowledge from doing and making that we fail to recognize how it controls our conceptions of mind, of consciousness and of reflective inquiry” (Dewey, 1929). Like Barab and his colleagues, socio-cultural theorists are now, to a large extent, simply reclaiming and developing on this legacy of Dewey (e.g. Gee, 1992; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Conceiving of knowledge in this way also challenges common conceptions of its structure. As Barab and his colleagues (2001) argue, knowledge severed from its functional use value in the world is not really “knowledge” at all. Tackling traditional notions of concepts, Barab et al. describing how this fundamental unit of knowledge in traditional cognitive psychology cannot be treated as isolated entities cleaved from the contexts from which they arise: We believe that the treatment of concepts as disembodied entities separate from practice and particular environments leads to circular relations in which meanings become self-referential; that is, their meaning is dependent on the internal structures and relations among characteristics of the concept itself as opposed to relations with the environmental conditions that the concept was meant to characterize… In contrast, we view concepts as intellectual tools that are best understood in terms of the learner practices in which they are actualized and in terms of the 74 intertwined relations among the concept and local environmental conditions. Said succinctly, concepts both constitute and are constituted through situated activity. (p. 52). Consistent with Hutchins (1995), concepts are therefore rooted in and distributed across the situations in which they arise. Because knowledge is inescapably linked to context, a central project of educational psychologists ought then to be understanding contextuality – examining the boundaries of context and its relationship to knowledge itself (Barab & Kirschner, 2001). If concepts are intellectual tools, then knowledge can be understood as a process of appropriation – the process of coming to not only understand how to use a tool but also the purposes for which it was originally intended (Wersch, 1998). As Wertsch (1998) points out, one cannot assume that just because an individual uses a tool that they therefore have appropriated it: “Cultural tools are not always facilitators of mediated action, and agents do not invariably accept and use them; rather, an agent’s stance toward a mediational means is characterized by resistance or even outright rejection” (p. 144). Central to Wertsch’s notion of appropriation is that subjects not just understand how to use a tool, but that they appropriate tools for specific purposes – they know how and when to use a tool. Building on the work of de Certeau (1984), Wertsch argues that consuming a tool is itself a productive act in that users of tools are always, in some sense, remaking the tool as they make it their own. Thus, learning or appropriation of tools is fundamentally a creative act, an act of invention. Invention, typically seen as a hallmark of Piagetian psychology, is therefore also present in the socio-cultural research inspired by Vygotsky (Cole, 1996; Wertsch, 1998). 75 Mediating Tools and Artifacts In the final years of his life, Vygotsky wrote, “the central fact about our psychology is the fact of mediation (1982, p. 166, cited in Cole & Wertsch, n.d.). Mediational processes are those involving the potential of tools to shape action (Wertsch, 1998). One way to think about the role that tools (including knowledge) play in cognition is using this notion of “mediating artifacts ” – tools and artifacts that shape our experiences of the world, creating opportunities for (inter)action. Vygotsky (1982, cited in Cole & Wertsch, n.d.) explains some of the primary implications of mediating means in the following way: The inclusion of a tool in the process of behavior (a) introduces several new functions connected with the use of the given tool and with its control; (b) abolishes and makes unnecessary several natural processes, whose work is accomplished by the tool; and alters the course and individual features (the intensity, duration, sequence, etc.) of all the mental processes that enter into the composition of the instrumental act, replacing some functions with others (i.e., it re-creates and reorganizes the whole structure of behavior just as a technical tool re-creates the whole structure of labor operations) (1982, pp.139-140). This notion of mediating tools and artifacts is useful for thinking about the use of games in world history as it provides a theoretical language for talking about the new kinds of intellectual insights that can be gained by studying world history through the prism of gaming. Central questions for this research project, then, become: How does mediation occur? What are the implications of Civilization III as a mediating artifact? What are the effects of its inclusion on activity, and what learning emerges from Civilization IIImediated activity. A computer game such as Civilization III is an intriguing mediating artifact in that, when brought into educational contexts, it can serve as a low-fidelity simulation of 76 world history (Thiagarajan, 1999). Civilization III obviously cannot model the entirety of human experience from 4000 BC to the present with any high degree of accuracy; therefore, gross simplifications are introduced. Important questions persist on how students make sense of such simplifications and how they connect game play experiences to the domain of world history more broadly. Educators and media scholars alike need to better understand students’ processes for making sense of their game play experiences and how such games, as mediational means, shape those processes. Toward this end, we need a theoretical language for understanding the potential meanings of games – the semiotic patterns that they make possible – which honors both the complex symbolic systems that constitute the game as well as the fundamentally constructive, interpretive nature of (learning through) game play. When considered as a simulation, Civilization III is what Marx Wartofsky (1973, cited in Cole, 1996) calls tertiary artifacts, a special class of artifacts “...which can come to constitute a relatively autonomous 'world', in which the rules, conventions and outcomes no longer appear directly practical, or which, indeed, seem to constitute an arena of non-practical, or 'free' play or game activity” (Wartofsky, p. 208). Engeström (1990, cited in Guy, 2003) maps Wartofsky’s notion of artifacts onto Leont’ev’s (1981) three-level hierarchy of activity: Primary artifacts are tools used to directly mediate subject-object relations (such as a computer simulation mediating understandings of world history). Secondary artifacts are used to remediate the use of primary artifacts (such as a Civilization III user’s manual). Tertiary artifacts are imaginary or visionary artifacts that give “identity and overarching perspective to collective activity systems” (Engeström, 1990, p.174). From this perspective, Civilization III is a primary artifact 77 when used as a tool for game play and a tertiary artifact when used to remediate understandings of world history. Tertiary artifacts – imagined worlds – can mediate our understandings of the actual world, functioning as a tool for changing practice within it: “modes of behavior acquired when interacting with tertiary artifacts can transfer beyond the immediate contexts of their use” (Cole, 1996, p.121. Collins, Shukla, and Redmiles (2001) identify four primary ways that such artifacts mediate objects. Tertiary artifacts can mediate (1) what happens (contributing to a means of achieving the object), (2) how mediation happens (understanding how to achieve the object), (3) why mediation occurs (motivating the achievement of an object) or (4) where-to (motivating the evolution of all elements of an activity system). One might argue that, from Engeström ’s framework, the key in designing learning activities is to use a tool such as Civilization III not only as a primary artifact for game play but also, and perhaps more critically, as a tertiary artifact for reflecting on history as a whole. While I agree with Cole’s optimism about how tertiary artifacts might change practice, in the case of Civilization III at least, there is also the chance that the meaning making that happens within the game world remains there, never connected up to real world events and experiences beyond it. Even if students appropriate Civilization III as a tertiary artifact, there is no guarantee that they will interpret game symbols in the manner that educators hope; for example, students may not spontaneously make connections between the game economic system and the economic processes of “real life.” Peirce’s semiotics provides one lens for examining how this might occur. Peircean Semiotics 78 Peirce’s semiotics (1897/1985) provides a theoretical framework for understanding the potential meanings embodied in games and a broader language for describing the cognitive processes of mediation that avoids dualisms between subjects and objects, readers and texts, and potentially, consumers and producers. 4 Peirce describes all thought interactions as semiosis, the production of signs. For Peirce, the sign (or representamen) is “something that stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity” (1897/1985; p. 5). Meaning might be thought of as the dynamic relationship among the object (that which is stood for), the interpretant (the creator or interpreter of the sign), and the referring sign itself. As Houser and Kloesel write, “(For Peirce) the sign relation is fundamentally triadic: eliminate either the object or the interpretant, and you annihilate the sign” (P. xxxvi). Key to Peirce’s semiotic is the notion that the sign mediates the relationship between the interpretant and the object. Peirce’s semiotics enables theorists to recognize that meaning is inherently inseparable from the purposes and the conditions from which it arises and grounded in both the objects and the interpreters, avoiding traditional intellectual dualisms between the knower and the knowable by recognizing that a cognitive representation is neither a direct representation of an object, nor wholly ungrounded in reality. His semiotics suggests a logical and theoretical framework for avoiding the dualistic conundrum facing media theorists and educators who struggle with locating meaning in readers’ interpretations or in the text themselves. In terms of games, Peirce provides a language for talking about at least two inter-related semiotic processes: (1) How game designers (subjects) create game signs (the signs produced) meant to embody real world 4 It is worth noting that I am avoiding the Sausserian, or European notion of semiotics, which Whitson (1997) and Cunningham (1992) characterize as dualist in origins. 79 phenomena (the object which is represented), and (2) How game players (subjects) produce meaning (the sign) from game systems and (objects which are represented). Educators using games hope that students will eventually make the semiotic leap of making inferences about the world (i.e. world history) through the game as a mediating artifact that produces signs about the world (See Figure 2.4.) Historical Referents Game designer Civilization III Students Figure 2.4 Semiotic Relations in Civilization III In the case of Civilization III, a theory of signs provides a language for understanding how meaning is created through game play, suggesting that meaning making is a process distributed across the player (subject), the game (both the sign and the object), and world history (the object). Signs are created through game play as players, for example, observe a civilization located in North America flourishing due to ample food resources, creating a sign denoting the relationships between food production and civilization growth. A new chain of semiosis may occur as players observe the relationship between food production and civilization growth, but then go on to question why Native American civilizations did not resist Old World colonialists. Civilization III itself contains complex semiotic relations; game designers represent everything from physical objects (e.g., mountains) to complex social processes (e.g., agriculture) through iconic symbols (the properties of Civilization III as a mediating artifact are discussed 80 further in Chapter III). The main point of this discussion, however, is to underscore the fact that game symbols are the product of a triarchic relationship, not purely a property of the game but rather of processes crucially including the player (interpretant) as well. Civilization III, like any game, holds multiple potential interpretations depending on the player as well as the availability of potential objects to which it might refer.5 For Peirce (and Vygotsky), knowing and thinking (intrapsychological processes) are, at root, processes of manipulating signs. Although Peirce certainly examined the semiotic process, articulating and classifying types of signs, he was also interested in the inter-relationships between signs and their mediating role in thought and communication. Peirce noted that the product of one semiotic process, such as the intepretation of a text, could become the object of another sign process, such as interpretation of that interpretation, which, when mediated by signs and an interpretant, could yield further signs. Therefore, consistent with Johnson et al. (1985), a semiotic perspective suggests that the successful game-based learning environment produces far-reaching chains of semiosis where players think beyond the game context to consider specific examples, patterns, and relationships between history phenomena. The propensity of such environments resides not in the game itself but in activities that occur within and in addition to the gaming experience as well as the culture of the game-playing environment itself. In short, the context of the game play is an integral part of the game play activity. From a pedagogical perspective, the culture of the game environment may be far more important than the game itself in producing inferences about history. Researchers attempting to examine how game play supports learning must consider how game playing This last notion – that the range of potential objects affects the signs that can be produced – may seem counterintuitive; however, one can imagine how the emergence of the field of world history changes the potential meanings that Civilization III has as a mediating artifact. 5 81 actions remediate understandings of phenomena, but they must also attend to the cultural contexts that situate these actions. Cultural historical activity theory in valuable for such research in that it provides a lens for examining how a game like Civilization III remediates players’ understandings of social studies phenomena without subscribing to a transmission model of communications that denies human agency, assigning the game primacy in directing human activity, or ignoring the critical importance of context in shaping game-playing activities. Activity Theory If culture mediates activity and thinking, then it is useful to understand how these broader contexts shape activity. Activity theory is one model for looking at human activity in social context. Consistent with the work of Vygotsky, activity theorists argue that understanding the social organization of work and labor is central to understanding cognition. Activity theorists take human activity – understood within its mediating social and economic contexts and encompassing humans’ use of mediating artifacts including tools, language, and one another – as the minimal meaningful object of analysis. Building on the work of Vygotsky, activity theorists attempt to account for both the role of mediating artifacts as well as broader social and cultural structures in activity and hence cognition. The activity system triangle, the visual depiction of an activity system which has been used as a visual representation and organizer for thinking about activity, takes Vygotsky’s basic triarchic relation among subject, object and mediating artifact and adds a second level of mediation, that of socio-cultural mediation (See Figure 2.4). Most activity theorists acknowledge that cultural mediation is central to Vygotsky’s thought and see this addition as an acknowledgment of the role of culture in Vygotsky’s thinking. 82 Activity theory explicitly extends Vygotsky’s model to human activity systems, drawing on several intellectual traditions, perhaps most notably Marxist social-historical approach. Central to activity theory is the notion of object – that purpose, goal, or need that organizes activity. An object might be a sick patient undergoing health care, a student sitting in a class being taught history, or an historical question which is the object of inquiry (Engeström , 1987). Leont’v (1978) notes that the notion of object is inherent to that of activity: it is impossible to have activity without an anticipated outcome, goal, or other organizing purpose. He also distinguishes among three levels of analysis: 1) activities which communities carry out toward objects or motives, 2) actions which individuals conduct toward their goals, and 3) operations which humans or machines routinely carry out depending on the conditions in which the action is performed. The object of a system, such as teaching students world history, makes certain goals and actions possible, such as students listening to a lecture or play an educational video game. The particular conditions of this action – for example, playing the video game – create specific operations, such as clicking on the mouse, reading books, or discussing historical facts. Activity theory provides a framework for understanding the broad social forces that shape activity, actions, and operations, and how these social needs manifest themselves in local activity. For an activity theorist, the minimal meaningful context is the dialectical relations between human agents (subjects) and that which they act upon (objects) as they are mediated by tools, language, and socio-cultural contexts (Engeström 1987; 1993). A generic activity theory system is portrayed in Figure 2.5. Subjects are the actors who are 83 selected as the point of view of the analysis. Objects are that "at which the activity is directed and which is molded or transformed into outcomes with the help of physical and symbolic, external and internal tools" (Engeström, 1993, p. 67, emphasis in the original). As such, objects can be physical objects, abstracted concepts, or even theoretical propositions. Tools are the concepts, physical tools, artifacts or resources that mediate a subject’s interactions with an object. The community of a system refers to those with whom the subject also shares transformation of the object; the cultural-historical communities in which a subject’s activity is situated. Communities mediate activity through division of labor and shared norms and expectations. Artifacts / Tools Subject Rules (formal and informal) Outcomes Object Community Division of Labor Figure 2.5: Visual Depiction of an Activity System Understanding the basic components of an activity system can be a useful way of mapping and categorizing key components of experience. However, for activity theorists, it is not the presence of these components in isolation that make for meaningful analysis but rather the interactions among these components. Engeström (1993) refers to such 84 relations as primary and secondary contradictions respectively. Primary contradictions are those that occur within a component of a system (e.g. tools), while secondary contradictions are those that occur between components of a system (e.g. subjects and tools). In a situation where Civilization III is used in formal learning environments, one might imagine tensions between winning the game and learning social studies as the object of an activity system, depending on whether the student or the teacher is the subject of the activity system. Predicated on Hegelian / Marxist philosophy, activity theory suggests that the synthesis and resolution of such contradictions brings change and evolution to the system, Characterizing the tensions of an activity system, then, can help participants understand and react to its changes. Activity theorists are centrally concerned with understanding human activity in terms of its broader cultural-historical contexts, seeking to understand and represent activity systems from multiple points of view and from the points of view of multiple participants. It is fundamentally an historical mode of inquiry whereby analysts examine the historical trajectories of participants, social structures, and the object of activity. As Engeström (1999) describes, a critical aspect of activity theory is its “…historiocity, understood as concrete historical analysis of the activities under investigation…” (p. 25). As such, activity theorists are interested in the historical modes of work, what purposes the activity has served, and what sorts of historical trajectories participants bring to the activity. Such theorists typically immerse themselves in contexts, using a range of methods to understand the historical context for the activity of interest, the components of the activity system, and the contradictions that emerge within it. In the next section, I 85 explore two different types of approaches to using activity theory as a lens for understanding learning environments. Activity Theory as a Lens for Understanding Learning Environments A growing number of educational researchers are turning to activity theory as a socio-cultural framework for analyzing learning through participation in social practice (e.g. Brown & Cole, 2002; Engeström , 1999). As previously discussed, it is a useful analytic framework for characterizing social systems within cultural-historical contexts while avoiding traditional knowing / doing dualisms (Barab et al., 2001). While traditional cognitive science has conceptualized knowing as separated from social practice, activity theory avoids such dualisms by providing a theoretically grounded language for understanding how humans create contexts for their activity and how these contexts influence social practices. Hakkarainend (1999) uses activity theory as a framework for understanding play environments, focusing on how the theory allows researchers to reframe the problem of motivation (e.g. Rieber, 1996; Sutton-Smith, 1979) by considering play as a transformative cultural-historical activity. In a different setting, Brown and Cole (2002) find activity theory a useful framework for understanding afterschool environments since it recognizes the centrality of context, the importance of goal formation, the discoordinated nature of social change, the role of “leading activity” in initiating such settings and the central function of tools and communities in mediating participants’ experiences of within them. 86 Unit of Analysis in Activity Theory In studies using activity theory, such as those described above, the typical object of study is the classroom with broader social and cultural contexts equally taken into account. Activity theory is somewhat flexible in this way: While some researchers (e.g., Barab et al, 2001) have used it to examine interactions in classrooms, others (e.g., Engeström , 1999) apply it to interactions in the workplace that, at times, cut across more varied contexts. Regardless of the context of its use, activity theory highlights the need to capture the activity of interest holistically – examining actors, their objects, their mediating tools, and their community structures. Activity theorists examine activity systems from multiple angles, viewing the system from the point of view of different participants in order to gain this holistic view of the system and to understand the contradictions that drive change within it. As with other analytic approaches that attempt to capture knowledge making in situ, one important challenge of doing activity theory analysis is capturing how understanding occurs in context (Barab & Kirschner, 2001). One option would be to complete a given unit of instruction and then administer post-tests, surveys, or dynamic interviews (some of which I do). These approaches, while useful for gaining some perspectives on what students learned, obscure others. Students working alone and without tools on tests or in interviews are sequestered from the tools, resources, and social relationships in which cognition is embedded. This is not to suggest that there is no value whatsoever in assessing what students know or can do on their own without maps or resources. It is to say, however, that we need to understand the (lack of authentic) contextuality of such performances and frame our assertions in ways that account for it. 87 In other words, post-tests or interviews can yield some useful data but in no way can they capture the full range of students’ cognitive abilities. Given that the activity system is the unit of analysis in activity theory studies, most researchers have looked for data that sheds insight into what the outcomes of the activity system are, broadly defined. Outcomes can be understood by examining evolving activity, particularly how artifacts are appropriated into tools, how these tools remediate understandings, and how knowledge flows through activity systems. Consistent with Cobb et al. (1999), I focus my data collection and analysis on understanding the “taken as shared” norms and understandings that emerge in each case (see Chapter III, Methodology). The remaining two sections describe two approaches to understanding activity systems – each tied to a particular kind of context that is consequential for how the theory is applied and what kinds of conclusions one may draw from it – and explores some of the theoretical issues of each. Activity Theory in Informal Learning Environments Michael Cole’s Fifth Dimension Project (e.g. Cole, 1996) is one of the best researched examples of using activity theory to describe learning. The Fifth Dimension project is an educational project that attempts to mix activity systems of formal education and play to create learning opportunities in after-school centers. At Fifth dimension sites, educators, researchers, children, and community members gather to engage students in academically-valuable activities. Children move through a game-like maze of activities which are linked to educational software and endeavors; their progress is mediated by a central governing body including a fictitious wizard who creates challenges, awards 88 points for completing them, and settles disputes.6 Each Fifth Dimension site also pulls in university faculty and students who serve as role models and tutors for the children, instantiating Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development by engaging in activities with more knowledgeable and others. The centers allow researchers to bridge theory and practice by instantiating the learning principles central to activity theory in applied exercises and community structures, including participation in the social improvement of the broader communities to which the students belong. Over the past fifteen years, The Fifth Dimension Project has generated nearly 100 academic papers and presentations (Fifth Dimension website). Evaluation reports show that, through participation in Fifth Dimension, students develop academic skills that can be used across a variety of contexts (Blanton, Moorman, Hayes, Warner, 1997; Mayer, Quilici, Moreno, et al., 1997). In a study of the project’s implementation in after school centers, Nicolopoulou and Cole (1993) described how game play as an activity is not purely a function of the game and the player, but is profoundly shaped by local cultural contexts. The authors show how the local Fifth Dimension cultures were a mixture of the designed Fifth Dimension culture plus the culture of the overlapping institutions. These emergent, hybridized cultural conditions of each setting might be described as a local microculture within the broader culture. This microculture mediates the activities taking place in the environment, crucially affecting the kinds of learning outcomes that result. When considering the implementation of the game Civilization III in a similar informal, after-school context, several important considerations arise. First, as discussed previously, there is the potential that winning the game becomes the focus of the activity 6 The wizard is said to live on a computer somewhere in Miami although in reality he is played by Fifth Dimension Staff. 89 at the expense of reflective play. Winning the game, having an enjoyable experience, or simply the game itself might become the very object of the activity rather than the study of world history itself. One can easily imagine scenarios where players compete for high scores or dominant civilizations potentially at the expense of using Civilization III to learn about real-world social phenomena. One might predict that students might compete against one another for high scores, resulting in a very pronounced division of labor and little collaboration among peers. In such a scenario, cheats or hints on how to win the game might become the predominant tools and artifacts used rather than historical texts or maps. Here, the outcomes might be, at best, nothing more than an piqued interest in history or geography, or at worse, markedly differentiated social status and far less participation in authentic social studies practice itself. On the other hand, one can also easily imagine scenarios, reminiscent of naturally occurring “gaming” cultures, where students share expertise and tips, jointly negotiating the meaning of social studies concepts such as colonialization as it is embodied in the game and, perhaps even, instantiated in the real world beyond. Given both possible scenarios, an intriguing research question becomes: What kinds of game communities emerge around playing Civilization III in informal learning environments situated in quasi-academic contexts? What are the outcomes of such an activity system? Whereas formal learning environments tend to be highly individualistic, frequently having grade-seeking cultures (e.g. Squire et al., 2003), after-school environments provide added opportunities for collaboration, allowing flexibility in how students are grouped. Given the fundamentally social nature of game play and pedagogical importance of cooperation in game-based learning environments (e.g. 90 Johnson et al., 1985), informal learning environments offer intriguing opportunities for exploring game-based learning. Further, the organization of after-school environments – including flexibility in scheduling, long blocks of time that could be used for extended game play, and fewer curricular pressures – make after-school environments an intriguing site for experimentation. Activity theory provides a lens for describing such aspects of the social order of after-school spaces including the disparate macro-contexts that situate microcultures and the inter-relationships between multiple subjects, objects, mediating artifacts, and social organizations (Nicolopoulou & Cole, 1993). Activity Theory in Formal Learning Environments In contrast to Michael Cole’s work in informal learning environments (Cole, 1991), researchers such as Engeström (1987) and Barab et al. (2002) use activity theory to examine more formal environments in order to understand the contradictions in various activity systems and, therefore how change is made possible (and, at times, how such change might be guided in productive directions). Engeström , after characterizing the focal activity system in terms of its contradictions, then develops and shares representations of the system with the participants themselves. In a similar manner, Barab and colleagues (2002) also use contradictions to characterize activity within experimental learning programs in formal learning environments, showing that contradictions are useful tools for guiding the evolution of the learning environment. In their study of an astronomy-modeling course, Barab et al. used trace the interplay between learning astronomy and building 3D digital models, arguing that model-building activities coevolved with and frequently overlapped astronomy-learning activities. By identifying inter-play between “prespecified, teacher-directed instruction versus emergent, student- 91 directed learning” (p. 77), Barab et al discerned particular contradictions within the activity which then enabled them to help the curriculum evolve– for example, by developing tools to reduce the identified tensions between model building and learning astronomy, by implementing curricular structures that encouraged students to use astronomy concepts as tools, or by developing course expectations that tacitly reshaped the classroom divisions of labor. In this way, activity theory’s notion of contradictions, a concept deeply rooted in Marxist philosophy, enabled the researchers to unpack studentteacher power dynamics and to predict how teachers’ and students’ roles would evolve over time. Activity theory is also useful for the study of formal learning environments in that it takes into account the outcomes of an activity system – the results of the subjects’ transformation of objects –in order to understand how learning occurs through it. Central to this notion is an emphasis on understanding activity systems and outcomes from the point-of-view of participants rather than from the point-of-view of an outside observer. Researchers do not set expectations a priori; rather, they try to understand the transformations occurring within the given learning environments, regardless of whether that transformation is intended or not. For example, in a separate study of a college Astronomy course, Barab and colleagues (2000) examine how students’ building models of solar systems produced understandings of astronomical phenomena. Unlike earlier activity theory studies (e.g. Engeström, 1996), Barab and colleagues examined both the broad patterns of activity in the classroom and how these activities related to students’ conceptions of specific phenomena. Specifically, they trace how specific tools were first the object of activity (i.e. students’ goals were merely to build models), then became 92 primary artifacts (i.e. models became tools to learn and understand in and of themselves), and then, ultimately, by the end of the term, became tertiary artifacts (i.e. artifacts for thinking about astronomy more generally). Activity theory provides a useful way to understand just this trajectory, one which readily characterizes what happens when artifacts such as games are imported from one activity system (casual game playing, in which the game is a primary artifact) into another (a formal learning environment, in which the game is a tertiary artifact). Finally, activity theory sheds insight into the import of the formal learning environment on the learning process. Early studies of game-playing activities in classrooms confirm the importance of understanding classroom contexts in shaping gaming activities, suggesting that the context of game playing may have a larger impact than the formal game in shaping learning (Clegg, 1991; Johnson et al., 1985). Researchers looking at learning through game play in formal learning environments have found that classroom cultures, particularly the type of student-student interaction occurring across ability levels, affects how learning occurs through game play. For example, as Squire and colleagues (2002) found in their study of high school earth science classes, grade pressures, classroom groupings, or inter-class competition can all affect classroom activity in profound ways, thereby affecting the outcomes of the learning activities themselves. In an examination of elementary students playing a mathematics game, Guberman and Saxe (2000) find that different classroom ability groups resulted in unique divisions of labor in students playing games with the most fruitful learning opportunities occurring when students of different ability levels played together. Using activity theory as a lens for game play allows researchers to examine 93 these relationships among game players, the game, and the community as well as the divisions of labor (e.g. groupings) that mediate and co-constitute them. Summary Activity theory is a valuable framework for understanding game-based learning environments in particular for several reasons. First, it gives researchers a way to theorize how game play is mediated through tools, whether those tools are curricula, game magazines, cheat codes, websites, or game jargon / terminology (e.g. “conceptual tools”). Second, it requires researchers to understand the objects of activity and how they may be very different in a casual game setting, where players strive to transform their social status or relationships in some way, than in a learning environment, where teachers and students strive to transform their understandings of academic content. Third, it gives researchers a lens for describing how games are actually used and appropriated by subjects and how discrepant objects of activities (e.g., earning good grades versus learning social studies versus expression of identity) shape that appropriation. Fourth, it prompts the researcher to investigate how the activity is shaped by different (formal or informal) contexts which, in turn, are shaped by the communities in which they are embedded. Finally, and perhaps most crucially, an activity theory framework emphasizes the socially mediated nature of human activity systems, obliging game researchers to look beyond simple human-machine interactions and recognize the wealth of other practices that constitute game play activity. It requires researchers to consider how game playing is mediated by fan, friend, or family communities both through interactions at the point of play as well as through interactions away from the immediate game-playing environment, such as on the playground, via Internet chat, and during dinner table conversations. 94 Indeed, research on games and simulations in social studies classrooms suggests that it is in such unofficial, off-location conversation that the most powerful transformations of players’ understandings actually occurs. 95 Chapter III: Methodology This study is a naturalistic case study (Stake, 1995) of two design experiments (Barab & Squire, in press) in which Civilization III was used as the basis for a unit on world history. The purpose of these design experiments is to explore what happens to classroom culture and learning when a complex computer game such as Civilization III is used as a tool for learning. In particular, I am interested in the social interactions that occur, how students learn, what students learn, and what the role of the game is in mediating students’ understandings. Working with practicing teachers, I designed gamebased curricula for teaching world history used in three separate contexts or cases. The first case is a world history unit implemented in an interdisciplinary humanities / world history course for high school freshmen. In the second case, I work with a subset of these same students for a week-long summer camp unit. The third and last case is a month-long after-school computer program for middle school students (See Table 3.1). Case 1.Media School 2.Media “camp” 3. YWCA After School Setting Urban High School Urban High School Working class urban after school program in school building Age Grade “9 XY” Grade “9 XY” Grades 6-7 Class size 18 Students 5 students 10 students Time 18 hours (6 weeks X 3 18 hours (3.5 hrs x 5 20 hours 8 sessions x 2 ½ hour 50 min class periods) days) enrichment class Teacher / Researchers 1 Teacher, myself, paid researcher Myself, video camera Myself, paid researcher Table 3.1: Overview of Study Contexts 96 In all three cases, I was a participant-observer and in two cases, I employed a second researcher to gather data and help ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the data and analysis (Guba & Lincoln, 1983). Using Stake’s (1995) case study methodology, I wrote a case study for each context (Chapters IV, V, and VI), which I then shared with both the hired additional researcher and the teacher from each context in order to elicit differing interpretations of what transpired. In chapter 7, I present my conclusions that cut across all three cases. This study is not a controlled experimental study, nor is it a direct comparison of how learning occurs in each setting. Rather, the purpose of this study is to understand how learning occurs in each context and to generate “petite generalizations” (Stake, 1995) that can have both experience-distant and experience-near relevance (Barab & Squire, in press; Geertz, 1983; Stake, 1995). Restated, I generate assertions about learning and instruction through game play as it occurs in these three contexts – assertions that may then be useful for designing and understanding other contexts. Consistent with qualitative research in general (e.g. Guba & Lincoln, 1983) and design research methodologies (e.g. Barab & Squire, in press) in particular, a second intent of this research is to add to the emerging body of theory on designing game-based learning environments. Specifically, my research questions include the following: 1. What practices emerge when games are brought into formal learning environments? In particular, how do gaming practices (e.g., competition, learning through failure) intersect with the practices and culture of formal schooling? 2. How do games engage players and operate as motivating learning contexts? 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 of using games in social studies, specifically in history classrooms? 5. How should we think about the role of games in a formal learning environment, and how might they best be leveraged to support learning in 97 such contexts? In this chapter, I outline my approach to case-based design-based research and provide a description and analysis of the affordances of Civilization III as a tool for learning world history. Next, I briefly describe the three specific contexts of my research and outline the data collection procedure used within them. I then present my analysis procedures. Design Experiments as a Research Framework Over the past decade, a growing number of learning scientists have been adopting what have come to be known as “design experiment methodologies” as a way of developing research findings which not only uncover and extend theoretical issues but also result in tangible educational programs or artifacts which can be used in other contexts (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992). From this design perspective, the validity of research results is determined not only through traditional validation procedures but also through examining the consequences of putting the theories and ideas it generates into subsequent use. Elsewhere, I have argued that this framework, despite the fact that it may seem foreign or novel, is in line with contemporary thinking in validation research and is grounded in the widely known pragmatic inquiry of Peirce and Dewey (Barab & Squire, in press). Designing Contexts for Learning Theoretically, design experiments emanate from the growing acknowledgement of the role of context in cognition (e.g. Barab, et al., 1999; Cole, 1996; Gee, 1992; Hutchins, 1995; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Salomon, 1993; Wertsch, 1998). One can think about how context is part and partial to cognition in 98 several ways: Context provides the language by which we organize and formulate thoughts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Cultural contexts provide scripts that organize our behavior in social settings and tools that remediate thoughts (Cole, 1996; Wertsch, 1998). Physical tools open up possibility spaces and therefore remediate our relationships with objects (Salomon, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998) as well as the contours of the possibility spaces in which we operate (Barab et al., 1999). Faced with the challenge of understanding (such complex, distributed, and multifaceted) cognition in context, researchers have been adopting and adapting a variety of naturalistic research methodologies to better understand how humans perform in complex social and material settings. Design experiments and design-based research strategies are a family of methodologies that fall within this approach to understanding cognition. Merely understanding cognition, however, is rarely the end goal of our work as educational researchers. More commonly, we have transformative agendas where our goal is to not just understand a community or culture as an ethnographer might but rather to create social change. Education is an applied field and learning scientists typically bring practical goals to their research – for example, seeking to better engage students in the making of science, hoping to create real online communities for professional development, or struggling to create history classrooms that confront students preexisting beliefs about race, gender, or class. Such “research with practical intent” is, by definition, design research, which has several potential benefits: research results that take the role of social context into account and therefore have greater potential for influencing educational practice, tangible products and programs that can be adopted elsewhere, and 99 conclusions validated through the consequences of their use, providing consequential evidence for validity (Messick, 1992). A core characteristic of design experiments is their pragmatic orientation, consistent with the pragmatic epistemology of Dewey (1938) and Pierce (1877) (Barab & Squire, in press). Design experiments attempt to “develop a class of theories about both the process of learning and the means that are designed to support that learning, be it the learning of individual students, of a classroom community, of a professional teaching community, or of a school or school district viewed as an organization” (Barab & Squire, p. 10). Design experiments are interventionist in that they attempt to instantiate and test theoretical conjectures within classroom contexts. They are not only confirmatory but also explore the limitations of the findings they produce as well. As Cobb et al. (2003) highlight, they are iterative – never complete but in constant revision and reimplementation – and, as such, are crucial to the development and refinement of instructional designs – instructional interventions and theories geared at understanding not just which instructional interventions are useful but also the conditions under which they work as well. Again, design experiments are definitely pragmatic, based on a sense that, if a theoretically based instructional design is not working for the researcher or the teacher, then it lacks validity. Such design-based approaches to research also produce several challenges for educational researchers. How do we account for the role of the researcher in the design experiment and the associated threats to validity that they bring with them? If the researcher is intimately involved in the conceptualization, design, development, implementation, and investigation of a pedagogical approach, how can we ensure the 100 findings are credible, trustworthy, and valid? How involved should researchers be? For example, those working in schools often face difficult ethical choices. Do they stand idly by and watch a teacher struggle to use their curricula or should they intervene in order to provide additional support? Should they share information on struggling students with teachers in order to enable them to change instruction accordingly, or should they take a “hands-off” approach in order to minimize their influence on to-be-studied phenomena? Cobb and colleagues (Cobb, et al., 1999) describe an approach they call “teaching experiments” in which researchers enter an instructional context with specific goals, manipulating the local context to achieve the desired ends. They describe this method as a recursive process of theory building and instructional interventions. Rather than remain detached from the research context, researchers are implored to intercede where possible, using interventions as opportunities to examine core theoretical issues, to improve the instruction when necessary, or simply to explore the learning taking place in greater depth. While skeptics contend that such interventions “taint” the research context, Cobb and his colleagues argue that effective instructional models develop through such interventions and their subsequent refining and testing. Design experiments allow a researcher to identify how an instructional design fails to meet classroom needs, to make the necessary changes in the design, and then to examine how those design changes actually play out in the classroom. Thus, data about how teachers or researchers modify instructional designs are valuable data sources for the development and refinement of theory. Such a flexible approach is particularly useful in an exploratory study such as the one presented here. I am interested in how a game such as Civilization III can be used as 101 a tool for learning in world history classrooms, but, in studying this phenomenon, there are multiple unknowns, including (but not limited to) the affordances of the game as a tool for learning, the trajectory of even one students’ understanding of history throughout the game, or simply how a given group of students and their teacher will react to its use in formal instruction in the first place. There are few naturally occurring opportunities for studying instruction based on a game such as Civilization III. Although a growing number of teachers have imported similar simulation games into their classrooms, finding instruction in which the game is taken seriously – for example, where the teacher is using the kind of outside materials used within authentic gaming communities, where peer collaboration is not only tolerated but promoted, or where the game is used as a tool for learning rather than a reward for good behavior or a baby-sitter for students with time on their hands – is somewhat difficult. In spring of 2002, I found two teachers interested in using Civilization III in the classroom. Because using such a game for instruction was new to both, we collaboratively decided to brainstorm a variety of instructional approaches and then intervene by changing the activity as deemed necessary or in the students’ best interest. Cobb’s design/teaching experimental methodology was, therefore, especially appropriate. Because refinement and reiteration is at the core of the design research enterprise, researchers working under this paradigm are constantly and iteratively designing and testing new instructional strategies and new theories, using sites of change as data sources toward understanding theoretical and practical issues. For Cobb and colleagues (2003), theory is a tool designed to do practical work – namely, to illuminate pedagogical issues and guide practice. Yet, as Jenkins, Squire, & Tan (in press) argue, design research can 102 take up different forms at differing points in the design process. At times, researchers might build prototypes; at others, they might do direct comparisons in order to tease out differences in instructional approaches. Because of the paucity of theoretically grounded research on digital games in social studies classroom, this study is necessarily an exploratory study. Because so little is actually known about what variables might be important in an activity such as this one (other than the social interactions surrounding game play) or which joints such an activity should be carved at (other than what activity theory, a priori, suggests) or even what instruction designed to capitalize on the affordances of a game such as Civilization III might possibly look like in the fist place, I chose to prototype a reasonable instructional design using Civilization III as the basis of an instructional unit on world history, implement it in three disparate contexts, and then examine the shape and trajectory of the learning and activities which emerged in all their messiness. In so doing, I seek to uncover the theoretical and practical issues behind using a complex commercial computer game such as Civilization III to teach world history and to suggest some models for thinking about how Civilization III can be used to support learning. Role of the Researcher In each case study, I participated as both a researcher and an instructor in a manner consistent with the design/teaching experiment approach. Although the teachers at both sites (The Media School and the YWCA) had agreed to hold classes based on Civilization III, in each case, it quickly became apparent that, due to the teachers’ time constraints and minimal experience with the game itself, I would need to play a central and active role in organizing the unit and shaping the activity in situ. 103 1 Given that participants in the first two cases would not allow audio- or videotaping and the fact that I had to serve as both data collector and instructor at one, I hired an additional trained researcher to help with data collection and analysis. 2 She attended each class but one throughout the first two cases (at both the Media School and the YWCA). During the Media Summer case, I was the only researcher present; however, I wide-angle videotaped each class period, capturing all student activity within the classroom.3 Each researcher played a distinct role during the activities, oftentimes on opposite sides of the room. I directed activity, opening and closing class, giving just-in-time lectures, prompting reflection, and handling class management issues (these activities are described in greater depth in each case, presented in Chapters IV, V, and VI respectively). During each session, I took notes, when possible, on my observations. The second researcher played a more consistent observer role, taking field notes on all classroom activities and interactions, attending especially to individual actions, social exchanges, and broader patterns of activity within the classroom that I might likely miss given my active role in the class. For example, she took field notes on less engaged students and patterns of interaction between myself (as instructor) and students in the class (e.g., which students I interacted with most frequently and when). We also used log sheets to augment our data (see Appendix C) in all but the YWCA case where following each student’s game play was much easier and log sheets were therefore not necessary. 1 In the case of the Media School, the first week was spent explicitly negotiating roles, a complex process explained in greater depth in the case study (Chapter IV). Rather than gloss over these issues in partnering with local schools, I chose to include them in order to illustrate the complexity of doing design research in school environments. 2 The researcher hired to assist is a state certified and experienced teacher with prior experience with both data collection and analysis; in addition, she played Civilization III for approximately ten hours prior to the study in order to become familiar with concepts and issues relevant to the game. 3 This was made possible only by the smaller class size of this case. (There were only five students present). 104 After each session, we met (along with the students’ regular teacher, when possible) to compile our observations, explicate our shorthand field notes, and discuss/debate what transpired in class. Contexts Case Study 1. Civilization III in a High School Humanities Enrichment Class In the first case, I created and enacted a world history unit using Civilization III during a six-week (three times per week, 45 minutes per class) period in a high school classroom at a Media and Technology Charter School designed to cater to inner-city Boston youth. Eighteen students participated in the study. Participants played Civilization III as a part of an interdisciplinary course on the study of human cultures. Students also read supplementary articles, discussed issues in class, consulted maps, globes, and timelines, and presented what they learned about social studies through playing the game to their peers. The school does not specifically teach world cultures or world geography, instead folding social studies into humanities and technology courses. This site was selected because the school regularly uses emerging media in instruction and is committed to using project-based learning approaches where appropriate. Although I was not informed of this until mid-way through the unit, the class was comprised entirely of students who had failed ninth grade the previous year and were being held back for a year before advancing to tenth grade. Roughly 75% of the students were African-American, 15% were Latino, and 10% were of European descent. The unit was designed in collaboration with partnering teachers. Initially, we planned to have students develop research questions that they would collaboratively 105 answer in groups of 1-3 students. The original unit plan also included a number of reading and discussion activities. However, most of these design features were abandoned early in the unit. The complexity of Civilization III and a host of other factors (detailed in Chapter IV) caused us to abandon this approach early on. Case Study II. Civilization III in a Summer Media Studies Camp In the second case, I created an after-school camp program for students in the Media School (Case I) who enjoyed playing Civilization III and wanted to continue playing into the summer. Although not formally tied to the instruction during the school year, most students in the school attended a summer camp of some form, all of which involved media of some form, ranging from recording songs to photography. Our camp focused on having students investigate the potentials of Civilization III for learning history. The one-week camp met every day for 3.5 hours each day. Five students, all from Case I, attended. The students’ final deliverable was to deliver a ten-minute presentation to their peers about what they learned about history through the game. Students in other camps made similar presentations. Case Study III. Civilization in an After-School Computer Club In the third case study, I again created and enacted a world history unit using Civilization III during a five-week period in a Boston-area YWCA after- school “enrichment class” that served a multi-ethnic working class community in suburban Boston. Twelve students volunteered to participate in the unit with the understanding that they would be playing an educational game that would help them become more familiar with technology, although only nine students attended regularly. Consistent with previous research in informal learning environments (Nicolopoulou & Cole, 1993), this after- 106 school community of Civilization III players was designed with the expressed purpose of supporting "constructive play" rather than rigorous academic activity. The class was quite diverse; there were African-American, Haitian-American, Chinese-American, Latino, Creole, and a variety of European-descent students in the class. One third of the students were from European-American households, one third were bilingual, and most students identified themselves as belonging to several ethnic groups. This site was chosen both as a convenience sample and because after school centers provide unique opportunities for studying the intersection between game playing and learning in an informal context. Informal contexts are important since, in such settings, experimental pedagogical techniques can be employed with less pressure to conform to state or national content standards as well or local constraints (Nicolopoulou & Cole, 1993). Detailed information on how this case developed is included in the Case III (see Chapter VI). Rather than describe each curricular unit as it was initially designed, I treat the activities that emerged as historical phenomena, something that is not determined a priori and can only be understood through enactment (See also Squire, et al., 2003). In order to shed light on what emerged in each setting, I next describe the properties and affordances of Civilization III itself, which obviously provided the fulcrum about which student and teacher (inter)action centered at each site. This description and analysis is intended to provide a backdrop against which the emergent classroom practices at each location (as described subsequently in each case study) might be understood. 107 Civilization III: A Tool for Remediating Understandings in World History The Civilization series was invented and designed by Sid Meier, who is frequently credited as a founding father of computer strategy gaming. Sid Meier's Civilization (the game’s full name) was designed with Bruce Shelley and first released in 1991 by MicroProse Software. Civilization builds on the appeal of historical empire building in his earlier Railroad Tycoon, but takes on a much broader time scale, attempting to simulate the growth of a civilization over its entire 6000-year history. Civilization and the sequel, Civilization II (1996) are both widely considered as two of the most compelling and significant games ever produced. The third installment in the Civilization series, Civilization III, was released in October of 2001 and has also been met with critical praise and strong sales figures. Developed by Firaxis and published by Infogrames, Civilization III is a turn-based strategy game where the player commands a civilization over the course of its 6000 year history, managing its natural resources, finances and trade, scientific research, cultural orientation, political policies and military. Significantly, the Civilization series gives the player control over a band of people for its entire civilized history, placing her in the role of a supreme leader for which there is no historical analog. As such, Civilization, on the one hand, enables the player to ask and pursue tantalizing historical trajectories across broad time-scales, while, on the other, risks producing and fostering misconceptions about politics or history. The original Civilization manual introduces the game in the following terms: Civilization casts you in the role of the ruler of an entire civilization through many generations, from the founding of the world's first cities 6,000 years in the past to the 108 imminent colonization of space. It combines the forces that shaped history and the evolution of technology in a competitive environment … If you prove an able ruler, your civilization grows larger and even more interesting to manage. Inevitable contact with neighbors opens new doors of opportunity: treaties, embassies, sabotage, trade and war” (Shelley, 1991, p. 7, quoted in Friedman, 1999, p. X). Although some educators have argued that Civilization might be an interesting tool for studying social studies, the game was originally designed as an entertainment product and has yet to be studied seriously as an educational resource. Friedman’s (1999) study of Civilization is the most serious academic consideration of the game to date. In it, he argues that much of the allure of Civilization comes from the player mastering the rules that define the game. Insomuch as the rules embodied in the simulation reflect accurate models of social phenomena, it would seem that even casual players can develop understandings of the game world that have analogs to phenomena in the real world. Unfortunately, however, there have been no studies examining this, let alone the suitability of such a game for use in educational settings. Game Play The game play behind the Civilization series is notoriously complex; Civilization III ships with a 231-page manual. A single game can take over twenty hours, and an expert player can easily log thousands of hours of game play. The game play is robust enough to support multiple strategies, and players approach the game quite differently according to their own idiosyncratic values and tastes. For example, some players prefer to dominate the world through a powerful military, others prefer to build strong economies, technological superiority, or a strong intelligence, while others simply build dominant cultures in order to colonize others. There are numerous different strategies a player might adopt to win the game, and most players enjoy experimenting with different 109 approaches. Civilization III is designed for such divergence, including at least six different win conditions: (a) conquering all rivals, (b) constructing a spaceship and successfully colonizing Alpha Centauri, (c) dominating the world through controlling a vast majority of the planet’s land, population, and resources, (d) controlling the United Nations and being voted the victor, (e) culturally dominating the world through cultural hegemony, and finally (f) achieving the highest score if no other win conditions are met. The player loses the game if her civilization is wiped out through military force or another civilization attains a win condition. Most of the game play involves planning the geographic growth and evolution of the civilization; securing, developing and exploiting natural resources; building and maintaining military forces; waging war; conducting trade and political negotiations; budgeting; directing scientific efforts; choosing an appropriate type of government; maintaining civic happiness; and, perhaps most importantly, managing each cities’ production. For each turn, the player must decide whether to focus production on building military forces, creating workers or settlers that can help develop the civilization, implementing civic improvements (e.g., libraries, factories, banks, or cathedrals), or even developing one of the Great Wonders of the World, (e.g., The Pyramids or Darwin’s Voyage). Each structure so produced has a resulting effect on the “performance” of the civilization, modifying the civilization’s food, economic, scientific, industrial, or cultural production. In addition, players also manage armies that can be used to explore uncharted territories, to defend against attacking civilizations, or to attack other civilizations. Finally, players can use settlers, workers, and engineers to irrigate fields, build roads, clear forests, build railroads, or construct fortresses. Thus, in 110 Civilization, by controlling the food production, natural resource gathering and production, taxation, cultural production, economic policies, military policies, domestic priorities, and foreign policies of an entire civilization from the year 4000 BC to the present, player learn about the fundamental yet complex conditions under which civilizations endure. Starting the Game 111 The player begins the game in an unknown corner of the globe. For the purposes of this study, all players use maps based on the Miller projection of Earth, although players can choose to use maps of fictitious planets in regular game play. The player must first choose where to build a city (See Figure 3.1), forcing the skilled player to consider several variables contributing to the strategic geographical location of a city, including relative access to food sources, potential for exploiting natural resources, access to navigable waterways, and strategic land barriers. The player also begins the game with a basic worker unit who can irrigate fields, build roads, or explore new territories. Figure 3.1: The beginning of the game. Once the player has established a city, she begins to manage her civilization’s natural resources, which are abstracted into four primary game economies: food, natural 112 resource production (shields), trade, and culture. Each one is an abstraction of several "real-world" production processes that vary across geography and time: Food production includes fishing, subsistence farming, hunting, herding, and the domestication of animals for food. Production (shields) includes both the production and refinement of goods. Trade refers to the generation of all goods or services that can be traded for profit which the player may then allocate toward gold (hard currency), knowledge (scientific discovery), or luxuries (See Figure 3.2). Finally, and perhaps most controversially, Civilization III (unlike earlier Civilization games) attempts to model "cultural growth and production by assigning value to cultural institutions, such as libraries, schools, churches, or works of art. Much of the game play involves balancing cities’ production so that each of these functions (population growth, production capacity, financial solvency, scientific discovery, citizen happiness, and cultural growth) are met, enabling the civilization to be competitive with other civilizations. In Civilization III, more than its predecessors, no one civilization can dominate the game along all axes simultaneously. Rather, civilizations depend on one another for strategic and luxury resources, for trading scientific discoveries, and occasionally even for financial support. Negotiations and trade are critical components of game play (See Figure 3.3) 113 114 Figure 3.3.Negotiation Screen Once the player has built her first city, discovered one or two technological advancements, developed one or two military units, and possibly built a city improvement such as a temple, she might build a second. As the game continues, other complex variables come into play: Players must control political corruption, interact with other civilizations (played by the computer), secure strategic resources (such as aluminum, uranium, or oil), and even monitor global warming. These many factors create conditions under which no two games are exactly alike. Modifying Civilization III for Classroom Use Working from a world map developed by the game community at Apolyton.net, I created a unique game scenario for this unit. My goal was to design a scenario that would 115 be an idea model for examining world history. As such it had to help students gain insights about social phenomena while also being usable within a learning context (Colella, Klopfer, & Resnick, 2001). My goal was not necessarily to construct a model accurate enough to predict historical events but rather one that would elucidate important social studies concepts. The main changes I made to the game design as shipped, therefore, included (a) substituting historically non-plausible civilizations for plausible ones (e.g. taking out the Americans and adding the Incans), (b) adding groups that the students would want to play (the Bantu4), (c) adjusting geographic bonus resources to more accurately reflect the technical and cultural advantages of particular civilizations and regions (e.g. giving the fertile crescent added food bonuses), (d) disadvantaging civilizations that were less developed as of 4000 BC (e.g. removing technologies from the Aborigines), (e) reducing randomness in combat, and (f) making the game more playable for novices (enhancing technological discovery rates, and giving additional starting bonuses). I used Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel for much of this intellectual work – for example, determining which peoples were poised to potentially invent agriculture at 4000 BC. In order to balance the game for novices, I read through posts about developing game modifications at Civilization III at apolyton.net and spent approximately 40 hours, play testing various modifications, including trial runs on the school’s Pentium II 300 machines (64 MB RAM). Finally, working with the MEDIA School technology coordinator Norm Eng, I installed Civilization III and its 4 Deciding how to deal with African civilizations was particularly difficult. The Bantu are a large language group extending across sub-Saharan Africa. Few historians or archeologists would argue that the Bantu are a unified group in any way, or that any of Bantu-speaking settlements were positioned to begin building cities by 4000 BC. The most logical candidate for a sub-Saharan African civilization probably would have been located in Mali or Ghana (Seed, personal communication). However, archeologists find new signs of ancient sub-Saharan African civilizations regularly, and it is theoretically possible that a Bantu-speaking civilization existed in a sub-Saharan African river valley. 116 accompanying patches on the school machines, loaded my modifications, and debugged the installation, which took approximately ten hours because of the school’s network controls. Civilization III as an Historical Simulation Tool Although Civilization was designed as an entertainment game, the historical, geographic, and political simulation elements of Civilization III make it an intriguing educational resource. Success in the game demands that players "master" geography through such strategies as focusing food production in agriculturally advantageous areas, using physical boundaries as natural borders, and securing natural resources. Players confront political dilemmas such as whether to pursue isolationist politics, enter complex alliances for protection, or gain precious resources through military force (which may also mean waging war to protect an ally). Finally, players can view how their history grows and evolves over time, exploiting the visualization tools included in the game (i.e., maps, charts, and graphs) to view how their civilization grows culturally, geographically, scientifically, and politically. In this section, I explore the pedagogical possibilities of Civilization III as a tool for studying world history. How the game is actually used by students in classroom settings, given the paucity of research in this area, is difficult to predict (and, indeed, the point of this study); therefore, the following discussion outlines the potentials of using Civilization III for learning rather than offering some definitive argument for its usefulness. There is no “one” way to win Civilization, which makes game play an open-ended task that leads to divergent outcomes. One player may attempt to win the game through military domination, building a strong economy and strong military; another may be very 117 peaceful and attempt to win primarily through political ends. From an educational standpoint, this open-endedness is interesting because it may dissuade players from competing against one another. After all, different players with different tastes will set different constraints for themselves and therefore will (purposefully or not) use the game to explore different ideas (e.g., trying to win the game without waging war). That people play Civilization III differently creates opportunities for educators to use contrasting gaming experiences as the basis for critical reflections and debriefing, enabling players to analyze not only what strategies work in the game and why but also for what ends. The critical reader may question the notion of using a simulation to study world history, when very few historians engage in this kind of enterprise. 5 In the physical sciences, models and simulations have long been used as a part of inquiry. The idea of observing some phenomenon, building a mathematical model to represent important aspects of it, and then testing it against reality is centuries old in the physical sciences; physicists and astronomers have been building mathematic representations of systems at least as long ago as Copernicus and Newton.6 More recently, Wolfram (2002) has argued that the digital affordances of computers are revolutionizing science so that scientific inquiry can be thought of as a process of observing phenomena, defining rules, and building and testing models rather than one of defining and testing hypotheses through controlled experiments. Charles Sanders Peirce (1878/1986) refers to this recursive process of observation, model generation, and evaluation of the predictive capacity of the 5 A noteworthy exception to this pattern is world historian Pat Seed, who teaches a course at Rice University on Spanish and Portuguese Colonization as depicted through computer games. I am indebted to Pat for her intellectual guidance. 6 Although one might not be accustomed to thinking of mathematical and paper-based models as simulation systems, the abductive process of observing physical systems, building mathematical formula to account for those observations, and then testing the formula against other observations is essentially the same as computer-based modeling processes. See Peirce (1878/1986) for an excellent description of this inquiry process. 118 model as abductive inquiry. Such abductive inquiry, uncommon in history, is more commonly employed in political science, economics, and increasingly, anthropology (Edmonds & Hales, n.d.; Wolfram, 2002). As opposed to textbooks, which contain one state-sanctioned narrative, Civilization III is an open-ended sandbox, a possibility space wherein players can explore and actualize any one of several different narrative outcomes. To be sure, Civilization III is a rule-bounded space that represents physical, social and cultural systems in very specific ways. For example, Flood plains produce 150% more food than grasslands; grasslands produce 200% more food than hills. Democracies have less corruption and produce more efficient workers than monarchies. Listing the number of rules and relationships encoded into Civilization III is beyond the scope of this dissertation, let alone this chapter. Emergent Properties of the Game System Using Civilization III as a simulation tool changes the method of studying history from one of memorizing facts and mastering sanctioned narratives to one of defining the terms and rules of the system (either similar to or contradictory with those thought to describe events in real life) and then exploring its emergent properties. One of the more intriguing aspects of Civilization III as a learning tool is that no two games are alike. Early decisions in the game might have important ramifications hundreds of game years later. The specific trajectory of events comprising any one game may have no analog in real life history; however, the rules binding the game – the core variables included in the model, the interrelationships among political, economic, and geography systems – allow players to gain insights into each of these areas and therefore the unfolding of history 119 itself. On the other hand, sometimes players’ games do simulate actual historical events (and as reported in Case VI, such as the barbarian ransacking of China (as well as Europe) in the first millennium AD, the building of the silk road in China, French colonization of Canada, or the relatively late discovery of Aborginal Australia. Regardless, the interplay of underlying causal variables (rules) within the game reveal important aspects of how history “gets made.” In the next section, I explore Civilization III as an historical possibility space, highlighting several properties of the game that merit deeper consideration. I follow with an exploration of the implications of using such a tool in social studies education. Problems with Civilization III as a Learning Tool in History (and a Few Solutions) Because Civilization III is intended to be an entertainment product, it is designed to support good game play rather than good historical simulation. For example, if a player builds the Pyramids, she receives a free granary in every city. There simply is no real historical analogy. Native populations (called “Barbarians” in the game) are dealt with questionably as well, presented overwhelmingly as warring tribes with no real “culture” to speak of. At the same time, however, other cultures that one might consider native (e.g. Aztecs, Iriquois, or Zulus) are treated as “real” cultures. Notably, Civilization III also attempts to operationalize cultural influence as a game mechanic, giving players’ points for creating institutions that add to a culture’s influence. As Barkin (2002) points out, this notion of culture is theoretically problematic as it combines French definitions of culture (as in “to become cultured”) with traditionally German definitions of culture (as collective ways of being). 120 Characterizing and operationalizing each civilization is also potentially problematic. Distinguishing features of civilizations are distilled down into relatively simple game mechanics. For example, Americans receive industrial and expansion bonuses, including special fighter jets – and each civilization begins with roughly the same resources at roughly the same time (6000 BC). Obviously, “America” was utterly meaningless as a concept until 5600 years later, in at least the late 16th century. Less obviously, it was also well into the 17-18th centuries before a notion of a “France” or a “Germany” developed. In response to these conditions, I modified the starting civilizations to only include the Incas, Iroquois, Aztecs, Egyptians, Bantu, Persians, Carthaginians, Oceanic peoples, the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Japanese, Babylonians, Celts, Saxons, and Goths. I intentionally included civilizations historically thought of as Barbarians (such as the Celts and the Goths) in order to help counter misconceptions about such tribes as well as to raise the question, “What does it mean to be ‘civilized’ and what does it mean to be ‘barbaric’?” Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel (1999) persuasively argues for the importance of food packages7, particularly agricultural, in giving rise to specializations in the division of labor, the creation, collection, and trade of goods, population densities, and, ultimately, the growth of civilization. Diamond analyzes how agriculture emerged through the careful cultivation of crops that are suitable for domestication, the nutritional value of various crop packages, the native animals available for domestication, differences in local climate’s capacity for supporting agriculture, and the comparative advantage or disadvantage of other hunting options. To aggregate these many factors into 7 Food packages are combinations of foodstuffs. Diamond uses this concept to compare civilizations that continued and abandoned hunter-gathering lifestyles. 121 one variable, the “food production of land” as Civilization III does, glosses over many important local conditions and technological discoveries that gave rise to agriculture. However, by beginning the game at the onset of agriculture and assuming that all civilizations began at 4000 BC, the game avoids the problem rather than addressing it. In Civilization III, one simply assumes that each civilization created a food package that meets its nutritional needs and therefore only accounts for advantages or disadvantages from civilization to civilization by assigning those in especially fertile areas extra food production bonuses. While nothing is inherently inaccurate in such a depiction of agriculture, the black-boxing of so many variables into the simple notion of “agriculture” or “geographical production bonuses” may be misleading. Moreover, while most texts agree that agriculture emerged at between 10,000 BC and 13,000 BC, Civilization III begins at 4000 BC and presumes adequate agricultural production within each civilization by this time. To compensate for the “headstart” of civilizations such as the Egyptians or the Phoenicians, who formed into civilizations relatively early, I gave those civilizations bonus workers and settlers. In addition, I awarded river valleys where such agricultural technologies originated extra crop bonuses. I also adapted the map so that horses and cattle can only be found in historically appropriate areas cotton is also represented as a natural resource. Many critics have noted that sheep, an historically important livestock, are not included in the game. Unfortunately, I have yet to make any modifications in the game to rectify this inaccuracy at this time. One of the more interesting intellectual problems with Civilization III is that, because the game includes an historically accurate model of how civilization advances 122 occurred, every game is tied to the same set of technological advancements. Restated, technological advancements are linear and predetermined. Although no two games are alike, particular discoveries – such as the wheel, monarchy, or horseback riding – are present in every game, always in the predetermined sequence, and always, therefore, shaping each civilization’s simulated evolution over time. On the one hand, some (for example, Diamond) argue that the affordances of some inventions (particularly the wheel) are so apparent and so reproduced across multiple civilizations in time that they ought to be treated as at least highly probably if not inevitable. Other improvements, such as communism or atomic theory, may seem less so. Others have argued (e.g. Barkin, 2002) that there may have been other hypothetical paths not taken: For example, imagine that a Native American civilization remained the dominant culture occupying North America. Under such circumstances, there could easily be different technological forms developed and distributed globally. Such questions are not problematic; rather, they are central questions within the domain and suggest the very reason that Civilization III is an intriguing historical resource. Playing Civilization III tends to recruit deep, intellectually valuable ways of thinking about world history and to produce the kind of social structures that nurture and sustain such discourse. Finally, there are several minor simulation biases that can be raised about the game. For example, some game fans believe that the historical importance of tin is overlooked, or that militiamen are not given adequate fire-power. Other long-standing debates hinge on whether or not it is theoretical possibility for primitive battle units to defeat technologically advanced ones. For example, it is inevitable that at some point in a game an ancient war unit, such as a group of axe-wielding warriors, defeats a modern 123 military unit, such as a battleship. Critics chastise the game for such moments, considering them inherent limitations to the historical simulation; Meier and others, on the other hand, argue that such improbable events can and do, in fact, occur (as in Afghanistan) through superior execution of strategy, equipment malfunction, or sometimes, just luck. I argue that such simulation errors present fruitful learning opportunities for students. A primary goal of using a game like Civilization III is to engage students in critique and deconstruction of the game. Moments of failure or surprise can become “teachable moments” that encourage students to critically reflect on how history is written, recorded, and modeled. Encouraging students to critically evaluate the simulation’s design and assumptions in this way is, for example, one of the primary goals of the instructional unit used in this study. Building a World History Curriculum for Civilization III *** A driving question behind this dissertation is what role might a game such as Civilization III play in a world history classroom and what instructional strategies are useful in supporting learning through game play with a game such as Civilization III. Although no real research exists on how games might be appropriated within school contexts, findings from other similar approaches (e.g. VR modeling and simulation, Barnett, Barab, & Hay, 2001) suggests that how the software is used, specifically how it supports and affords students’ inquiry and is simultaneously appropriated by local cultures needs to be studied (Squire et al., 2003). Consistent with this theoretical approach, I examine game play (and education) as cultural historical practice, and I am reluctant to suggest a “instructional design theory” in the abstract before examining how it is appropriated in several contexts. Thus, a central commitment to this research is that it 124 is far more useful to build such an emerging pedagogy based on empirical studies of the software in actual use than to design instructional programs and theories a priori. Having said that, that viewing learning as a socio-cultural enterprise in the tradition of Vygotsky and through the lens of activity theory (and informed by existing educational research) suggests certain instructional approaches over others. Although I had no set instructional design in mind, and in fact consistent with collaborative models of curriculum development strove to design materials, activities, and unit plans in collaboration with teachers. How these attempts at collaboration unfolded is detailed in each case; in the following section, I describe my initial best guess at what might make an effective game-based learning unit (See Table 3.2). In the conclusions, I will compare the findings from the case studies against this framework. Days 1-3 Game Play Set up the game, do tutorials 4-8 Play on realistic maps Activities Read and discuss information Generate questions 9-12 Purposeful game play Research, create maps, timelines 13-16 Recursive play 17-18 background Examine outcome of simulations, compare to history, create presentations Finish games Discuss presentations, aggregate findings across games Table 3.2 Suggested Curricular Outline for Civilization III Days 1-3: Setting up the game as a problem space, learning the game tutorial. In the first week of activities, students’ game play will focus on learning to play the game. They will start by doing the tutorial (with simpler maps and scenarios), then, by the end of this period, move on to custom-made maps (which are more complex). This game play 125 would be augmented through readings on ancient civilizations which provides additional background information, seeds students with questions for further research, and foregrounds issues they will wrestle with (See Appendix F). These readings could be used as homework, introductory exercises, back-up lessons in case computers fail, or as activities during downtime. Given the engaging nature of Civilization III, it is not unreasonable to expect a few students to even seek out information on their own in encyclopedias or through the web in order to augment their game play (i.e. learn where civilizations grow the quickest). The focus of these first few days will really be learning to play the game, and the teacher will be largely consumed with structuring activities (i.e. the tutorial) to help students learn the game and then by answering questions. Days 4-8. Game Play and Question Generation. By day four, students should be confident with the basic controls and will be ready to use Civilization III as a tool for inquiry into world history. Students should be familiar enough with game concepts to begin using a full, realistic map and game scenarios (which are more complex than the tutorial). I expect that Civilization III will still be opaque to some, and the game’s complexity overwhelming, so these first few days will also include plenty of time for students to explore the game interface and concepts, perhaps using the Civilopedia. I expect that students will have many questions about the game and history. I hope to encourage and capitalize on this curiosity by encouraging students to ask questions which can become the seeds for their research projects. I will lead structured question-asking activities which should draw out students’ questions, facilitate knowledge sharing, and scaffold their inquiry process. Specifically, I will distribute note pads, encouraging students to write down questions about the game and about history. 126 Using butcher paper, we will compare and organize and students’ questions. My hope is that this question-generation process will encourage a culture of inquiry and pique their curiosity in specific historic events or concepts. As a class, we will discuss these questions, suggesting how they might be studied and which ones captivate students’ interest. If authentic question-asking is at the heart of any meaningful inquiry-based learning project (Barnett, et al. 2000), then a crucial function of this component of the unit is to encourage students to ask questions that are generative, that lead to deep questions central to the study of world history that are also meaningful to them. Engendering such a culture of inquiry and question-asking is notoriously difficult; however, my hope is that Civilization III might serve as a vehicle for supporting question-asking. Days 9-12. Purposeful Game Play and Research. By Days 9-12, student should be comfortable with the game controls and concepts, begun to create and identify goals in the game (and strategies for achieving those goals) and beginning to make connections their game play and existing knowledge of history. For example, a student playing as the Iroquois might note that he or she is more isolated than those students playing in the Middle East. Some students may have reached as far as 1000 AD, and having started over the game a few times (which is common practice), perhaps is developing a broad sense of historical timescales, particularly in regards to Great Wonders or technological improvements. Between Days 9-12, I imagine students creating maps and timelines of their games and comparing them to world history charts. For example, a player playing as the Iroquois might be surprised that his civilization has grown quite large, and decides to create a map of his civilization, and then compare it to historical maps and figures. Or, a 127 student interested in technology might make a timeline of technological discoveries, comparing the years that technologies were discovered in his game with the actual dates in history. I envision students using the Internet for much of this research, but particularly Hyper History Online (http://www.hyperhistory.org), a website with over 2000 files (including maps, charts, and timelines) on world history. These tasks should flow organically from students’ questions about the games (i.e. a question about discovering technologies more quickly might lead to questions about which civilizations discovered which technologies). I envision some class time being devoted to working on these projects, although they seem best fit for homework assignments. Days 13-16. Recursive Game Play, Simulated History, and Creating Presentations. By the fourth and fifth weeks, students should have a mastery over the basic game concepts and already begun using the game as a springboard for studying history through generating questions and comparing their game play to history. Now, I imagine students beginning to play recursively, that is failing in the game, generating hypotheses about the game system (and possibly history) and then restarting their games under new conditions to test these theories. I envision my role as that of helping students articulate how their theories about the game that they are exploring (e.g. it is easier to play in the Middle East) may reflect underlying theories of world history (i.e. playing the game in order to achieve technological victory may be easier in locations geographically conducive to trade). A challenge during this phase will be to help students play the game on two levels: to at one time become involved in their game play and at the same time thinking about history more broadly. 128 One way that I hope to structure students’ activities so that they engage in historical thinking is by requiring them to make a 7 minute presentation at the end of the course addressing one of the questions that they identified earlier in the unit. Sample projects might be the role of the Nile in Egyptian history, the historical importance of the silk road in China, or disease and population growth in the Americas. My hope is that students would not just look up information in books or charts, but that they would use their games as simulations to explore these ideas, recursively asking questions to the game system, examining historical data, and then eventually forming historical arguments. This kind of historical thinking, historical thinking in terms of arguments bolstered by simulations and multi-media owes some intellectual debt to Wineburg (2000) as well as “hypothetical history” as an emerging mode of inquiry (c.f. Cowley, 1999), but is also quite unique and hitherto unexplored in relation to games and as a pedagogical model. Days 17-18: Discussion within Communities of Inquiry. As students create their presentations, I hope to create a community of inquiry whereby students ask questions, share information and present work to their peers. Time and space allowing, I would like to gather students who played as the game civilization (i.e. the Iroquois or Egypt) and have them create an artifact (posterboard or presentation) about their civilization. My goal would be to have students reconcile their experience of their civilization with other students’, creating an artifact that spans each of their games. Students will analyze one another’s games, exchange theories of history, and negotiate meanings. Consistent with a pragmatic approach, the goal of these activities will be to have students articulate 129 understandings, negotiate meanings, and expose their ideas to others’ within a community of inquiry. Summary. This section suggests one possible pedagogical model for using Civilization III in world history classrooms. Central to my approach (and my philosophy of education in general) is that the key to producing meaningful learning is to engender a community of inquiry whereby students ask personally meaningful questions, guided by teachers and other students. As described in Chapter II, I ascribe to a socio-cultural view of learning, taking learning as social practice and learning can very much be thought of as a process of enculturation. The pedagogical model suggested here is rooted in this sociocultural approach to learning and pulls from several other complimentary pedagogical approaches, including modeling-based constructionism (e.g. Barnett, Barab, & Hay, 2001), knowledge building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), goal-based scenarios (1994), and project-based learning (Barron et al, 1998). Central to the project is the notion that bringing commercial games into classrooms may create unanticipated consequences and result in the need for very particular instructional approaches, although a good deal can be learned by building on existing understandings from the learning sciences (Squire, 2002). The next section explains my approach to collecting data in order to investigate these issues. Data Collection Within a design experiment framework, I use a combination of naturalistic, qualitative methods to address the research questions listed above. Drawing from Stake’s case study methodology (1995), I develop narrative descriptions of each case in order to 130 give the reader a sense of how events at each site unfolded, particularly what factors went into any design changes made. Consistent with Cobb et al. (2003), I present the case in terms of turns in classroom practice with each case chunked by shifting classroom dynamics. Stake’s case study technique is particularly useful in studies exploring contexts such as the ones investigated in here, where the very circumstances in which the research is conducted are unstable: Which students are in class on any given day is unpredictable and the extent to which those who do attend are willing to participate in the research (and in what ways) must be tacitly negotiated throughout each and every class period. Entering such an environment with a detailed and inflexible agenda and pedagogical design would be unwise. Not only would you alienate (if not lose entirely) most of your voluntary participants but you would also overlook emergent needs, patterns, activities, behaviors, and issues within the very context and activity structure you had hoped to understand. Stake’s case study methodology is most suitable in such contexts because it is responsive to emergent findings, emphasizing the importance of not over-prescribing data collection and research procedures but rather allowing data collection to follow emerging themes (cf. Stake, 2003). He writes, “Initial research questions may be modified, or even replaced in mid-study by the case researcher. The aim is to thoroughly understand [the case]. If early questions are not working, if new issues become apparent, the design is changed. Malcolm Parlett and David Hamilton (1976) called it progressive focusing.” (Stake, 1995, p. 9) Through progressive focusing – changing a design in ways responsive to emergent findings – researchers are particularly apt to catch the unintended (and not just intended) consequences of an educational intervention. Stake writes, “the real business of the case 131 study is particularization, not generalization” (1995, p.8). For him, the purpose of case research is interpretation of the local, followed by development (when necessary) and application of research methods and techniques that are in response to the needs of the case. In the work presented here, I take a fairly moderate stance on researcher intervention and interpretation. On the one hand, as an educator and not just a researcher in each setting, I felt obligated to modify and, at times, even remove wholesale various elements or aspects of the instructional activities when and where it seemed in the students’ best interest. In order for my instructional design to be responsive to local needs in this way, I had to act as interpreter within the field. On the other hand, whereas Stake’s methodology relies heavily on the continuous interpretation of the researcher in situ, I attempted to minimize my role as interpreter while in the field in order to protect the integrity of the original data. Generally, my more moderate solution was to structure on-site field notes around straight observations and then, after triangulating and supplementing our observations among the teacher(s), the hired researcher, and myself, to then use these observations to generate cases (cf. ethnomethodological approach, Silverman, 1993). Each primary case document – including unmitigated observations, interviews, and student artifacts – then became the basis on which any inferences were made. Because case documents were compiled after each day on site, I was able to use the observations as the basis for making pedagogical decisions. Inferences beyond that – ones which bore on the research questions themselves – were made during the data analysis phase subsequent to data collection (see the Data Analysis section below). A 132 description of the specific observation, interview, and student artifact collection methods follows. Consistent with Stake’s (1995) case study approach to data collection and reporting, I use observations, interviews, and document analysis. Stake (like many qualitative researchers) argues that researchers should use multiple data sources to generate more trustworthy and credible data. This process, frequently called triangulation (Denzin, 1989), thereby increases the degree of validity of the assertions generated by the research, as the researcher builds arguments based on less “contestable data” (Stake, 1995). A description of these specific method and the inter-relationships among them follows. Observations Because I played an active role as a participant-observer in each environment, I ran risks of both becoming vested in the project and missing important interactions occurring away from me. In order to ameliorate this potential source of bias, I employed a trained researcher to attend each class, take field notes, and discuss emerging findings between and after sessions. My original intention was to have the second researcher videotape the classes; however, such data collection became unfeasible as students resisted the intrusion (as in the Media case) or participant consent could not be secured (as in the YWCA case). Data collection focused on two objectives: 1) Capturing students’ game play activities, including what year they were in, what civilization they were playing as, and, crucially, what game practices they engaged in, and 2) capturing social interactions, including the content of the talk among participants, the character of the social 133 interactions surrounding the game play, how knowledge was shared among them, what meanings became taken-as-shared with in groups of players, instances when players use Civilization III to discuss understandings of other social phenomena (and instances when they didn’t), and occasions when cooperative or competitive play emerge. Both researchers adopted an active stance as educators in the classroom, choosing to probe students’ understandings with questions and observations. We made regular use of informal interviews to query and clarify observations and learn more about players’ own understandings of their activities and context. Such regular participation as facilitators/instructors in student’s activities “risks” engaging players in reflective activities known to promote learning and therefore seriously compromising the generalizability of any findings. However, given the exploratory nature of this research and the double role we ended up needing to play, I chose to err on the side of the students’ benefit and simply be diligent and systematic in recording our participation in student activities so that, in later generating inferences and conclusions, I might be able to at least partially disentangle the effects of our presence from the shape and trajectory of the naturally occurring activities overall. I then purposely wrote the cases in a manner that might allow readers to accomplish such disentanglements when and where I was unable, making explicit note of when and how we intervened in activities and shaped students interactions with each other and/or the game. Interviews Students were interviewed throughout the study in order to probe researcher observations and hypotheses and to gain participants’ views in order to triangulate their interpretations against our own. Both researchers asked frequent formal and informal 134 questions to students, often eliciting explanations of students’ actions – both what they were doing and why. In addition to frequent informal interviews, nine participants from the Media case(s) and four students from the YWCA case were given semi-structured interviews following the unit that included performance tasks. We queried interviewees about their attitudes toward social studies and probed their conceptual understanding of social studies phenomena, using both discussion and performance tasks dealing with historical timescales, maps and texts (see Appendix D for the interview protocol). We also gave students dynamic assessments (Brown, 1992), including novel historical, geographical, and political scenarios in order to understand their thinking on related topics that they had not yet encountered. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Whereas researchers coming from objectivist epistemologies might treat interviews as socially neutral, I view these interviews as social discourse – co-constructed dialogues between researcher and participant. This social perspective acknowledges that both parties have profound impact on how an interview unfolds as both shape responses and adapt to one another based on gestures, intonations, and language in a struggle to develop and maintain intersubjectivity. Thus, I did not hold back from nodding or commenting on students’ responses, although I did try to avoid leading them toward specific answers. Aware of the possibility that students may try to please (or resist) me, I framed the interviews as opportunities for students to help me understand what they learned (or didn’t) through playing the game. The interviews were not constructed as tests or assessment situations, and students did not seem to approach them as such. Student Artifacts 135 Each day, I collected students’ log sheets (See Appendix C) and inscriptions created in support of their game play. On most days in the unit, participants wrote a short description of what happened that day in a journal, noting in particular any major game decisions they had made. We tried a variety of activities in each case, ranging from student timed-writings to having students submit questions on post-it notes in order to support learning. The relative success of these activities are detailed in the cases; regardless of their pedagogical success, however, they did generate documents that were particularly useful for triangulating researcher/teacher observations and students’ actual goals and activities. Data Analysis For each case, observations, transcribed interviews, and student artifacts were combined into a primary case document. In this way, I use multiple data sources for each case as a way to generate more trustworthy and credible data. Information gleaned from one source was checked against and used to supplement other sources – a process frequently called triangulation (Denzin, 1989) – in order to increase the degree of validity of the assertions generated. First, I translated each primary case document, roughly 300 pages on average, into a coherent narrative flow of events by combining chronologically relevant data from multiple sources together and removing redundancy. Working through several iterations, I then reduced the text by removing extraneous or theoretically uninteresting occurrences 8 – what Stake (1995) calls winnowing and sifting the data. The text that was removed largely consisted of descriptions of failure or factual reports of students’ blow-by-blow progress in the game such as what they built or what technologies they were discovering. 8 136 Incongruent text which did not match my study objects were noted and included in the case for the reader to examine. I kept these reduced primary case documents in narrative form, consistent with an historical-cultural approach, in order to report, in a contextualized fashion, what practices emerged and how learning occurred within the environment. As such, the reader can vicariously experience (Stake, 1995) the decision-making processes involved in the cases, perhaps using this experience as the basis for drawing generalizations toward other contexts. Narrative-based research methods allow the researcher to uncover and share the many design decisions that went into the study, hopefully illuminating the practical and theoretical issues in using gaming technologies to support learning. Following Stake’s (1995) work, each case narrative is based on incontestable observations, observations that most any ordinary observer might agree with if present, as closely as possible. I then shared each case narrative with both the second researcher and the local teacher from each case as a way to verify the accuracy. Typically, the second researcher had substantive feedback while the case’s teacher had little beyond a few minor factual corrections. Using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), I analyzed each case based on emergent themes and patterns that bear on the original research questions, scanning the data for counter-factual evidence and competing contradictions and informally verifying the inferred patterns with the second researcher as they were established. Specifically, the analysis focused on: (1) the everyday gaming and social practices that emerged in each classroom, (2) moments of engagement or lack thereof, (3) students’ displayed understandings of historical phenomena and how the game might (or 137 might not) be remediating those understandings, (4) the affordances and constraints of Civilization III as a tool for learning within each educational context, and (5) how the game aligned or misaligned with schooling practices already in place at each site. I apply two distinct theoretical lenses to each case narrative in order to make tease out subtle yet significant patterns in the data that might bear on these five issues: Cobb et al.’s (1999) notion of “taken-as-shared meanings” and activity theory. Taken-as-Shared Meanings Consistent with Cobb and colleagues (1999), I searched for taken as shared meanings that arise in each case narrative. Taken-as-shared meanings are knowledge arising from activity that participants accept as understood and use as tools for solving problems. The notion of taken-as-shared meanings embodies a socio-culturalist epistemology in which knowledge is viewed as socially constructed and arising through use. If knowledge is something results through interaction in the world as mediated by social structures, then research learning needs to focus on sites where communities generate and accept shared meanings as sites for learning, taking particular note of spaces in which knowledge is taken as understood and is used as the basis for solving future problems. For example, in their studies of mathematics classrooms, Cobb and colleagues (1999) identify places where students use mathematical principles for solving more complex mathematical problems. Cobb looks for places where meanings are articulated and reified, and then discussed in problem solving. In this study, I examine places where understandings emerge through participation in game playing communities and examine how these understandings are used to inform game play as well as other learning tasks. 138 Consistent with Cobb, I look for places where knowledge is taken as shared, situations I attempt to probe further in interviews. Activity Theory Analysis Consistent with earlier work characterizing activity systems (e.g. Barab et al., 2002), I analyzed the cases through an activity theory framework, using this framework to characterize the tensions in each activity system, and suggest ways that the system might evolve to support more robust learning exercises. Activity theory analysis is an ideological approach to data analysis, one that takes an existing social theory and then analyzes data through that lens. Such ideological approaches (feminist or Marxist theories are other examples of ideological approaches) offer the researcher powerful tools for gaining insight into a phenomena, saving the researcher work in having to retheorize situations in each setting. By basing an analysis on a particular theory, researchers can build on existing theory which can then be used to better understand human behavior. Ideological approaches also risk steering the researcher in an ideologically-driven direction, biasing the researcher toward seeing particular relationships or where there are none. In this study, I consciously chose to write my case studies before doing the activity theory analysis so as to minimize ideological bias. Consistent with Engeström (1999), I developed depictions of each activity system. Using these depictions, I identified primary and secondary contradictions in the activity system. These activity system analyses serve to illuminate issues in the design of game-based learning environments and help educational designers understand the problem space of designing game-based learning environments. In reporting my analysis, 139 I foreground the reporting of contradictions, as the tools, resources, and social structures are considered in the case studies. Using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), I developed characterizations of each activity system, scanning the data for counter-factual evidence or competing contradictions. I shared these contradictions with the second researcher who agreed that these were primary contradictions driving activity in each situation. The only substantive difference was in the YWCA case, where both researchers had difficulty generating contradictions and felt that the analytic frame of activity theory may have created contradictions where there were none. Developing Conclusions After developing an interpreted narrative for each case, I examined learners’ experiences across cases to develop assertions about how practices emerged across settings, the role of social interaction in mediating activity, how engagement developed in each setting, and what role gaming played in learning. Because there were substantial differences across cases (as opposed to cases matched on all but one or two variables), I treat them as collective case studies (Stake, 1995) – multiple case studies combined in order to illuminate a broad range of research themes. In effect, collective case studies allow the researcher to see past the particularities of a single case. I use the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) to develop conclusions – qualified, data-driven statements that address research questions and have theoretical and / or practical importance (Mabry, 1999). As in developing the case studies, I searched for disconfirming evidence or counter-evidence to the claims provided here. As I developed conclusions, I iteratively scanned both the primary case documents 140 and the interpretive narratives of each case. Consistent with the exploratory nature of this research, I attempted to delineate how Civilization III worked as an effective instructional resource as well as where it was problematic. My conclusions attempt to account for the variety of students’ experiences both within each case across cases. Places where the instructional unit failed to capture students’ interest or produce understandings are noted alongside locations of productive learning. Drawing from Cobb’s notion of iterative design, the goal of this study is not to argue for Civilization III as a resource in world history classrooms; rather, the purpose is to understand the properties of these instructional designs and illuminate underlying theoretical and practical issues in developing game-based learning environments. Petite and grand generalizations. The conclusions of this study should be regarded as petite generalizations – generalizations about the activity in these particular, situated cases that may (or may not) have direct import for the reader’s own contexts. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest, qualitative case studies cannot generate findings or assertions with universal applicability; instead, their power lies in situating the reader within narratives that allow the reader to make inferences about her own situation. Case studies are simply not well suited to producing generalizable results as the uniqueness of the case always persists. Still, as Stake (1995) argues, case studies can, in some instances, suggest problems with, or productive modifications to, broader theories, often suggesting productive avenues to explore in future research or caveats to those in the field. Although I do suggest places where these data suggests holes or modifications in existing theory, the conclusions contained herein are petite generalizations, not grand ones. Consistent with Stake (1995), I believe that methods other than the case study are 141 necessary for actually causing modification to grand theories rather than merely suggesting what their direction might be. Within the design experiment paradigm, I have argued that differing methods need to be employed at different times in order to understand design space, and that we are most likely to see advancements in theory through sustained research efforts across multiple contexts (Jenkins, Squire, & Tan, in press). Stake (1995) makes a similar argument, referring to the use of multiple research traditions or the collaboration of multiple researchers on one data set as triangulation of methodologies. This study is but a first step in understanding how digital game-based learning environments might function, particularly in world history, in order to provide a foundation for further research and theory in this emerging field. Theory triangulation. By using several different theoretical approaches to a data set, one can get deeper, richer understandings of both practical and theoretical issues at play in a case. Stake (1995) calls this theory triangulation. In this study, I draw from two distinct research traditions: (a) Stake’s responsive case study approach, and (b) activity theory. Each offers unique perspectives and ways of looking at the data. Because ideological research approaches such as activity theory can be theoretical blinders, masking important trends in data and organizing the research toward certain conclusions, I developed my case studies before performing my activity theory analysis. 9 After developing each case and then examining each context from an activity theory point of view, I generate conclusions, petite generalizations that draw from both the case studies and the activity theory analysis. Combining these two approaches not only yields a deeper, richer understanding of the data but also suggest differences in each theoretical 9 I acknowledge that the theoretical language of activity theory, particularly the notion of contradictions, probably entered my thinking during the case studies; however, 142 approach, giving future researchers perhaps a more nuanced appreciation for how each theoretical system works and what each reveals and obfuscates. I close the dissertation by suggesting implications of this study. In particular, I try to tie these experiences to the emerging discourse on gaming and learning. 143 Chapter IV: Media Case Study The Media and Technology Charter (MEDIA) School is a public charter school designed to help inner-city and at-risk students learn academic skills through creative expression with media and technology. Opening its doors in 1999, MEDIA serves mostly (about 80%) African-American students. Most students commuted from Roxbury, a lower income and historically African-American inner-city Boston neighborhood. Attendance was highly sporadic; it was not uncommon to have 30% of the students absent on any given day. The school runs from grades 6-10. Joel Cook, an Algebra teacher who teaches a unit using SimCity 2000 and was interested in using Civilization with his mathematics class, wanted to teach a unit with Civilization III. I explained my interest in using Civilization III to teach social studies, so Joel introduced me to two Humanities teachers, Sandy Mitrano and Lisa Carter who had an interest in teaching world history. Over the next two weeks, we worked on building a curriculum that would address issues important to students, meet school learning objectives, and be feasible within this school’s constraints. The next section describes this process in order to situate the reader in the case. The remainder of the chapter describes the events that unfolded. Building the Collaboration and Creating the Curriculum I met with Joel, Lisa, and Sandy two times in the early Spring of 2002 to explore how playing Civilization III could be the basis of a unit on world history. Lisa immediately drew connections between the game and Jared Diamond’s best selling history of civilizations Guns, Germs, and Steel (1999). Sandy said that students neither liked nor did well in world history. She thought that the chance to “replay” history from 144 African or Native American perspectives might engage her students, who were largely turned off from history. As the teachers reviewed my human subjects forms, they were concerned about phrasing that gave students a choice of withdrawing from the unit. Lisa said that “A number of them will opt-out just to be antagonistic.” I went back and forth with the Human Subjects Committee several times over this language, but in the end, it remained. Addressing Poor Attitudes Toward World History Sandy explained that the MEDIA School did not even formally teach social studies classes because the principal believed that disadvantaged students were better served by developing basic academic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. Finally, and probably most importantly, social studies is not covered on the Massachusetts State Exams, the high stakes exams that all Massachusetts students must pass in order to graduate. As a result, world history and geography were folded into other humanities courses, such as world literature. An interview with Andrea, one of the students, about her attitudes toward social studies illuminates the issue. Andrea was deeply resentful of how she had been taught social studies. Interviewer: Andrea. Do you like social studies? I never really liked social studies... I don’t like learning about American history every year. I’m like, “Why don’t we do something else?” If you’re going to have social studies class, make it besides the wars or something. Like the Holocaust. Why should I have to learn about the Holocaust? I do it every year. It’s boring. And then they only talk about the Jews when they talk about the Holocaust. That makes me upset too. You know, if I was alive back then, I’d be dead. I was like, ‘Can we talk about me for a second? I’m a Jehovah’s Witness, so I would have been dead anyway because of my religion.’ And we have to learn about American history from the same textbook… I’m just now realizing 145 Interviewer: Andrea: that there’s a whole bunch of stuff that they don’t even write in the textbook. So they should have us do projects on what we think isn’t written in the textbooks. We should do a huge project on that or something. I think it would be better if you did a lot of hands-on stuff instead of reading and taking tests, because basically that’s all that social studies has been. It’s not like science or English where you can be creative. You read it, you memorize it, and then it’s over. If you did projects, like build landscapes or build what you think the world was like it back then, it would be more interesting. If it wasn’t so boring, I would like it. So it’s not social studies but it’s how it’s taught in schools Yeah – how it’s taught in school is boring. I think African American history is left out of schools. I think Hispanic history is left out of schools. And I think that for schools that are so diverse in culture, they only teach one side of history, and I think that’s wrong. So if you’re going to have schools all filled with a bunch of black people, why are you going to teach them all about white history and not teach them anything ‘bout black history? Why have a school all about white history? That’s why people don’t like social studies. Social studies is boring. Echoes of Wineburg (2001), Gardner (1991), and Loewen (1995) float through Andrea’s critique of her social studies education in which she argues that her identity is not represented in class and which she summarizes as “social studies is boring 1 .” Most students in the Media case had similar reactions to social studies. We discussed how to supplement Civilization III with other curricula. I suggested that the game be used within an inquiry framework, having students develop questions, use Civilization III as a simulation, do additional outside research, and then develop artifacts representing their understandings (See also Barab, Barnett, Yamagata-Lynch, et al., 2002; Frederickson & White, 1998). Sandy and Lisa explained that most students read at between the 4th and 9th grade reading level and would struggle doing an The commonalities between Loewen’s (1995) critique and Andrea’s critique are striking. Loewen begins his book Lies My Teacher Told Me, “HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS HATE HISTORY. When they list their favorite subjects, history invariably comes in last. Students consider history “the most irrelevant” of twenty-one academic subjects commonly taught in high school. Bor-r-ring is the adjective they commonly apply to it.” (p. 12) 1 146 independent research project. I gave each teacher a copy of the game to take home and play, and we agreed to reconvene to discuss more curriculum ideas. Defining Learning Objectives and Designing the Curriculum. Three weeks later, I met again with Joel, Sandy and Lisa to design the curriculum. None of the teachers had played their games, so I demonstrated Civilization III. All three teachers found the game overwhelming and confusing; none of them had played strategy games before. The teachers thought that students could probably play the game with coaching. Sandy asked if I would be willing to teach the unit if necessary. I said I could if necessary. After seeing the game, Lisa thought that students might learn about the variables affecting the growth and decline of civilizations. She also thought that students would enjoy learning about ancient civilizations, building civilizations, and sharing their successes. Again, I suggested that students make maps, timelines, and a culminating project as a way to reach instructional objectives such as understanding historical timescales, how geography works as a process, how technologies build on one another, or how geography, politics, and economics affect history. Lisa joked that if students could even locate Egypt on a map, the project would be a success. The teachers were enthusiastic about the unit’s ability to engage students who were currently uninvolved in school and asked me if I’d be interested in running the unit starting two weeks, during the school day from 2:00-3:00 on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesdays for six weeks. The remainder of the chapter details these events, which are organized into clusters of days by themes and tied together into a case narrative. Within each cluster of days, activities are broken out into themes in order to situate the reader in an unfolding 147 narrative, a summary of which is provided in Figure 4.1. One of my objectives in this approach is to address the first research question: what practices emerge when Civilization III is brought into formal learning environments. A second is to preserve the representativeness of the data and let the reader vicariously experience the ebbs and flows of the unit. My hope is that providing a detailed narrative will be of use to educators and instructional designers engaged in similar design activities. What Happened? Why am I doing this? Replaying History This game isn’t bad… emergence of game talk Purposeful Game Play “Recursive gaming” Day 1 4 8 12 17 Figure 4.1: Visual outline of narrative DAYS 1-4: Experimenting with curricular models, and learning to play the game The first four class periods were marked by chaos, disorganization, and students’ struggles to understand basic game concepts. On the first day, I hoped to introduce the research project, explain the purpose of the unit, and allow students to explore the game for a few minutes. As Lisa introduced me as a researcher coming from MIT to teach a class on civilizations, I realized that there were some sharp cultural divides between myself and the students. These students, 80% of whom were African-American, came from the roughest areas of Boston. Teachers and students had strong relationships, and I 148 sensed that the school was held together through a delicate balance of trust. I was nervous about how I, as an outsider, would fare in this environment. The computer lab itself was in a small classroom designed to seat twenty elementary students, not 18 teenagers, so we were packed in uncomfortably. It was a very hot day and there was no air conditioning. Voices from outside came in through an open window, and several students called out to people on the street. Eighteen of the twenty computers were working. Introducing the Unit Lisa and Sandy calmed down the class down and introduced me as “Kurt,” a researcher from M.I.T. teaching a unit on civilizations using the game Civilization III. Lisa asked students to give me their attention, announced, “Take it away, Kurt,” and we began. I described the game and explained that my research was examining what, if anything, they learned about world history through playing it. I told a quick story about my own experiences sailing through a Caribbean History unit in high school after playing the computer game Pirates!. I had intended on describing Civilization III in greater detail and what they might learn through playing the game, but they were clearly uninterested. Only three students made any eye contact with me during the entire seven minute introduction; the other twelve talked or checked email. Lisa and Sandy handled classroom management, disciplining students, and confiscating contraband. I wanted to demonstrate the game with the projector but it was broken, so students played the tutorial instead. Most of the machines did not load the game correctly, so many students sat staring at error screens. After thirty minutes, students were finally into 149 the game, but the class was on the verge of chaos because students had entered the game at different rates and barraged us with questions. Exploring the Game By 2:40 the class had settled, but four or five students, all of whom were women, were still not playing the game at all. One student slept in front of her computer. Four others talked, walked around the room, or sat and did nothing. The other 12 students worked through the tutorial. The teachers said that this was actually a large number of students to have on task at one time. By 2:50 something from the game had captured the interest of each student. Some students wanted to find civilizations to interact with. Others wanted to build an army, go to war, and rule the world. Others just wanted to build up their cities. Andrea, one of the women actually playing the game, looked frustrated. She shouted, “Where are the women in the game? I explained how the workers and settler units represent both men and women since historically men and women both worked in these eras. Andrea grunted, and nodded, looking unconvinced. “They don’t look like women.” For Andrea and Erica, two students playing together, the scouts, settlers, workers, and warrior icons all looked male and the lack of women in the game was a turn off. They were playing as the Egyptians, whose leader was Cleopatra. The first day was characterized by chaos, confusion, and a difficulty in communicating the purpose of playing the game. Students frequently asked, “Why are we playing?” or “What is the point of this?” Few students were familiar with strategy game genre conventions and none had played turn-based strategy games. Eventually, most 150 students found something about the game that intrigued them. However, we were still uneasy that the class could easily lose interest, which could result in more chaos. Failed Introductions On the second day, we tried an introductory “Do Now” 2 activity to help me learn students’ names. Students were uncooperative. Before the activity began, we kicked Tammy and Bill out of class for talking. Several students (Dwayne, Shakira and Shirley) would not turn around to look at me, and two students refused to even give me their names. Several others refused to be on video camera, causing us to abandon videotaping class sessions entirely. Next, we tried to administer the pretest (See Appendix E). Only a few students even tried the survey and only one student, Jason, attempted the timeline item. Midway through the survey, Sandy reminded the students that they were being graded on the unit, but this had no noticeable impact on behavior. While doing the survey, Andrea, one of the strongest students in the class, asked, “What’s the difference between B.C. and A.D.?” I asked her to guess, and Andrea commented, “Maybe that’s why we’re doing this unit.” We hoped that the survey would help students understand the purpose of the unit, but the exercise only seemed to alienate students further. Retrying the Game Most students ignored the in-game tutorial. Four students, all of whom had played computer strategy games previously, were starting to understand the purpose of the game and its basic interface. For example, Tony (Babylonians)3 explored his continent with his “Do Nows” were short activities designed to activate prior knowledge or stimulate reflection, as well as to get students on task. 3 The (civilization, date) notation following a students name indicates who they are playing in the game and what year their game is in. 2 151 warriors. He read through the city improvement screens, carefully weighing the effectiveness of whether to build military units, granaries, temples, or workers. Jason also approached the game methodically, carefully reading each word and thinking about decisions. Dwayne, who had earlier refused to give me his name, played the game intently throughout class, talking with no one. He struggled with whether to sell his technologies for gold because he feared that other civilizations would attack him. Later I learned that Dwayne was one of the brightest students in the school yet was failing all of his classes for the second straight year and most likely would not advance to 10th grade for the third year in a row. Deborah, who was not a strategy gamer, enjoyed negotiating with other civilizations. She read through the negotiation screens carefully, using her mouse as a pointer to highlight difficult words. 4 Dwayne, Tony, Dan, and a few others kept on playing the game after dismissal time. By the end of class, the three students who had played real-time strategy games before (Tony, Jason, and Dwayne), were able to negotiate the interface without problems.5 About half of the students were completely confused. For example, Kathy was starving her civilization and was completely bankrupt but unaware of what she was doing wrong.6 Others did not play at all. Bill called for help several times but could not be heard As Deborah built her cities, she used the “city view,” a little-used feature that allows the player to view his city’s houses, shops, roads, improvements, and wonders. Kathy looked on as Deborah switched views, and tried it for her city. Soon, Dan was looking at his cities, as well. Many students also enjoyed the “palace view.” The students who earned “We love the king days” reveled in this reward as well. 5 Many students were confused about Civilization III’s turn-based format. Whereas in a real-time strategy game, players click on units and the units begin moving to a new location automatically, in Civilization III, players direct units and then must wait for turns to go by before the units move. I anticipated this issue and explained the difference between real-time and turn-based gaming several times, but it took each of them at least four hours of game play before they understood the difference. 6 Kathy ordered all of her laborers to cease working and become entertainers (and had no idea that she had done so). Kathy was confused because entertainers are represented by colorful icons, and so the visual feedback suggested that turning a laborer into an entertainer was a good idea: Meanwhile, her civilization starved and went bankrupt as they entertained one another rather than producing food, gathering natural resources, or engaging in commerce. 4 152 over the din. Kent spent most of the time walking about the room, looking over students’ shoulders. Eventually Kent became engrossed in other students’ games. At one point, Sandy threatened him with detention for being out of his seat, but Kent replied, “Kent will go home when Kent wants to go home.” Four girls talked or checked email. I was busy the entire period, moving from student to student answering questions. Most questions were general, such as “How do I play the game?” or “What is the game about?” Even after the second day, several students wondered aloud what the point of this unit was. None of the just-in-time lectures explored social studies concepts; they were all explanations of controls or how the game works. The most vocally frustrated students were those whose computers were crashing, suggesting that the frustration may have been due to technical issues as much as any lack of understanding of the game. Rethinking the Unit Sandy, the second researcher, and I debriefed after class. We were concerned about classroom management issues and Sandy suggested that we divide into two groups to make the classroom more manageable. On alternating days, one group could do activities (i.e. discussions) while the others played the game. We decided to require students to pick one of four civilizations to study and have students vote on which civilizations they would play – encouraging them to do background readings on civilizations prior to the vote. Overnight, I put together a readings packet introducing each civilization for the exercise (See Appendix F).7 Dividing into Groups Where possible, I drew on the text from the Civilization III Civilopedia for this text. However, Sandy’s initial take on the Civilopedia was that it was written above these students’ reading level, so I simplified language. I also had to add text for several civilizations that are not included in the game, including the Aborigines, Bantu, Celts, Incans, and Polynesians. 7 153 We started class on the third day with a whole group discussion before we divided into groups. I passed out a paper with eight quotations about civilization covering a variety of historical and philosophical perspectives (see Appendix G).8 Five minutes into class, many students were being disruptive, and three students were removed from class. Sandy instructed students to read the eight quotations about civilization and write a reflection on one that was meaningful to them. One student asked, “What if you didn’t do it [i.e. read the sheet]?” There was talking and laughter; students jeered. Sandy tried to regain their attention and reminded the class that they were being graded on the unit. Sheila refused to do the sheet and was also removed from class. Dwayne, of all students, had actually read the quotes. There was some mumbling as students seemed surprised that Dwayne had read the sheet. Dwayne defended himself. “I did it because I’m probably the only person in the room who can understand and comprehend the paper….Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities.” Dwayne explained that he chose the quote because it emphasized, “Unnecessary things. That’s what civilization is built on. Things we don’t need. Computers, supermarkets, corporations, government…” Dwayne, who was the most troublesome student and flunking all of his classes, was also, by the teachers’ estimation, the most intellectually gifted in class. The discussion lumbered along, with Sandy doing her best to connect the activity to students’ interests, such as Native American culture. The discussion was labored, far from the engaging discussion and debate I had imagined. Mini-Demonstrations and Engagement 8 I hoped that the questions alleviate tension by communicating that questioning assumptions about the concept of civilization is acceptable, draw in skeptical students, and give me a chance to learn more about their thoughts and attitudes toward social studies. 154 On days 3 and 4 we divided into two groups. Sandy’s class discussed and voted on civilizations while my group played Civilization III. In the computer room, I demonstrated the game to small groups. Students listened for a few minutes and then asked questions of their own: “What do I do in the game? What does the worker do? What does the settler do?” Students were especially confused about military and domestic units (i.e. settlers, workers) and their differing purposes. As students began playing, they encountered their first complex, multi-variable problem: the problem of maintaining happiness in their cities. We opened their city screens and investigated the economy of each city. We looked at the amount of food, production, and commerce being generated by each city. We compared the productivity of grasslands, river valleys, hills, and mountains. We compared the effects of irrigation, mining, and building roads on the carrying capacity of the land and on the commerce of each city, which would lead to increased revenue and luxuries. I also showed them how they could encourage citizens to become entertainers rather than laborers, which would mean less food, production and trade, but more luxury goods. For the first time, students saw how they faced choices that could have an impact on how their civilization evolved and history unfolded By day 3, several students became engaged in the game, each for unique reasons. Dwayne, Chris, Andrea, and Jason stayed to play after class and I had to struggle to get them out of the classroom. I asked what they liked so far. Dwayne would not answer me, but he seemed to enjoy building an empire. Chris liked exploring the map. Jason rattled off several parts of the game that he enjoyed – the chance to build cities, going to war, talking to advisors. Andrea laughed when I ask her what she liked about the game, saying, “I hate this game!” Andrea was constantly at war. She laughed again and then 155 said, “No, but it’s really fun, even though it’s frustrating." Kent and Norman also came up to me after day 4 to say how they liked the game. Although a growing number of students engaged in playing the game, many were still overwhelmed by its complexity. Even though students had gone through the tutorial, sat through three introductions, and played the game for three hours, the game’s learning curve was still so steep that some students were overwhelmed. Conversations focused on questions such as: How do I gain more money? How do I stop cities from rioting? What do I control? After class, I tried to do a pre-interview with Dwayne. Although Dwayne gave his opinions about the game, he refused to participate in any performance tasks. I asked him what he thought of the unit, and Dwayne said that he thought it was a good idea, but that students could develop misunderstandings of factual information, such as who built the Pyraminds. Even though the class dynamic was improving and I was establishing some trust with students, Dwayne still did not feel safe enough to show me his understandings of history. Obtaining valid pretest data was still not possible. Voting on Civilizations In Sandy’s room, students were handed the introductory packets on civilizations (see Appendix F). Bill read the overview of Civilization III aloud, stumbling over one or two words. Kent read the paragraph about the Aborigines. Sandy asked if any of the students had heard of the Aborigines. No one had. She asked four students this question again, one by one, to make sure that they were really paying attention. No one had heard of the Aborigines. When they moved on to the Aztecs, a few students reported having heard of them, although none gave any specific information. Jenny mentioned that they 156 were in the Americas. Kent added that they had “Ill houses, made of mud and stones and stuff.” Students read through the remaining civilizations, most of which students had not heard of. Sandy underscored that if they wanted to start as an African civilization, they could be the Bantu9. This opening activity reveals that, while I hoped that students would come to understand the complex interaction of variables behind the evolution of civilizations, I might need to spend more time introducing simple concepts, such as who the aborigines were and where they came from, than I had anticipated. Next, students voted on which civilizations they wanted to play (ballot in Appendix I). Sandy emphasized that part of this decision was choosing what continent they would start on. Students read through their packets and voted on four civilizations. Students were much more engaged in researching and discussing civilizations, deciding which ones they would play than they had been before. No students talked, walked about the room, or touched one another. Discussing (or Not Discussing) Civilizations On Day 4, Sandy led a more structured discussion of civilizations. Sandy wrote the “Do Now”: “Write what you know about Egyptian civilization.” Sandy asked, “What grade did you study Egypt in?” Jason replied, “All my life!” Sandy explained that students would vote for four civilizations to play and that some classes would meet outside the computer lab for discussion. “Will we be graded?” Rica asked. I realize that choosing the Bantu as a plausible “civilization” in 4000 BC is contentious. The Bantu are essentially a language group which originated in Western Africa and spread across Africa, mingling with other civilizations. Jared Diamond argues that sub-Saharan Africa’s environmental resources made it unlikely that agriculture, and hence “civilization” would develop among the Bantu peoples. There is some evidence of ancient African civilizations, beginning around 200 BC; however relatively little is known about ancient African civilizations. As a result, I weighted the game play against the Bantu – giving them less access to food resources and adjusting their cultural bonuses – to reflect their geographically and historically disadvantaged status. 9 157 “Of course,” said Sandy. Andrea drew a concept map at the board. Students periodically yelled out facts about Egypt. Egyptians were the first do brain surgery. Egyptian Gods were part animals. Egyptians invented hieroglyphics. Egyptians made beer. Egyptians pulled the brains out of the nose of their dead during mummification. Overall, students named about a dozen facts related to Egypt. Andrea wrote down several more facts between comments. Sandy described connections between Egyptians religious beliefs and their burial practices. Sandy then led a jigsaw reading activity where the eight students read about different civilizations and discussed them in groups. Students were half-heartedly engaged in the activity, clearly bored by the ritual display of knowledge about Egypt. The smattering of facts on the board underscored two sides to Jason’s comment. On the one hand, these students had studied Egypt to the point where they could meet most any content standards of factual knowledge of Egypt, but on the other hand, students seemed bored with further study of Egypt, a civilization these students had studied repeatedly as a part of teachers’ efforts to create curricula relating to African history. Back to the Drawing Board I met with the researcher and Sandy for an hour after class to revisit the unit plan. We were all concerned about classroom management issues. I was frustrated because students were spending much of their time learning the game and not much thinking about academic issues. We considered seven or eight different curriculum projects. These ranged from having students film commercials for their civilizations to having them do full-scale research projects. The biggest constraint was that we only had twelve classes left, and there was no way to fit in ten to twenty hours of game play given the time it 158 would take to do a research project. Sandy was concerned with logistical problems. Nearly every idea I had for using the game as a context for outside research (e.g. compare your game to the actual historical situations) involved going between the computer lab and the classrooms or using materials the school did not have. The layout of the room was the most critical design constraint at this point. Having a bigger room, tables in the center to use for creating maps and timelines and for placing resources, or a working projector for teacher and student demonstrations would have changed our options considerably. In my journal, I wrote, Much of our difficulty lies in just how complex learning Civilization III is. Here we are, after three hours of game play, and the students are just now familiar with the most basic of concepts, and still hours and hours away from any sort of fluency. They do not understand how to play the game, let alone use it as a tool for understanding world history. There is a lot to understanding these symbols, game terminology, concepts, and systems. And, I had not appreciated how difficult it would be to get these students to do structured activities. They will not do anything that they do not want; grades are no motivator. Perhaps learning world history in the context of game play is all that we can do. This would mean abandoning the complementary activities I value (i.e. timelines), but I am not sure that these students would do them anyway. I will focus the rest of the unit on four objectives I hope students can learn through playing the game: (1) Make connections between political and physical geography (geography as processes), (2) Get a broad sense of how time flows – a framework for understanding the broad events of history, (3) Learn factual stuff about what is where on a map, (4) Understand how technologies build on one another. DAY 5-7: Getting into Game Play Creating a Context For Game Play I arrived early to debug computer problems and reorganize the physical classroom space. I rearranged the chairs so that they faced me. Next, I drew a large map of the Earth 159 on the white board which I could use for a mini-lecture. My goal was to introduce the game and clarify connections between the game and world history. Jason and Chris did not believe that I drew the picture myself freehand and debated the accuracy of the map among themselves. Chris thought that there was no way I draw such a large map freehand and believed that I traced the picture. Trying to capitalize on their interest, I explained that I did draw it freehand, and they could tell because there were at least two errors in the map. Tony noted that I didn’t draw Puerto Rico (where his family is from). Dwayne noticed that the Bering Strait was drawn incorrectly. While these students may not have known much about geography, they did have knowledge of geographical features that pertained to them. Ironically, of all the complex technologies in the classroom, it was a hand-drawn a map on a whiteboard that piqued these students’ interest in geography. I started the lecture by acknowledging Dwayne’s observation that students could develop some misunderstandings through the game, so I asked, “What was the Earth like one million years ago?” There were a lot of questions about whether it was Pangea or not. Then I asked what it was like 15,000 years ago. The students thought that there were thriving civilizations in North America. I realized just how little they knew about ancient history or prehistory. I talked about the invention of agriculture and how it influenced the growth of civilizations. I explained how the ice ages ended around 15,000 BC, and how people probably entered America by coming down through the Bering Strait. Students were only marginally interested in this activity, and I felt that I was losing them quickly. Jason and Dwayne now had their backs turned, as did most of the class. I switched topics. This example is the first instance of what would later become a 160 predominant pattern; students quickly became disengaged when information was not directly relevant to their own game activity. “Let’s share the results of the civilization tally,” I announced. Immediately, several students turned around. I explained that the winners were, in order, The Egyptians, Aztecs, Iroquois, and then Bantu. I called on student volunteers to show on the board where each civilization started. There was at least one student in the class who could pinpoint where each of these civilizations originated, but students could not locate China, India, or Babylon on the map. The discussion shifted to the idea of replaying history – using the game to explore hypothetical historical scenarios. I asked, “If you want to play in the Americas, who would you play as?” The students said, “Europe,” assuming that they would have to play as the civilization who actually settled the area in real life. I tried to explain that, within the game, the player determines who settles America, not real life history, unless of course the player decides to do so, and that students could play as the Iroquois or any another civilization and still try to settle the Americas if they chose. I explained that if they wanted to colonize the Americas, they would have to deal with Native American populations. “You can choose how you want history to be played. You can try to make the Americas African, if you like.” Students did not seem to understand. Lisa explained the concept another way. “Guys – what languages do they speak in South America?” The class responded, “Spanish and Portuguese.” Lisa continued, “Exactly. Why? That’s where the people who settled there came from. You could play as any civilization that you want and settle North America. Or, try to settle Europe with Native Americans.” Until this point, students had been treating the game as an interactive narrative with pre- 161 defined, scripted beginnings and endings rather than as a simulation that can be used to explore historical hypotheticals. Kent said “cool,” as did a few others. Several students turned around in their chairs. Seeing that they could have some power and autonomy intrigued several students and there was a shift in the room as students realized that they could affect the outcome of history within the game. Game Play Provoking Questions about World History For the first time, students’ questions in class were related to world history. Dan (Iroquois) was attacked by a horde of barbarians and asked who they were and where they came from. I explained that the barbarians represented nomadic Native American tribes; “that’s part of the difficulties playing as the Iroquois. They have a lot of other tribes to contend with.” Andrea asked Lisa about the Colossus. Kent asked what irrigate meant. Other students asked about specific civilizations and where they originated. These questions suggest that students were starting to get beyond simply understanding the interface and beginning to ask questions about what was happening in their games, seeking information about basic concepts in world history to enhance game play. Over the course of the unit, students each asked dozens of questions designed to illuminate what was happening on screen. Dwayne (Japan) explained why he wanted to play Japan even though it was not one of the choices, “I want to reverse thousands of years of Chinese oppression on the Japanese peoples.” I decided to let Dwayne keep playing Japan despite the fact that it wasn’t on the list given his lack of interest in school but enthusiasm for Japanese culture. He goal was to weaken the Chinese by drawing them into war with rivaling civilizations. Dwayne used embargoes, treaties, and trade to play three or four civilizations off of one 162 another. Dwayne’s civilization was also the most advanced, as he discovered Literature and built The Oracle, Pyramids and Great Library. Game failure, not to be confused with technological problems because of older computers, provided students problems to solve. Yet, because students had insufficient resources for analyzing what went wrong, they relied on me for help. Several students had questions related to in-game failures, such as: How do I prevent civil unrest in my cities? How do I defend against barbarians? How do I get more money? Several students, particularly Deborah and Andrea, were constantly at war and, because of it, had problems with cities in civil disarray. They wanted help repairing their civilization. The Carthagianians attacked Bill, and he asked, “Why can’t they invent some guns?” I explained that he could – if he discovered the right technologies. As with many students, Bill’s questions emanated from his failure in the game. I tried to link his goals of gaining better weaponry (the military game system) to the game’s technology system, a connection that was difficult for Bill and others to make. Despite (or perhaps because of) these game challenges, 16 of the 18 students were on task and involved in playing the game. Maintaining Domestic Peace Most students’ cities went into civil unrest because they were exploring or building warriors instead of focusing on domestic issues. Few students had built an infrastructure for commerce, implemented city improvements, negotiated with civilizations to bring in luxuries, or considered military spending very carefully. I suggested that students (such as Tony and Deborah) keep their defenses up but also build new cities and infrastructure which would create more trade and, in turn, would boost 163 their economy which could then support a strong defense. I also suggested that they explore their respective continents to find friendly tribes that they might trade with. From a pedagogical perspective, these struggles are interesting insomuch that they encourage students to consider the trade-offs between taxes, public happiness, publicly funded exploration, and a large military. Balancing Guns and Butter How to build a robust economy and yet maintain a strong military to fight barbarians or rivaling civilizations was an issue for most students. Norman (Iroquois, 500 BC), who proudly held off the barbarians, showed off his defense network of spearmen and warriors to the researchers. Unfortunately, Norman’s defense was also putting him in debt. Norman explained to the researcher that he was using his workers to build roads that would, in turn, strengthen his economy and make his people happy. Norman was starting to follow my previous advise, a suggestion that I hoped might expand the problem space out so that, instead of considering only two or three variables, he (and others) would consider broader interacting variables (here, how civic structures could influence the development of a civilization). Still, no students were building marketplaces and libraries, which would help build their economy, make more luxuries available to their peoples, and raise their rate of scientific discovery. Students were quick to adopt simple strategies – manipulating one simple variable such as raising taxes or building roads – to solve their problems but were much slower to address deeper systemic causes of failure. Andrea (Egypt, 1 AD) was constantly at war with other civilizations, which drained her economy. She lagged behind other civilizations, and her population was 164 stagnating. Laughing at her demise, Andrea asked me to give her another walk through of the game. Noting the problems with managing civil unrest, I stopped the class to explain that building temples would alleviate civil unrest in cities. I suggested that students build a temple in each city over size “four”. Up until now, I avoided giving formulaic hints for the game, but I figured that a few tips would save a lot of grief. Students had been experiencing a lot of failure up to this point that was causing frustration, and we were concerned that more failure might both alienate students as well as prevent students from ever confronting more complex parts of the game. Beginnings of Recursive Play and History as a Tool Game failures led to recursive play, play where students devised a strategy, observed its consequences, and then tried another strategy. This process is a form of hypothesis testing where they observe phenomena, analyze its causes, and implement solutions. It is core to playing Civilization III and has implications for understanding world history more broadly. Jason began playing as the Egyptians and was quickly concerned about the encroaching Babylonians. I explained that he might want to start a settlement on the Sinai Peninsula because it is historically a strategic area due to its location between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. I encouraged him to use history as a guide for his game play.10 Jason nodded and started making a settler to colonize the land. Later, Jason restarted his game and began playing as the Iroquois 11. He explained why he started over, stating “I think I declared war too early, and my cities were too close He later did by colonizing Alaska in order to “replay” Steward’s Folly. Restarting games is a very common practice among casual players because recovering from failed strategies can be very costly. This recursive process of trying strategies and restarting games is a common way that Civilization players learn the game system. 10 11 165 together and too close to other civilizations. I want to play in North America where I can spread out.” I asked Jason where his cities started. He knew that he was somewhere in Canada. We looked at the map together. “Do you know where that is?” I asked, pointing toward Michigan. I was trying to help Jason make connections between actual geography and the game. Whether it was my prompting or Jason’s general interest in geography, he began using geography as a tool for his game play, now looking into the value of exploring Greenland. “Ummm. Michigan?” “Yes. Look at all of those resources in the Midwest. You can see why they call that the breadbasket. There’s some great farmland there. You might think about growing that way.” At the end of the unit, in post-interviews, Jason called “looking for resources and trying to become stronger so I wouldn’t become invaded” his favorite part of the game. Isolated Civilizations vs. Warring Empires Two major themes arose in students’ games, depending on their starting location. Those in North America were isolated from other civilizations and students were concerned that they were not a part of global trade networks; those in the Middle East were constantly at war with neighboring civilizations. Many students were entering 1000 AD and beyond, and were now trading technologies. Students playing in the new world were concerned that they were isolated and unable to trade with other civilizations. Jason restarted his games several times, switching back and forth between Egypt and the Iroquois. As the Iroquois, Jason felt too isolated from other civilizations. As Egypt, he 166 was constantly having to fight off encroaching civilizations, such as the Greeks who founded a city in Northern Libya. Most every player who played as Egypt dealt with this problem of Greece or Rome starting cities in modern-day Libya, an interesting historical simulation of the expansion of Greek and Roman empires. The second researcher noted, “Jason is intense! Focused, riveted. His posture…everything, riveted. I decided not to interrupt him.” Persistent Confusion Some students appeared very engaged in the game, yet some remained confused about even its most basic aspects. For example, the researcher asked Kathy what civilization she was playing, what year it was, what government she was in, and what technology she was pursuing, but Kathy could not answer any of the questions. Deborah spent most of her day wandering around the map and explained that her goal was to find other civilizations. Deborah switched back and forth between playing as the Bantu and Egyptians, restarting her game a few times during the class after losing or becoming frustrated. Yet, by the end of class, 11 of 13 students present that day were involved in the game (everyone except Anna and Takia). Reflecting on the Unit so Far After day 5, the teachers and I decided to abandon PowerPoint presentations and focus on giving just-in-time lectures in the context of game play, as we were having increasing success supporting game play with discussion activities. Bringing in authentic maps enabled me to give much richer game advice, weaving geographical terms or historical anecdotes into the explanations. Through lectures, we introduced concepts that could be immediately mobilized as tools for game play. All of the students playing the 167 Egyptians, for example, quickly met the Babylonians and were forced to consider trading, going to war, or possibly giving gifts to keep the them at bay. At this point, conceptual tools such as isolationism, trade, or the geography of the Middle East, could be leveraged via informal just-in-time lectures, just when the concepts would be most useful for students’ ongoing activities. Fewer students now asked, “How do you play?” yet most were far from fluent in the game. After trying to answer all of their questions about playing the game, the differences among units, fending off barbarians, generating commerce, and problems with civil unrest, I realized that I learned much of these strategies and concepts through time-consuming trial and error, pouring through the manual, talking with friends who played Civilization III, and reading the Civilopedia after failing. To use Civilization III in classroom contexts with new players who are playing not of their own volition but because they are required, may mean designing the activity in ways that manage the amount of failure students must face. Moreover, students did not have much time to learn the game on their own or outside of class and relatively little peer learning has occurred in the class so far. Designing instruction to speed up the amount of time it take to learn game play unrelated to learning objectives and to encourage greater peer collaboration might prove fruitful in future implementations, but might also reduce the complexity of the game space to a point where it would no longer be engaging. 168 DAY 8: “This game isn’t so bad”: Frustration, Failure and Eventual Appropriation of Civilization III Today was the first day back after a week of MCAS testing.12 My goal for the day was to initiate a daily routine in which student would complete daily log sheets, save games, and answer reflection questions. MCAS Frustration, Technology Failures, and Withdrawing from the Unit Unfortunately, the students were punchy after a week of testing. Immediately, Takia was kicked out of class for sitting on Bill’s lap. A “Do Now” on the board asked students to review their log sheets. Most students played on their computers, not paying attention to the assignment at all. I reminded them that their log sheets were their “tickets out of here” today. The students laughed, either because I said “ticket out of here” rather than the school lingo “Ticket to Leave” or because they knew that they could leave whenever they wanted and had no intention of filling it out. A few students questioned if they had to play the game if they elected to withdraw from the study. Others had problems starting the game due to technology failures. Lara, for example, wanted to play, but the game had been uninstalled from her machine. She sat alone, waiting for help, but I was caught helping other students. After a few minutes, she slumped in her chair; technology issues had killed her slight curiosity. Meanwhile, I went from student to student answering questions. Students needed help getting their cities out of civil disorder. Other students had forgotten how to load their saved game files. Finally, I realized that the H: drive, the networked disk drive that held students’ saved games, had crashed. Within a minute, all of the computers froze. Rebooting the computers took about 12 MCAS are the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System exams, a high stakes testing exam that will prevent students from graduating from high school should students fail. 169 five minutes and by 2:40 several students no longer showed any interest in playing. Others did homework or passed notes. These technology failures had a significant impact on class morale. Sandy and Lisa pulled five girls (Lara, Takia, Jenny, Sheila, and Anna) out of eighteen students in the class who had been visibly disengaged for a conference after class. Each student had different issues. Jenny just had a baby. Lara slept most days. Sheila was frequently absent. Takia seemed hostile from the beginning. Anna was confused by the game and was writing notes in class. Interestingly, most of these girls were friends and an agreement had emerged among them that playing Civilization III was boring. Sandy reported that the five students were unhappy in the unit and wanted to withdraw. She agreed to allow the students to withdraw if they wrote a one page letter about their experiences in the unit addressed to me. I agreed that this seemed fair. The hand-written letters were each about a half-page in length. All of the five letters said that the game was not interesting, too complicated, or too frustrating. I tried to interview Takia on why she did not like the game but she was quiet and withdrawn, answering, “I don’t’ know” to most of the questions. In the post interviews, I talked with Andrea who was friends with many of the girls who withdrew from the study. She gave her perception of what happened. (At first) I wasn’t interested because I didn’t know how to play the game. I think the only reason that I became interested because I learned how to play. I think that’s why a lot of people gave up on it. They were like “I don’t know what I’m doing I don’t want to play this no more.” But, since I had to be there anyway, I just learned how to play the game. It’s ok when you get used to it. The consistency across these sources suggests that, for these students, the game held little immediate appeal, was frustrating, and complicated. 170 Debriefing After class, Lisa said that she overheard three students talking about how much they enjoyed the unit. From Lisa’s perspective, the unit was going great. Many students who were not participating in their other courses were fully engaged in the unit. She commented, “For someone like Dwayne or Kent, this may be the only reason they even come to school. I noticed that they are both a little bit happier. There is at least one thing that they can look forward to in the day.”13 Seeing my surprise, Lisa continued, “Keep in mind that most of these kids are flunking several classes. Some of them are flunking all of their classes. Remember that 9XY (this grade level in charter school) is all students who flunked ninth grade. We discussed the impact of teaching a class where every single person in the group – even those with obvious academic talents – had failed at least one course the previous year.” In this light, it was not surprising that they were resistant to education, adverse to failure, and so easily brought off task. Indeed, most students were becoming more and more engaged with the game and the unit. Several students started their games over today, hoping to improve on their successes. Goals included building a thriving capital, building roads, gathering luxuries to create a strong economy, scouting the continent for resources, mapping out the geography surrounding their starting location, and meeting other civilizations. Warring was a prominent feature in many games, but many students who had been defeated felt a bit trounced. Most students had mastered the basic game flow and now felt some control over the basic game steps. Bill (Bantu) wanted to start war with the Egyptians but, by the end of the day, he saw the effects of war on his civilization and Later, Sandy made similar observations, remarking that this unit was “one of the few things that Dwayne showed up for all term.” 13 171 changed his mind. On his daily log sheet, he noted, “I need to make peace with the foreign dudes.” Chris (Aztecs) was at war with the Iroquois and wanted to expand into the Mississippi River basin. Norman (Iroquois, 590 AD) fought the much less advanced Polypenesians. The Log Sheets The log sheets were a mixed success. Students perceived them as busy work and most needed to be cajoled into filling them out. As a formative assessment tool, however, they were effective in that they revealed gaps in students’ understandings. For example, they made clear that none of the students had ever heard of despotism and only a few could determine what year they were in. A few students had even forgotten what civilization they were playing. For example, as Bill began filling out his log sheet, he asked the second researcher, “Who is my civilization again?” At the end of class, the second researcher interviewed students to gauge their progress given the hectic day. She asked students what civilization they were, what year they were in, and what their government was. About half of the students still could not answer these questions. Kathy, Bill, Jenny, and Deborah did not know how to determine their government type and year, which was surprising given their prominence on the screen (See Figure 4.2). We decided to make the practice of polling the class on the basic facts of their games a regular research and instructional strategy. 172 Figure 4.2: Screenshot from a Typical (Chris’) game DAYS 9-13: The Emergence of a Game Playing Culture By day 9, the five female students who had opted out of playing the game were no longer in the room and immediately the class ran more smoothly. Thirteen students participated for the remainder of the unit, and Sandy was in the room far less frequently. For the rest of the unit, students loaded games and were playing within the first five minutes of class. They seemed much more committed to trying to learn the game and by now they had all developed their own goals within the game. For many students, the motivation to play Civilization III was, in large part, social. Dwayne, who was charismatic and popular with many of the boys, was by far the most successful student 173 and completely absorbed in the game. Bill, Kent, and Chris constantly compared their games with Dwayne’s and simply liked being around him. Meanwhile, Dan, Shirley, and Sheila socialized amongst themselves. Students’ decision to stay in the class was undoubtedly the result of many overlapping factors but both researchers agreed that the social interactions surrounding the game were as least as important as the game itself in engaging (or disengaging) players. Several game playing clusters emerged over the next few days few days based, it seemed, on a combination of game playing goals and existing social networks. Teasing out whether these clusters were a result of game goals, social relationships, or even the arrangement of the room was difficult as social groups and gaming goals emerged in tandem and tended to mutually reinforce one another. Those students interested in geography tended to be friends, sit together, and play as Native America tribes, whereas students interested in warring tended to play as Egyptians. These patterns reinforced one another and emergent social groupings persisted through the rest of the unit (and indeed through most of the camp). There was very little knowledge flows between these groups, but extensive knowledge flow within them. Building Civilizations in the Americas Tony, Jason, Norman, and Chris, all located in the new world, focused game play on expanding their civilizations to exploit natural resources and trying to find ways to trade with the old world. Each player was comfortable with the basic game mechanics (food, production, and commerce), had eliminated the barbarian threat, and was now expanding his civilization. Game play consisted of analyzing the map to identify natural resources and then planning how to expand their civilization to best utilize these 174 resources. Next, they built roads between cities, irrigated plains, and mined natural resources. They scouted South America to meet tribes, map the terrain, and hopefully, meet another civilization. Tony, Jason, and Chris discussed strategies in between turns. Tony watched his territory grow from three to six cities, now filling most of the Eastern United States. In between turns (which were now taking 30-40 seconds), he walked about the room and observed others playing, particularly Chris and Jason who also played in North America. Jason explained to Tony my advice about settling in central Michigan to take advantage of its lumber and then growing up into the Upper Peninsula for its ore deposits. Tony saw that other players were advancing more quickly than he was, so he restarted his game to better utilize such resources. This time, he started building roads to bring wine and gems to his people. In post interviews, Tony described what he learned from losing: “Playing the game forces you to learn about the material. It actually forces you to learn about other civilizations in order to survive.” Similarly, Jason (Iroquois 2230 BC) restarted his game because he was not satisfied with his cities’ development. He asked Tony what technology he should pursue first and Tony suggested the alphabet. Throughout the day, these three used the time between turns to analyze one another’s games, offer advice, and learn from one another’s mistakes. Jason was very interested in maximizing resources. He discussed his civilization’s infrastructure with me in detail. I explained how to maximize each city’s production by noting natural resources, creating cities to serve as production centers (much the way that Kansas City was a cattle hub), and then building specific city improvements to capitalize on those goods. He also asked about core concepts and city improvements, such as 175 aqueducts, libraries, and temples, which I explained. 14 Jason’s favorite class with mathematics, and he, more than any other student tried to mathematically optimize his game play and master the formal game system. Colonial Imperialism as Shared Understanding As students began sharing strategies within their gaming groups, “taken-as-shared understandings” began emerging, particularly in regards to imperialist colonization. Norman, Chris, and Tony all met the Polynesian civilization and struggled with whether to ally or conquer them. On one hand, each was eager to trade technologies and goods with other civilizations in order to keep up with old world civilizations. On the other, conquering rival civilizations was tempting and possibly just as productive. For example, Norman invented a language of colonial imperialism to justify conquering smaller countries, which was later taken up by Chris, and then a few days later, Tony. Norman met the Polynesians, a small, weak civilization who were exploring South America. Norman realized that they had neither technology nor money and decided to conquer their settlements. He explained, “It is for their own good, really. Look how much more I have. They will be happier living as Iroquois.” Chris and Tony laughed at this rationalization for imperialist behavior. I offered, “It’s up to you, Norman. They might be more good to you as a separate civilization, if you could ally and trade technologies.” Norman shrugged and attacked anyway. Seeing this, Chris, using Norman’s game as a tool for thinking about his game, was curious if his game would replicate similar findings. Chris immediately sent warriors in his game to where the 14 One day after class, I sat next to Jason on the subway after school. We mapped out how to strategically build cities in North America in order to take advantage of natural resources (i.e. coal, iron, cattle grazing lands). We drew a map of North America on the back of Jason’s notebook and plotted how he could build a string of cities across the Midwest that would be as industrial production centers of various types (i.e. raw goods, irrigation, and commerce). 176 Polynesians were in Norman’s game to see if an exploring Polynesian civilization emerged in his game as well. Chris found them and was shocked at how “uncivilized” they were. Building off of Norman’s joke, Chris decided that he too should do them the “honor” of conquering their civilization. Chris made this knowledge public, adopting Chris’s rhetoric as he moved to conquer the Polynesians. A few days later, Tony, just like Norman, also met the Polynesians and decided to “help” them by taking over their cities and privileging them to life as Iroquois citizens. Briefly, Tony did try to help the Polynesians by trading them technologies and sending them military units. However, he decided that it was “safer” for him just to take over their city and defend their people as a benevolent imperialist force. Tony used Norman’s rhetoric in describing his game and took delight at appropriating colonial rhetoric in the service of Native American domination. I smiled at Tony’s mock concern for the Polynesian citizens and joked that he had a firm intuitive grasp of American foreign policy. Exploring Geography Chris (Aztecs, Republic, 1700 AD) was more interested in exploring new worlds than in building his civilization and used his knowledge of geography, particularly of the Bering Strait, to attempt to settle Asia. In post-interviews, Chris reported that “conquering all the other lands and civilizations and finding where resources were on specific continents” were his favorite aspects of the game. Chris had but a few cities and roads, yet he did have two galleys that he sailed about the Americas, looking for 177 barbarians to conquer or civilizations to trade with.15 For Chris, it was now really just a waiting game, preparing for contact with the new world. He was shocked that no Europeans had made contact with him even though it was already 1814 AD in his game. I suggested that he send a galley up across the Bering Strait toward Asia. I explained, “See, you have the advantage of knowing what is over there. The Aztecs probably would not have tried that because – why would you row all the way to Alaska through all of that cold water if you don’t even know what is on the other side? But, you know that China’s over there.” About twenty minutes later, in 1840 AD, Chris discovered the “old world” by sailing a galley across the Bering Strait and into Siberia. He called over to me excitedly, “Kurt, I found it. I’m in Asia. There’s no one here though.” I rushed over, trying to generate some attention for Chris and to advertise to others that they too could use their knowledge of geography to “cheat” the game. Tony, Kent, and a few others looked over. I suggested that, as bizarre as it seems, it was theoretically possible. After all, the Vikings rowed over to America from Norway. I reemphasized that the most unrealistic part was probably that Chris had a reason for rowing across the Bering Strait. If someone tried to row to Alaska from Mexico without any prior knowledge of what was on the other side or clear incentive for doing so, they would probably be seen as crazy. Twice before I had seeded discussion with the idea of using real history as a strategy for game play, but no one had taken the bait until now. Exploring the world was also a hook for Dan and Tony, and gradually it drew Shirley into the game as well. Shirley (Egypt in 2670 BC) enjoyed exploring continents 15 Chris rediscovered the Polynesian civilization in Brazil after conquering them a first time in Peru. I explained how the game can “restart” civilizations that have been conquered since groups of conquered people might escape to form new cities or cities might spring from groups of people coalescing into agricultural communities. 178 and spent most of her first few weeks of the unit exploring Africa and Asia with her warriors. She defined her goal as “to explore the world,” and, sure enough, she spent nearly all of her time producing warriors and exploring in order to accomplish this. Unfortunately, as a result, she did not manage her cities’ production, worry about which technologies to discover, build an infrastructure, or negotiate with other civilizations. In fact, on day 9, Shirley still did not know where to find her civilization’s year or government on the screen, indicating that she had little interest in anything other than exploring and that she probably was not drawing strong connections between her game and history. By day 10, however she readily recalled this information for researchers, indicating that she was learning the game interface and even paying attention to interacting variables, namely, her technologies and economy. Over the next few days, Shirley started attending to more than one or two variables, realizing that, in order to support a large army of workers, she would need to build a stronger economy. “I don’t get why I don’t have more money,” she complained. “I have a servant. Look at him digging and digging.” I laughed, agreeing that Shirley’s “servants” (workers) seemed to be working hard. I explained that she would need to generate more commerce if she wanted to have such a large army and showed her how to optimize food, trade, and industrial production by strategically locating cities near resources. By Day 12, Shirley was very invested in the game. She told researchers, “I want to take home my saved game and play it. I think a friend of mine has a copy of the game.” Shirley’s interest in Civilization III grew out of an interest in geography, and within three days, she became so interested in the game that she wanted to take home a copy. Changing the Course of History 179 Dan, more than any other student, was intrigued by the idea of trying to “rewrite history”. His goal was to build a strong military for defense against new world colonists so that Native Americans held on to their own lands. When asked his goals for the game, he became very animated, saying, “I’m going to build a huge empire and hold off all those Europeans. Bring it on!” Dan and I discussed the challenges of trying to make new discoveries when there was no one for the Iroquois to trade technologies with. I explained that the Egyptians were probably making discoveries much more quickly since they could trade with the Romans, Babylonians, Bantu, and Carthaginians. He looked at me worriedly, realizing that his fate may rest not just in his ability to build a defense but to also keep up in the technology race. However, in post-interviews, an interviewer asked Dan about the historical forces behind colonization, and Dan attributed colonization to population density and cultural issues, omitting the issue of technology altogether when explaining the forces behind colonization. Over the next several days, Dan’s primary struggle was figuring out how to support an army large enough to hold off European colonists while also building an economic infrastructure. He hoped to control North and South America before the Europeans come to colonize the Americas. When they arrived, he tried to quickly trade for horses to eliminate the colonists’ military advantage. At that moment, one of his friends walked into the classroom and asked what him was doing. Dan responded, “Changing the course of history.” Waging War 180 Simply waging war was a motivator for a few students. Dwayne (Japan, unrealistic map16, 1200 AD) wanted help generating more income to compete with the Chinese. This was the first time that he had asked for help all term. I could not figure out what the problem was, noting that Dwayne was much wealthier than most students. Dwayne had built roads, irrigation, and mines across the entire civilization and was using his resources to their maximum efficiency. He explained that he used money to buy technologies from other civilizations rather than trading. His strategy was to ally with the Chinese against the English. He used the Chinese to weaken the English. In the meantime, he would build reserves near the Chinese boarder. When the Chinese were also weakened, he would enter a peace treaty with the English and ally against the Chinese, his ultimate enemies. Everyone within earshot marveled at his Machiavellian instincts. Dwayne bragged how he had been reading Sun Tzu’s Art of War, which he found helpful for the game. For the first time in the unit, a student had used history as a tool for understanding his game play without my prompting. Soon, Dwayne had built trading and military outposts across the globe. I commented on how this strategy was similar to 20th century U.S. military strategy in the South Pacific, providing him an inroad for using the game to think about history and modeling other ways that real history could be used as a tool for game play. He updated me on his delicately balanced alliance with the English, Indians, and Chinese, shaky global alliances that kept leading to war. I compared this to the “entangling alliances” that historians cite as a cause of World War I. Dwayne rubbed his chin and said that maybe he could a similar strategy to get back at China. Dwayne was scrutinizing history 16 Dwayne ended up on an unrealistic map because he refused to play on the historical scenarios provided. In the first few weeks of class, we decided to let him play the game he wanted rather than constrain him to our scenarios. 181 for causal patterns in order to achieve his game goals – namely to lead the English into war against China. Dwayne’s game play soon became a tool for other players. Bill, Kent, Chris, and Tony periodically came over to watch his game, particularly when there was an event, such as Dwayne’s capital city celebrating “We love the King Day” or his civilization entering a “Golden Age” 17 . Tony and Chris listened as Dwayne and I discussed the benefits of Golden Ages. Dwayne explained how he stayed ahead of other civilizations by trading away older, non-militaristic technologies such as astronomy to the Germans before the other civilizations did. “See, I buy technology off of China and then sell it to the Greeks. Or, I conquer an English city, gain their incense, and then sell it to the Chinese.” He then explained how he was going to war with England for dyes and fur in order to “control the luxuries and make my people happy.” I joked, “It’s interesting that you’ve decided to go to war for luxuries, for natural resources. You guys really are American.” Tony, Chris, and Dwayne laughed. I had drawn a direct comparison between real history and the game and the students had understood it, evidenced by their laughter. After Dwayne, Andrea was the only student who spent most of the time fighting wars. Andrea (Egypt, 925 BC) was at war with the Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, and Carthaginians. As I walked by, she shouted, “Someone plopped a city in my territory!” (The Romans had built a city in what is now western Egypt). Immediately, Andrea sent two warriors and a spearmen unit to capture the city. “What are you doing, Andrea?” I asked. “They can’t just come in here” she said, with a hint of swagger. “Golden Ages” are the game’s way of modeling especially productive eras in a culture’s existence. When players build a “Wonder of the World” that is aligned with their civilizations’ culture (e.g. militaristic civilizations build a militaristic wonder of the world), the civilization may enter a Golden Age that earns it bonus resources. 17 182 I laughed, “No wonder you’re always at war.” You’ve got that right. You don’t mess with me.” Andrea was worried that the Romans would take over her capital. I advised her to think about building a stronger economy through settling the upper Nile. She finally explored the rest of the Nile and found fertile river valleys, plentiful gold deposits, and ample horses and incense, but was concerned about defending her civilization. We discussed how to balance the competing needs of expansion versus defense. Andrea was protective of her peoples and hostile toward whoever threatened them, but she still was not considering relationships among geography, economics, and politics. Although clearly invested in the game, she was preoccupied with defending her civilization against invaders instead of examining the multiple interacting variables that crucially shaped the growth of her civilization. By day 11, Andrea (Egypt, c. 970 AD), had realized the importance of these major variables. She began to realize that her infrastructure was weak because she had spent all of her resources over the past 4000 years at war. She had only discovered mathematics by 1000 AD, putting her far behind other civilizations in technology. Andrea was down to three cities, her economic infrastructure had collapsed, and her cities were in civil disorder. I suggested that keeping her cities from rioting might be worthwhile. On day 12, Andrea attempted one last attack on the Romans and then finally gave up her war-trodden game to start over. During this subsequent game, Andrea asked me for regular advice. I showed her how to manage her city production and citizen happiness for the third time. She began asking me about concepts such as map-making, harbors, and galleys. It was the first time that Andrea had shown any interest in learning 183 historical game concepts, reading the Civilopedia or building city improvements. Finally, these concepts had become tools for her to solve a problem that she cared about, namely, protecting her people. Socially-Mediated Play Both Kent and Bill played their games in relation to other players more explicitly than any other students. Bill (Bantu 775, BC) noted that Dwayne was doing much better than him and asked how to get an empire like Dwayne’s. Dwayne, who was something of a loner, was far too engaged in his game to notice Bill, let alone help him. I gave Bill several mini-lessons that described the concept of luxuries and suggested that he look for other luxuries when choosing where to build cities. I showed him how to build roads to bring dye back to his city, which would make people happy and increase trade. I gave him hints on defending his civilization. He was at war with the Russians, Egypt, Germans, and Romans, but now had created peace and was building more cities. By Day 10, he learned to strengthen his infrastructure, build roads, and gather dyes in order to “expand his empire to be more like Dwayne’s.” As I left class, Bill commented to me, “You know, I didn’t really like it at first, but now that I get it, this game is pretty cool.” In post interviews, Bill explained what he learned playing as the Bantu: Interviewer: Bill: Interviewer: Bill: What did you learn about starting in Africa? That it (colonization) wasn’t just luxuries. Everything was there (in Africa). Egypt had like the horses and my people just traveled on foot. It wasn’t like horse and carriage or something like that. What were the challenges to starting in Africa? I had to stay in this little peninsula (sub-Saharan Africa). I wanted to go across the water. Going across the water. I wanted to go past stuff but I couldn’t. We had not boats or nothing like that. Here, Bill is interacting with predominant theories of Africa as the dark continent. Bill realized that sub-Saharan Africa was indeed full of riches and natural resources, but there 184 was also relatively little farmable land, and no domesticable animals, such as horses. Bill did not seem to see the Sahara and Kalahari deserts as natural barriers, but he did experience feelings of isolation, complaining that he could not build boats or communicate with other tribes. Kent spent much of the class helping other students, advising them on what technologies to pursue despite the fact that he was not one of the stronger players in class. Kent was particularly fond of acquiring mathematics technology because it led to catapults and engineering. At one point, Kent stumbled over the word “contemptible.” He asked Dwayne “What does contemptible mean? Russia thinks my peace terms are contemptible.” Dwayne responded, “That means they don’t like it.” Other times Kent asked questions, made comments, or analyzed different strategies for playing the game while watching Dwayne. For Kent much of the fun was getting to collaborate with friends. Reflective Game Play Affinity Groups Chris, Dwayne, and Bill stayed after school to play Civilization III. I stayed behind as a supervisor, observing games and giving advice. Obviously, we had come a long way since the first few days of the unit when students were largely unwilling to even play the game. Now, students had clear game goals and were using me as a tool for game play. Chris asked what strategy I would use to avoid wars on multiple fronts. I showed him how he could be more efficient by balancing his cities’ production and more productive by building an infrastructure of mines and roads. I drew historical analogies to the economic and military impact of superhighways in Germany and the United States. Dwayne asked me, “What do you hope people learn through this?” 185 Bill interjected, “It is better than reading books.” Recognizing that students were going out on a limb for me, giving the game a chance and now staying after school to play, I met them half way, explaining my goals for the unit. I tried to make my next example one that would make a direct link between success in the game and learning about history. “Well, for example, those of you who played in America, were there horses in North America?” Students looked at their maps and realized there were no horses indigenous to the Americas. I asked them to imagine that they were the Iroquois or Aztecs, who have no horses, and imagine how much slower exploration would be and how much weaker their military would be. I described the historical importance of cavalry, using the examples of Spanish conquistadors battling the Incans. “One thing I think you’ll get from the game,” I explained, “is a real appreciation for the impact of geography on history.” Next I showed them the technology chart in the Civilopedia that shows how all of the technologies are linked together. I explained that grasping the broad flow of technological discoveries is difficult and that, hopefully, the game could help them tie together such concepts. I added that playing Civilization III might give them a framework for understanding when and where, for example, the Egyptians lived and how they compared to the Greeks or the Romans. Although I was doing all of the reflection here, I thought that modeling how the game could be used both to stimulate questions about history and to provide a tool for thinking through world history issues. Dwayne was no longer paying attention, so I focused on Bill’s game more specifically. I gave an example that I thought might intrigue Dwayne as well, testing my emerging hypothesis that students would listen to information if it direct pertained to their 186 game play. “Take your game as the Bantu, Bill. One thing you will have to deal with is the geographic isolationism of the Bantu. There is no one for you trade with. Where are you going to grow? On the North, you have the Sahara Desert to contend with. It takes forever to walk across there.” Using the game as a communication device, I scrolled across Africa, noting the size of the Sahara and the natural resources in Africa. “Now, one thing that is unrealistic about the game is that you, as the player, can learn from history. You know that there are other civilizations out there to keep up with in technology. You know that Europeans or other Africans might colonize your lands if you don’t build up your civilization.” I paused a moment, giving them a chance to think it over. Then I pointed out that thinking about these issues might just be a pretty good way to learn geography. Bill went back to his game. He told Dwayne that he “struck peace with the Cleopatra lady (Egyptians) and discovered the ‘technology with the curtain’” (literature, represented by an icon of a curtain). I began to realize how little most students integrated game vocabulary into their conversations without my prompting. They talked about discoveries that they were already familiar with but were far less likely to use words such as despotism, monarchy, or literature. Whether this was a matter of not understanding the underlying concept or just not knowing the term was ambiguous, but a goal of mine was to enable students to develop a familiarity with these terms, and it was clear that students were not taking up such a vocabulary very readily. Instructor Practices I used the last five minutes of class to give just-in-time lectures based on the day’s events. Noticing that students paid little attention to lectures decontextualized from their 187 gaming activities, I tried to base my comments on events that I saw happening in students’ current games. On day 12, I gave a mini-lecture on the importance of resources and geography in game play. I drew a chart on the board listing students’ civilizations and several key factors, such as available luxuries, access to horses (y/n), and technologies being discovered. I polled students as they played, filling in the chart with data from four games (2 Egypt, 2 Iroquois). Six people turned around and gave me their attention at the board – a record for this unit. I asked them what they noticed about the chart. Kent called out, “Egypt is the only one that has horses.” I asked the class, “People playing the Iroquois, do any of you see horses in North or South America?” Tony and Chris answered, “No.” We used these aggregated game statistics (See Table 4.1) to identify patterns in game play. My goal was to give students a broader data set to make inferences from. Student Jason Andrea Tony Chris Kent Civilization Year (AD) 760 1040 1020 1878 580 Government Gold / Technology Income Egypt Republic 200 / + 10 Engineering Egypt Despotism 196 / -6 Mathematics Iroquois Monarchy 598 / +18 Monotheism Aztecs Republic 684 / -4 Banking Egypt Despotism 1575 / Construction +10 Table 4.1: Aggregating statistics from students’ games. Horses Luxuries Yes Yes No No Yes Incense Incense Iron, furs Wine Incense I continued, “How do you think this will affect your game?” Jason answered that they will develop more slowly. Dan mentioned that it would make fending off the Europeans more difficult. Tony observed that the Iroquois are located near great iron deposits. Dan, Jason, and Tony all mentioned that the biggest difference playing the Iroquois was that they were severed from the global trade of Africa, Europe, and Asia. 188 The following day I noted several students trading with other civilizations, so I led a group discussion about isolationism versus alliances. I wrote two columns on the board and had students call out the advantages of each. Students pointed out that trade had helped them gain technologies faster but had also left them at risk of being attacked with their own technologies. Isolationism, on the other hand, was safer in the short run but made it harder to stay ahead in technology. In Jason’s words, “Isolation is bad because you have to do everything yourself. You move very slowly.” Dan countered that “they can use your technologies against you if you trade.” Norman, Kathy, and Bill, all of whom had computer problems, left before the discussion ended, obviously frustrated with their games. I stayed after to help a few students (including Dan, Tony, Chris, and Dwayne). I noticed that the students who stayed late the previous day (Bill, Jason, Chris, Tony, and Dwayne) were much more comfortable with the game than their peers and were making greater progress. I offered to stay after school to help students on whatever days the lab was open and used the time to observe students’ games. Three or four students stayed after on most days, and soon others realized that those who played after school were progressing much more rapidly. Technology Failures Technical issues continued to create frustration for some students. However, there was perhaps one positive consequence of these technical failures: A few students who hadn’t taken up the practice of playing the game recursively on their own were now forced to do so, trying out strategies, seeing how they played out, and then retrying a new strategies. On the 13th day, for example, Andrea and Bill each lost about 10 hours of work. Bill lost the better part of two days of game play which he had spent mapping out 189 Africa, clearing jungle around Congo, and building a small infrastructure around four cities. When he realized that he had to start over again, he shouted in anger, “I’m about to hate this game!” I had noticed Bill struggling with his economy, so I showed him how to sell off technologies like Dwayne had. Bill recovered the following day, explaining that his goal for the day was to “do the same as yesterday….only better.” He added, “I’m thinking of declaring war on the Egyptians. I don’t like what they’re up to up there.” Bill showed me where the Egyptians are located on the map, noting their Southward progress into sub-Saharan Africa. Jason (Egypt, 760 AD) also suffered from continual technical problems. When his computer crashed, he used this as an opportunity to change games. He oscillated between playing the Iroquois and Egypt, alternately giving up on the Iroquois because “being isolated in North America was too hard” and then the Egyptians because “fighting the other civilizations in Egypt was too difficult.” Today he returned to his Iroquois game (650 AD). Although he was still just researching mathematics, he was quite wealthy, but unaware that he was falling behind technologically. We discussed how his major challenge was that he had no one to trade technologies with: “Remember when you were the Egyptians. You could trade with other civilizations, gaining all kinds of technologies through trade. Imagine what is going to happen when your civilizations meet.” Unpacking Realism Jason was more concerned about the immediate threat posed by hordes of barbarians, who were coming down from Canada on horseback, than about his long-term survival. About 17 units appeared (an ungodly number), and we both agree that this was both unfair and probably unrealistic. I explained to Jason that the barbarians were meant 190 to represent other Native American tribes, so the idea that they might attack his civilization was not totally unjustified; in fact, the scenario was designed to show this dynamic. However, that fact that these Native American populations had already obviously obtained horses was dubious. Later, I observed Jason studiously examining the technology tree, a concept map which depicts the history of technologies starting with the alphabet or bronze working and leading up to rocketry, lasers, and the cure for cancer. Jason’s interest in the technology tree was surprising, if only in that he was the first person in class to show any interest in reading it. Most veteran Civilization III players find the technology tree strategically useful and intellectually intriguing. I made a mental note to show the technology tree to more players. Remaining Failure and Confusion Kathy and Miranda still struggled with the initial stages of game play, such as saving games or preventing civil disorder – game problems that other students mastered in the first few days. Miranda was frequently absent. At my request, Dwayne showed Miranda how to fix several of her problems. Kathy (Aztecs, 430 BC) attended class regularly but still wrestled with game problems, forgot how to build new cities, and did not know how to change cities’ production – all very basic procedures. Sandy, who helped Kathy on days when she could, handed her a real map and asked her where her civilization was on the map. Kathy did not know, but with prompting, guessed “North America?” and pointed to Venezuela. Her civilization was in Mexico. Sandy and Kathy went to the next room to look at a map more carefully. I tried making several connections between the game and social studies, for example, explaining how to generate more income by creating more commerce. I walked them through a thought experiment: 191 “Imagine if Boston had no roads coming in or out, so that every time a farmer wanted to sell corn, pottery, or jewelry, she had to carry them in without any roads. Roads allow food to get in more quickly and create more trade.” I worked with Kathy for several days, but she sounded overwhelmed and tired. I asked Sandy about Kathy’s difficulties, and Sandy asserted that although Kathy performed relatively well in school, she was better at memorizing facts than thinking conceptually. Although Civilization III was a engaging for most students, it wasn’t for all. Finding ways of engaging Kathy would remain a challenge. DAYS 14-17: Mixed Success and Failure By now, most students could play autonomously and were either finishing up their first main game or early into their second. The initial problems of cities in civil disorder and economies failing were gone. The quiet and order within the classroom allowed me to shift my focus from getting and keeping students’ attention to helping them use the game as a tool for learning social studies. I now spent most of my time observing students’ activities, providing hints and feedback, and devising just-in-time lectures. Reflection Activities in Support of Game Play I now began classes with structured activities when possible. On Day 14, I began class by asking students to write three unrealistic things about the game, using Jason’s complaints about the Native American barbarians as an example. About half of the class filled out their post-its (See Table 4.2). Name Shirley Unrealistic “things” about the game 1) Can they really burn your town? 192 2) If this game was true, can it start world peace? Norman 1) French are building cities next to my city in North America. 2) People love me one year, burn my city the next. 3) My people are starving. Jason Tony 1) The Iroquois learned Republic. 2) The Iroquois had harbors. 3) The Iroquois were about to take over South America. 1) The years are off. 2) The colonization is off 3) The amount of people (is unrealistic). Table 4.1: Students’ perceptions of unrealistic game features. By and large, students were more able to perceive factual inaccuracies than to detect underlying biases in the rule set of the game. Students readily identified incorrect emergent events within the simulation such as the absence of important real-world historical events or the existence of an Iroquois Republic (although one might argue that the Iroquois had a democracy of sorts). Shirley then hinted at a conflict-driven model underlying the game whereby most civilizations are fundamentally aggressive. Kent also questioned the conflict-driven nature of the game, complaining that it was impossible to survive while “staying neutral.” Curiously, students also thought that some realistic products of the simulation, such as Celtic / French settlements in Canada were unbelievable. These comments belie that students were wrestling with the properties of Civilization III as a simulation. Students tended to detect only those biases that had a direct impact on their game play, such as the absence of Columbus in 1492 or the conflict-driven nature of the simulation. Their comments demonstrated that they did, in fact, “know” things about history, particularly, what governments Native Americans had, who settled North American and in what year, and roughly speaking how colonization occurred; however, what students knew was typically only activated through 193 conversation with other students or in relation to events happening in game, patterns noted by other researchers working with minority students (Brown, Campione, Webber, & McGilly, 1992). Mastering the Game and Recursive Play Several students started new games during the last few days. Chris and Jason switched to the Egyptians because they were convinced that the Iroquois were too isolated and, as a result, were technologically behind the European civilizations. Dwayne simply grew tired of his game and wanted to play as Africa. Bill, on the other hand, was being dominated by the Babylonians and, convinced that they had an inherent strategic advantage, wanted to try playing as them instead. Students were beginning to devise hypotheses about which civilizations stood a better chance of surviving through history and switched games based on this knowledge. As students started new games, it was clear that most had mastered the aspects of the game that they had struggled with earlier during the unit. For example, Andrea restarted her game out of frustration over her war with Greece. Within five minutes, she created two cities in Egypt, irrigated the flood plains, and built roads to bring incense to her people – all strategies that she had failed to use beforehand successfully. Likewise, her cities were perfectly placed to balance food production, trade, and the utilization of luxuries. Kent’s work was similar: He restarted his game so that he could better plan his cities’ growth and quickly built cities up the Nile River valley. Both Kent and Andrea, students who were slow to learn the game and who did not stay to play outside of required class time, had now mastered the game controls and were beginning to understand the underlying game system as well. Despite such progress, however, a few 194 game intricacies remained opaque. Norman, for example, was confusing entertainer and research icons and had wasted much time and energy trying to figure out why his city was revolting18. Shirley was still learning to manage her cities, and I spent five minutes walking her through production management. Investment in Her Civilization Andrea became increasingly invested in protecting her people, a unique “win condition” not necessarily rewarded by the game itself. Over the past few days, Andrea began reading city improvement screens carefully and asking me questions related to it, such as what an aqueduct was for and how happiness worked as a game mechanic. Her questions pleasantly surprised me as, up to now, she had asked very few specifics, despite being generally receptive to help. Andrea explained that she was interested in how happiness worked so that she could please her people. The game’s flexibility had provided an opportunity for Andrea to become engaged on her own terms by it allowing her to create her own goals. Like Wright’s (2001) “collector / hobbyist” type, Andrea’s pleasure was creating a civilization and taking care of it’s needs. As Andrea became more invested in her civilization, she devised strategies for saving her people from war. She studied the geography of Africa, found natural resources in Kenya, and decided to build her civilization up the Nile rather than compete with civilizations over control of the Arab peninsula. She also started building a network of peaceful allies to fortify herself against the Babylonians and Greeks. Andrea, more than the others, really appreciated the humor in the political negotiations. She laughed out loud when taunted by other civilizations, sometimes repeating their lines out loud for others (e.g. “Shame that little civilization you have is in our way”). She wanted to avoid 18 In effect, he was creating a community of nothing but research scientists without laborers or any form of leisure. 195 war but found dealing with aggressive civilizations difficult. The Greeks had once again established a city near her western front (Northern Libya) and were threatening war if she did not pay tribute. “180 Gold !?!? They must be out of their mind…. Greece! Again? Why are they always coming to get me?” she scoffed. I said, “Gee, I wonder why? Weren’t you just attacking their city up in Libya?” Andrea laughed, “Yeah, well they’re coming into my territory. I can’t let them do that.” For Andrea, the game was initially a simple contest between warring civilizations. Eventually, however, it became about building a civilization of contented people. Still, it did not take much to send Andrea back into conflict. Contact with the Old World, or Here Come the Celts! By Day 16, the students playing civilizations in the Americas (Tony, Dan, and Norman) had mapped out most of the territory and were anticipating contact with other continents. Tony was building his infrastructure, Dan was building an army, Chris was exploring China, and Norman had no plan other than to build his civilization and wait for the arrival of the Europeans. When I asked Norman his long-term plans for the game, he shrugged. A highlight of the unit occurred when Dan (Iroquois) made the first trans-Atlantic contact with another civilization. In 1914, the Celts reached the shores of Nova Scotia and founded a city only a few moves away from Dan’s capital (near Montreal). Dan called out in shock as he noticed the Celtic settlement so close to his capital, “How did they get here?!” As he watched the cavalry disembark from the Celtic frigates, he realized that he was in trouble. Dan immediately reached peace terms with the Celts 196 (thankfully) and set about figuring out how to catch up to them. Within moments, the Carthaginians also landed along the eastern shores of North America. To Dan’s surprise, he discovered theology, then construction, and then technology after technology until he had discovered 15 technologies in one turn. He had built the Great Library (which gives its owner any technology learned by two known civilizations). Andrea and I watched with amazement as Dan’s civilization leapt generations ahead in technology. “Imagine how far behind you would be if you didn’t have the Great Library,” I said. “I’d be dead,” Dan replied. I explained to the onlookers that Dan was behind the other civilizations in technology, probably because he had no other civilizations to trade with. He would need to catch up quickly, trading for horses and upgrading his units so that he would not be drastically overpowered by the Celts. Dan’s first goal was to trade for horses now that he had navigation. None of the known civilizations were willing to trade horses, however. Dan was very concerned that the Celtic cavalry would overpower his spearmen, so he decided to build a galley and sail to Europe. Other students thought this was an interesting idea: What if the Native Americans had done something similar? Under what conditions might the indigenous populations have explored Europe? Dan, Tony, Chris, and I briefly discussed these questions. Tony, Chris, and Dan all saw the primary issue as one of population density. Looking at their maps, it was clear that the European and Asian countries were all battling over land and resources while the Native Americans had no incentive to expand. Students noted Native American’s geographical isolation and the fact that they had opportunity to trade technologies with 197 other civilizations as a secondary issue affecting colonization. These responses, while much more general and abstracted than most historians might frame them, are quite consistent with many modern readings of colonization (e.g. Diamond, 1999). Eventually, the Celts and Carthaginians both attacked Dan. The Celts had three cities in Canada now, and the Carthaginians settled in the Caribbean. By 1952, Dan became caught in a battle between them and was being crushed. The Celtic cavalry moved right through his spearmen and warriors and it became obvious that they would overpower his army in a matter of turns. He decided to restart his game from a previous day, hoping to make peace with the Celts by giving them a city before war started. This kind of move – retrying different strategies to examine their impact – is a common Civilization III strategy, one that encourages players to consider how their games could have played out differently as a result of different decisions. Dan traded maps with the Carthaginians and was stunned to see how big the other civilizations were. Most civilizations had 15-25 cities, whereas Dan had six. Seeing the entire globe populated, and seeing how expansive the Celtic civilization had become, was awesome to Dan (See Figure 4.3). Tony and Jason ran over to watch. Both were stunned at the size of the other civilizations and realized what this might mean for their games. Because Dan was 100 years ahead of them, they thought that they might still survive, so they stuck with their games. It was clear, however, that their small civilizations of 5-10 cities would be no match for the Europeans. News of Dan’s experiences meeting the new world colonists quickly spread among students playing as Iroquois, as they realized the ill fate his game portended. Tony and Jason quickly modified their game play, appropriating Dan’s game as a tool for reflecting on their own. 198 Figure 4.3: Screenshot from Dan’s Game In the post-test interviews, I asked Dan several questions about the colonization of the Americas to probe how the game might have mediated his understanding of history. He described the causes behind European colonization as an amalgam of forces yet privileged the peacefulness of Native American culture as the primary reason that Native Americans did not colonize Europe. Interviewer: Dan: After Columbus reached the new world, the Europeans colonized the Americas as opposed to the other way around. Why do you think this is? Because the Europeans had more than the Native Americans did. They weren’t as civilized. I’m not going to say as civilized. But they were pretty much peaceful. They were focusing in on their land for themselves not going around the world trying to focus on everything else… having everything nice and calm. 199 In discussing colonization, Dan’s immediate response was largely uninformed by his game playing experiences. He did describe how the Native Americans were not as “civilized,” balking at the use of the term, but then quickly shifted his focus to European colonial greed and Native American pacifism. The interviewer probed this tension between cultural and philosophical readings of history further. Interviewer: Dan: So were their reasons behind colonization more a matter of philosophy or geography? Probably more of a philosophy thing. They didn’t want to go anywhere because they were happy with where they were. They didn’t have any troubles with any animals. They were killing them using them for fur or food or whatever. They had everything they needed, whereas Europe got overpopulated. So they needed more land. Dan first describes the difference between Native American and European civilizations as one of “philosophy,” but then brings back geographical considerations – namely, the shortage of land in Europe. Interviewer: Dan: Do you think that natural resources had anything to do with it as well? Horses, iron gold, diamonds? It probably does. But, like I said the Native Americans probably didn’t pay any attention to it because they were happy. They didn’t have anything to worry about. They were pretty much peaceful. The only people they had to worry about were enemy tribes. No disease, nothing like that. Here, the interviewer introduces a concept central to Civilization III – the role of natural resources in the success of a civilization – to see how these might affect Dan’s reading of history after playing the game. Dan holds on to a largely cultural interpretation of history, however, describing Native Americans as a singular, largely peaceful, people, although he also mentions the lack of diseases in Native American tribes, perhaps drawing from earlier discussions in the unit of the role of smallpox in colonial conquests. Next, the 200 interviewer introduces the notion of Asian colonization of the Americas to probe how Dan compares Chinese civilization with the Europeans. Interviewer: Dan: Why do you think it is that an Asian country like China didn’t settle North America first? I have no idea. I was going to say the same thing I said for Native Americans then I thought about it but they were probably just not prepared to actually settle somewhere else? Considering the case of China posed a problem for Dan. Dan’s only explanations so far for colonization were population density and cultural pacifism. The Chinese did not fit either condition, leaving him with little basis for theorizing why the Chinese would not have colonized the Americas, so he speculates that the Chinese perhaps were not “prepared” for explorations. Dan’s interpretation of historical forces was complex. At times he draws from earlier readings of history, particularly descriptions of Native American as peaceful peoples. At other times, he uses more materialist, geographical concepts. Several interacting variables are captured in Dan’s conceptual model of the colonization of America but their relationships are unclear. It is also curious that Dan did not cite the lack of technological innovation as a major cause, given that this was a source of his own demise when playing a Native American civilization. The lack of pretest data makes it difficult to argue what parts of his conceptual model come from game play and what parts were already there, but clearly Dan did not buy into the game’s materialist, geographically-based logic wholesale. Rather, he had specific ways of reading the game in terms of history. For Dan, the game was a useful simulation for material processes but less so for cultural ones. This finding should give educators some encouragement that game playing students do not necessarily buy into one particular model wholesale, but, in 201 this instance at least, use existing understandings to think about their game play and vice versa. Perhaps further extension activities, particularly a more diverse range of game experiences, would have better prepared Dan for understanding the complexity of colonization. Norman encountered the Europeans next (in 1836). By day 15, he had crossed paths both the Romans and Celts who sailed to the New World, built outposts on islands, and declared war on his Iroquois. We speculated as to just how far behind he was in technology and what he might do to catch up. I suggested he send explorers to find civilizations to trade technologies with, explaining how, although he was currently technologically behind, he could use his furs and negotiation strategies to catch up. Tony (Iroquois, 1818) planned to catch up by mimicking Chris’s voyage to Asia across the Bering Strait19 in the hope of making contact with other civilizations and trading technologies and perhaps even luxuries. His attitude was “if they are not going to come to me, then I’m going to them.” Tony now had over a dozen cities and was very excited about expanding his map. In between turns (which now took about 20 seconds each as slow computers calculated moves for ten different civilizations or more), Tony hopped out of his chair and checked Bill’s, Chris’s, and Dan’s games. He compared his progress to the others’ and appropriated their strategies from his own game. The down time between turns combined with the relevancy of other students’ games to his own gave Tony a strong incentive for studying other game play. He was interested in meeting other civilizations, which seemed to spark his imagination. When asked about his favorite part of the game, Tony replied, “My favorite part of playing the game would have to be getting in first contact with other civilizations and exploring (when) I found new stuff.” 19 Chris’s boat eventually sank 202 By day 16, Tony had made it to Asia. He scouted the eastern coast but found only barbarian hordes. Tony talked to other students, researchers, teachers, and even himself as he played, commenting on geographical features. As Tony sailed to Asia, he, Chris, and I speculated about where he was on the map and discussed where the Chinese civilization may have settled. Based on what we knew about the model, we tried to predict how China might have evolved, but we still could not track them down. Debates arose about whether or not we20 were in fact in China given the prominent geographical features and then what other civilizations we might find in Southeast Asia. I suggested that he unload an explorer and cut across Asia in search of Russia. We all figured that someone must have colonized Asia unless it had been overrun by barbarians (placed in the Mongolian Highlands to simulate Genghis Khan and the Mongolian horde). I myself was curious about how the other civilizations developed in the simulation. Tony did not find any civilizations, but he did discover navigation, which meant that he could sail his galleys across the open waters and trade resources (namely horses) at ports, assuming he could find a friendly one. In the meantime, back in the Americas, Tony’ explorers in South America encountered the Polynesians. Tony again decided to “integrate the Polynesians into his civilization.” He enjoyed their newly created euphemism, continuing on for several minutes about his “moral obligation to share his standard of living with them.”21 By the end of the week, back on the Asian front, Tony’s galley (Iroquois, 1858) had finally met the Chinese. They had little to trade, but at least they were behind Tony’ Iroquois. He was disappointed, however, that he could not get At this point in Tony’s game, I think the students and I all felt that we were in that boat together. I found fascinating the extent to which a ninth grader with an arguably weak academic background who was failing most of his classes had mastered the rhetoric of colonialism and the sophistication with which he joked about it. The fact that he not only “got” the irony but could also play with it adeptly was impressive. 20 21 203 horses from them to use against the hypothesized (thanks to Dan’s game) incoming and more advanced Celts. Abandoning the New World, Learning More Game Concepts, and Recursive Play Some students began asking questions about specific aspects of the simulation. On Day 17, Chris, who had switched to Egypt because he thought that Native American civilizations were too isolated and therefore doomed to failure, asked me, “What happens if you irrigate?” I was surprised to hear Chris ask about such a seemingly basic concept, but it turned out that he wanted to know in detail how irrigation affected the game economies. Chris, like most students, had already developed a very general sense of how the game systems worked (e.g. irrigation causes more food); he was now beginning to decipher how these rules fit together (e.g. plains generate 2 food without irrigation, which is enough to support one citizen). After playing the game for a few weeks, Chris became interested in actually examining the conceptual relationships among variables. It was no longer sufficient to know a trick or useful rule of thumb (i.e. build roads everywhere); rather, he now wanted to better understand more complex properties of the simulation. Because Chris had played as the Iroquois, who were isolated, he had little experience trading with other civilizations, so I showed him how to buy and sell technologies. He then spent considerable time exploring the negotiation aspects of the game. I had not anticipated that students playing civilizations in the Americas would have little opportunity to engage with trade; in future iterations of this simulation, I would strengthen other tribes native to the Americas in order to ensure students who choose to play such groups a broader range of gaming experiences. 204 Jason, whose civilization was now in the 1700s, could not believe that no one had sailed across the Atlantic yet to colonize the new world. This historical inaccuracy concerned him and he began to question the validity of the game. I explained that Civilization III is a simulation based on initial conditions plus a set of rules. I emphasized that no events are scripted; rather, the game works more like a top that is wound up and then let free to go. Eager for action, he decided to try to sail to Europe across Greenland. Earlier I had explained how the Vikings probably sailed to North America along the Southern shore of Greenland and into Newfoundland. Jason had decided “Why not just reverse the direction of travel?” He then began peppering me with questions about Greenland: “Is there oil in Greenland? Are there other resources there? Do people live there now? How many?” A strategic question in the game, “Is there oil in Greenland” led to a series of questions about the history of Greenland. Knowledge of Greenland (not something covered in many classes) became something very important for Jason to put to immediate use in his game play. Jason then began using his own prior knowledge of history as a tool for understanding his game. He began outlining the reasoning behind his questions. He knew that there were valuable oil reserves in Alaska (which he would soon colonize); perhaps, he reasoned, Greenland contained similar resources. He knew that the United States purchase of Alaska from Russia was one of the best land deals ever made (referring to Seward’s Folly). Therefore, he explained, he planned to replay history by claiming Alaska first and then using its oil for global industrial domination hundreds of years later. Whether or not Jason’s line of reasoning regarding his strategy within the game in turn enabled him to elaborate his understanding of real history outside of it is an open 205 question, but the fact that he was now drawing connections between history in the game and history as he understood it was encouraging. By day 16, Jason gave up on the Iroquois and started playing as the Egyptians. He was amazed at the differences between playing as the Iroquois, who started in a woodland forest, and playing as the Egyptians, who were in the Nile River valley. “Look how fast they cities grow!” he remarked. I asked him if he knew why. He commented, “Well, yes, the Nile River Valley.” He went on, “Before, I didn’t like the Egyptians because they got all trapped up here,” pointing to the Mediterranean, the Sahara, and the Red Sea. Renewed with the possibility of building a thriving civilization, Jason became nearly obsessed with the elegant expansion of his civilization, plotting carefully how to maximize the production of each city by strategically placing it in the optimal location, much as a mathematician might enjoy elegant mathematical solutions. He was also learning some of the subtler concepts in the game. He read through the technology advances in the Civilopedia and decided to become a Republic in order to “get more technology and more people are happy.” Now that Jason understood the game basics, he was able to use the Civilopedia to answer his questions about the game. Jason was developing a strong working knowledge of the game system. He seem to enjoy exploring how to exploit its properties and then critiquing emergent behavior where he found it unrealistic. Jason’s plans were complex. He decided to build three cities in the Upper Nile to gather incense in the region. He would build one on the coast of the Red Sea to take advantage of the horses that inhabit the foothills of modern Kenya and then use this city as an outpost against the Nubian barbarian tribes. Then, he would gradually build cities up and down the Nile to take advantage of gold deposits. He was 206 giddy with the possibilities and had many questions. “Why are there so many barbarians? Have you beat the game before? Why can’t I build huge armies?” Jason’s critiqued the game’s portrayal of barbarians as unrealistic and wanted to see barbarians portrayed as “minor tribes,” to more accurately describe their settlements. He argued that the game marginalized nomadic peoples and did not sufficiently model how such populations interact with “civilized” peoples and eventually form civilizations. Critiquing the game reversed Jason’s relationship to historical texts, placing him in a position of authority. In this way, the game gave him space to critique established views and develop his own theories of history. Unfortunately, the Greeks built a city in the western half of Egypt. Jason asked me if he should go to war. I suggested that he might ally with them, trading technologies and avoiding the difficulties he had as the Iroquois: “It’s like you split up the work with the Greeks. You discover one, they discover one, then you trade.” Ever the protectionist, Jason commented, “No way, I’m not giving them horseback riding.” I explained the likelihood that they would learn horseback riding through trading with other civilizations, but Jason was concerned about giving away military technology to a civilization making a foothold so close to his capital. Periodically Jason would go back to his Iroquois game to see how it ended. He ran an experiment befriending the Polynesians, giving them technologies to see if he could build them up as an ally. We discussed how he might discover technologies twice as quickly through trading with the Polynesians than he might otherwise. Perhaps, he reasoned, they could ally one another in the event of (the presumed impeding) war with the Celts (as seen in Dan’s game). 207 Costly Wars and Hypothetical History Dwayne was one of the few students who stayed competitive in the game through the middle ages. Like Andrea, Dwayne was frequently at war yet was the only student to successfully conquer a major superpower. The other students looked on respectfully as Dwayne defeated England. Even so, winning the war had been too costly for him and he restarted his game, asking me if he could try playing as the Bantu. He wanted to see what it is like playing in Africa and whether or not the Africans could conquer the world. He loaded the game and started playing as the Bantu on an accurate map this time. Given Dwayne’s resistance to formal schooling, school-based history, and African-American background, it is reasonable to guess that Civilization III became a context for Dwayne to explore identity issues. By the second day, Dwayne (Bantu) made it to 790 AD. He had quickly mapped Africa and sent emissaries as far North as Germany. I asked him about his plans, and he explained that he was going to build cities along the shores of Africa, taking advantage of its rich resources. His stratagem was to establish his borders along each corner of subSaharan Africa and then build an African empire that would rival the other great empires in history. I complimented Dwayne on his strategy. Playing as the Bantu was particularly difficult: The capital city was surrounded by jungle leaving no real farmland, the Sahara Desert cut off any expansion to the North, and the South brought more jungle, the Kalahari Desert, and plenty of rival tribes. Dwayne had avoided each of these pitfalls by planning for his empire to span across the entire continent from the beginning, tapping into Africa’s broad resources. 208 “Wow,” I commented. “It really makes you wonder what history would have been like had Africa been unified.” Dwayne quietly said, “Well, we’ll find out, won’t we?” This question, of course, presumes an historical hindsight, as well as several unlikely historical scenarios. However, given these caveats, the question itself was an interesting one to many of the students as well as myself – one that emerged through watching Dwayne’s game play. On day 16, Dwayne called me over with several questions, still a relatively unusual event for Dwayne who rarely acknowledged needing help. He explained that he wanted to discover iron working before the other civilizations and use his military superiority as a leveraging point in negotiations for technologies, luxuries, and money. More than any other student, Dwayne traded with other civilizations, using the negotiation screens as a way of getting feedback on his game. If other civilizations had technology that he did not, he knew he was falling behind. Also unlike other students, Dwayne preferred to buy technologies when possible. He explained that gold was not as valuable as knowledge. Without a doubt, Dwayne had the fullest mastery of the political components of the game. I asked him where he learned these skills and he reminded me that he read Sun Tzu’s text, Art of War. By the end of his penultimate day, Dwayne had made it to 1350 AD and had built up the interior of Africa successfully. Kent, Bill, and others watched as Dwayne showed off his empire. I suggested that he build more libraries to increase his rate of technological discovery.22 At the end of class, I noticed that Dwayne, now in the year 22 How players interpret the appropriateness of what specific structures and institutions is included in the game and particularly what is omitted (i.e. schools) may be worth further study. 209 1545, had discovered navigation and had sent a galley to colonize South American in order to establish access to its rich resources. I called Tony, Dan and a few others to take a look. Dwayne was successfully replaying history in broad sweeps. He held back a smile as he bragged about how he was going to make the Americas African. I suggested that the other students look at Dwayne’s game and analyze how he had built his infrastructure. Sandy, who had lived in Mozambique in real life, was eager to use the game as a way to talk with Dwayne about African civilizations. Dwayne described how developing technologies, unifying Africa, and exploiting its resources now positioned him to dominate the world. He was the first student to cross the Atlantic and make a permanent settlement and was proud of his Bantu civilization, which was now making the Americas African and stood a strong chance of winning the game. Frustrations Bill, seated next to Dwayne, looked frustrated. Tired of losing, he did some research on civilizations in the Civilopedia and settled on the Persians as a good civilization to play. However, he was soon at war with Egypt and the Babylonians over control of the Arabian Peninsula. Bill focused all of his resources in military production and taxing income, investing nothing in his domestic infrastructure or scientific research. As a result, his civilization was falling behind neighboring ones, especially those in Europe. Bill watched Dwayne play with increasing frustration with the fact that he could not build a similarly successful empire. Yet, he did not understand the game system and was much less knowledgeable about geography than Dwayne; whereas Dwayne could talk about different geographical features, Bill was lucky to even know the names of the 210 civilizations he was warring. Post-interviews confirmed this: Bill could not locate Egypt on a map. Whether or not better geographical knowledge would have helped his game is difficult to discern, but it was clear that he was much less reflective and brought fewer conceptual tools to bear in his game play. Chris had mastered most game controls and was fairly successful as the Iroquois, but playing as the Egyptians presented new challenges. He was repeatedly attacked and restarted his game several times throughout the last few days. Playing as Egypt, he quickly found out when he fell behind in technology, finances, or military because he was overrun by other civilizations. Chris rushed through the game more than other students, spending less time observing other students’ games or reading the Civilopedia. Introducing Concepts Through Game Play Over the last three days, several students asked questions about monotheism, theology, and polytheism – all new concepts to them. In order to unpack how the game addressed religion and art, I led a class discussion on how the game models religion.23 I acknowledged that simulating religion into a part of human societies is problematic and then explained the basic terminology of the game. I asked students what their first religious discovery (or technology) was. Jason answered “Mysticism?” “Close,” I answered. “Ceremonial Burial. What do you think ceremonial burial is?” Perhaps recalling earlier conversations with Lisa, someone explained how it was burying your dead to prevent the spread of disease. Someone else added that it was the 23 As I describe in the methodology section, Civilization III does not deal with religion, art, or culture in a particularly sophisticated manner. Although each plays into the game in raising a civilization’s culture and affecting citizen’s happiness, these are clumsy inclusions at best. At its heart, Civilization III is a materialist-geographical representation of history. 211 belief in spirits. I explained how ceremonial burial naturally led to mysticism, which, in Civilization III, is defined as the set of beliefs connecting nature, divinity, and the spirit. I explained how, as these belief systems became more formalized, they evolved into monotheism and polytheism. I wrote both terms on the board and asked if they notice similarities between the words. Tony called out, “Theism.” “Exactly,” I explained. “Any guesses as to what it means?” Tony called out again, “Religion?” I then walked them through the meanings of “mono” and “poly,” both of which they knew from math class. My sense was that they were listening more out of kindness (i.e., humoring me), than any real interest. While many had encountered these concepts, understanding them was not crucial to game play. The effects of religion was basically the same regardless of type (i.e., each religious discovery builds on the last and makes new wonders possible), so students showed little interest in their distinction. In my journal, I admitted that, when I first started playing the game, I treated these distinctions in a similar manner. The game throws so much at you that you could not really learn it all the first time around. In some respects, however, the lecture achieved its goal: to reinforce the importance of religion in the game and emphasize that it should be considered in any model of culture or society. Wrapping Up 212 By the close of the unit, each student created their own personal goals for playing the game – from meeting other people to expanding their civilization – and everyone but Kathy was pursuing these objectives with little outside help. Even though the pace of the game was slower later in the unit, students were just as enthralled. The less frenetic pace gave more opportunities for introducing just-in-time lectures, and it finally felt like I could introduce extension activities, such as mapping exercises or timelines. As with the discussion of resources in students’ games would suggest, activities that fed directly into students’ game play, that produced knowledge that students could immediately use as tools or strategies within for their games, held their interest. Providing background geographical information on rival civilizations, discussing historically important technologies which might help their game play, or telling just-in-time lectures about historical events which could help them play were productive. Over the next two days, the researcher and I interviewed four students who could not participate in the Media camp due to other commitments (Dan, Andrea, Jason, and Deborah)24. Common themes in the interviews were that playing the game (1) required students to pay closer attention, read closer, and think harder than in typical classes; (2) led to geographical background information about where their civilizations started, the prominent geographical features of the region, and where competing tribes originated; (3) helped them understand how geography has an impact on why some civilizations developed more quickly or last longer than others; (4) provided background information about technologies and civilizations; (5) produced general understandings in ordinal relations among time, history, and technologies; (6) was unrealistic in portraying students ability to lead a civilization. Consistent with observations of students’ behaviors, 24 A few other students are not described in the cases due to inconsistent attendance. 213 Deborah commented, “playing the game made you pay attention and read everything.” Students were frequently observed carefully reading passages, asking students for help understanding passages, and in particular, discussing the potential meanings of passages in negotiation. Students performed best on tasks that covered information required to succeed in their games, most of which is useful background information (some of which are core) in studying world history. Each student discussed a handful of concepts (unique to each student) that were important to their games. Andrea’s were primarily military, as she discussed the catapult, war chariots, musketmen, and aqueducts. Dan’s were the strategic importance of horses and the Republic, and Jason’s (who spent a lot of time reading the Civilopedia) ranged from mathematics to atomic theory. Students also all identified where civilizations and tribes started (including competing civilizations). Success in the game meant identifying who rival civilizations were and where they were located on the map, and this knowledge developed easily for most students. All of the students discussed how geography had an impact on their games and on civilizations more generally, particularly in regards to colonization. Again, Jason had the most robust explanations for historical events; Jason explained how colonization was affected by European trade with global trade networks, the production capabilities of European cities, and open sea-going technologies. Andrea discussed the difficulties of playing in an archipelago (a game concept): The archipelago setting was more difficult. You were really closed in until you discovered things…until you had certain knowledge or information. Pangea was easier because you wouldn’t have to cross over rivers or water or anything to get what you wanted.” Importantly, Students also all described how their 214 games were unrealistic in that there was no historical analog for their activity; each described in detail how they micro-managed their civilization in ways that kings, republics, or presidents never would. Students were less uniformly adept on tasks that were not central to game play. Jason and Dan could describe despotism, monarchy, and how each affected their civilization, while Deborah and Andrea had partial explanations for each. Students were also less uniformly adept at drawing connections between geographical features and their games. Students such as Jason drew many direct comparisons between their games and geography (and history), and they freely discussed the importance of oil in Alaska, or the geography of Greenland, the latter of which was a particularly novel understanding. Andrea on the other hand was not sure how her game compared with history, and expressed confusion at how her borders would have compared with historical borders of Egypt.25 On timeline exercises, students showed a wide range of understandings; most knew that mathematics, bronze working and the alphabet were ancient technologies, and many could pin down ancient wonders (i.e. the Pyramids to ancient eras). However, most were confused about more recent technologies. Over the last few days, students’ game play became more reflective, students’ questions became more complex, and students began displaying a curiosity about making connections between their games and world history. Students started building models of how the game system worked, and most students started experimenting with different strategies (such as trading away technologies to allies) as they developed more robust understandings of the game system. Chris’s game became a virtual simulation of the 25 Andrea felt, and the researcher agreed that more maps would have been helpful to geographically and historically situate her game play. 215 impact of geography on civilizations. Students were interested in the role that religion played in the game and wanted to know more about the these terms they were learning. Unfortunately, the class did not hit this rhythm until the second to last day of the unit. Several students asked if they could play the game in social studies next year and had their own suggestions for how it could be integrated into courses. We decided to invite those students who were available the following week for “Media Week” to do a unit with me playing Civilization III. Our goal was to leverage these emerging understandings of the game system as a basis for drawing connections to world history. As the class ended, I thanked the students for participating in the study, and said that they could take home a copy of the game. Few students had home computers capable of playing Civilization III, but most of the students understood how to play and wanted a copy to take with them regardless. 216 Chapter V. Civilization III Camp Case Study At the end of the unit on civilizations in the Media School, the teachers asked me if I would like to hold a weeklong camp using Civilization III taking a subset of students from the previous unit as a part of the school-wide “media week” program. Media week takes place the week after school lets out and gives students hands-on opportunities to work with media technologies. The teachers and I thought that the camp would allow students interested in the game to continue playing and allow me to experiment with some different instructional strategies given the smaller group size. Five students – Kent, Dwayne, Chris, Tony, and Norman – signed up for the camp. Several other students – Andrea, Dan, and Jason – also wanted to be in the Civilization III camp but were already committed to participating in a youth peace leadership camp off-campus. DAY 1: Creating a New Classroom Culture and Entering the Industrial Age From the moment I walked into the class, it was clear that a new classroom culture had emerged. These students were serious about playing Civilization III. I arrived to school twenty minutes late but, by the time I walked in, students had all installed the game on the computers in the teacher’s lounge (where we would be working) and had started playing without any assistance. When I finally arrived, students jumped out of their seats and demanded that I find their saved games so that they could resume their games from last week. I could not help but compare this first day of camp to the first day of the unit six weeks ago, when Dwayne refused to even tell me his name. Perhaps most surprisingly, all of the students, including Dwayne, agreed to be videotaped this time, signaling that I had finally earned their trust. 217 Setting the Context I explained that the point of this week’s camp was to examine if Civilization III could be used for learning world history. On Friday, students would present their thoughts on the issue to other campers. This project topic was based on Lisa and Sandy’s original curriculum ideas. I told students that we would spend the first day playing Civilization III. On the second day, we would examine the game as a simulation by looking at the modification tools that designers used to build the game. The last three days would be a mix of game play and preparing a presentation for the other camp groups 1 . The longer time periods for game play, greater familiarity with the game, voluntary participation, and perhaps most importantly, trust between myself and the students created a more amenable classroom dynamic. Over the course of the week, I tried several different discussion activities. Even though this was a camp context and students were not being graded, students were willing to try a broader range of activities than before. Prompting Reflection and Just-In-Time Lectures With the smaller class size and more confident game players, I had more opportunities to observe students and make just-in-time lectures based on students’ game play. For example, seeing Dwayne about to trade metallurgy to the Germans, I intervened and asked Dwayne if he knew what metallurgy was, since he did not like to trade away technologies with military capacity. When Dwayne learned that metallurgy was good for making cannon and armor, he declared, “No way I’m giving them that!” Another time, I noted that Chris was situated next to the Carthaginians, and so I asked, “Do you know who the Carthaginians were?” I described who they were and mentioned historical 1 Presentations were a standard requirement across all camp sessions. 218 debates about whether they colonized the Americas. My hope was not that Chris would necessarily remember all of the facts of my mini-lecture, but rather that I might communicate to him the sense of historical uncertainty that has always drawn me to ancient history in the hope of piquing his curiosity as well. Consistent with earlier patterns of play, students attended much more closely to concepts and discussions that were in the service of their game play. Questions about New Game Concepts As students progressed into new areas of the game, they encountered new concepts, prompting a barrage of questions. For example, Norman created a leader, Ivan the Terrible, and called out, “Ivan the terrible? What is he doing in the game?!” Leaders are special units developed through battle or other exceptional achievement. I explained how the game designers created leaders to try to account for important people in history, such as John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, or even Ivan the Terrible, by giving players a “leader” after completing a special event. I acknowledged that it was a somewhat clumsy kludge for modeling the role that leaders play in history and then showed him how to look up more information on leaders in the game manual, a practice that never caught on among students during the classroom unit. Even though, later in the unit, we did talk specifically about biases in the game, surprisingly, the lack of important individual people in Civilization III (i.e. “great man” theories of history) was not a concern to these students. Dwayne’s game was moving fast and he asked about a dozen or so concepts, including coastal fortresses, mutual protection pacts, the corporation, refining, espionage, and cavalry, as well as if threatening other civilizations had an impact on diplomacy, and 219 what happened when the game ran out of names for new cities. Tony asked about theology, steam power, and free artistry. Kent wanted to know about “wealth” and if he could stay at peace without having to give away his money. “These people ask for too much freaking money,” he complained. He also asked me what embargoes were and what astronomy did. Students’ games were progressing quickly now and they had even more questions than ever as they became more and more engaged in the game. Game Discussions Students discussed their games more today than they had in past days. Kent and Tony both left their seats several times to watch Dwayne’s game. As before, Dwayne sat quietly “in the middle,” although he was more aware of Kent's game than in the past. In some respects this was an extension of how they played before. Chris and Tony compared games, and Tony continued to walk from computer to computer between turns examining others’ play. Like before, Kent regularly spent five or ten minute chunks of time watching other games. Here, the layout of the room itself was more conducive to collaboration; students sat in a small circle and could lean over to see anyone’s game. With a more manageable group of knowledgeable players, I also encouraged more knowledge sharing among them. In one such case, Dwayne asked me if Japan was on the game map. I explained that it was, and Dwayne declared that he was going to send a frigate to Japan to make it African.2 After listening to my conversations with Dwayne, Kent asked how to build a frigate so that he could also explore islands and trade with tribes, specifically Native American tribes across the Atlantic who he hoped to ally with in a war against the Dwayne’s fascination with Japanese history continued to manifest itself in his game play and became a running joke in the class, as we chided Dwayne for not being able to even find Japan on a map. 2 220 Romans. We discussed how Kent would need magnetism and navigation to build frigates, which would take hundreds of years for Kent to discover at the rate he was discovering technology. Kent asked why I did not tell him about getting technologies to build frigates before. I replied, “Because you wouldn’t have listened, Kent.” The students all laughed, in recognition that few of them listened to any information that did not have a direct impact on their immediate goals. After pausing for a few seconds, Kent asked if “his guys could swim” (thinking that he might send warriors swimming across the Mediterranean) and was frustrated to learn that they could not. Building Colonies Dwayne (Bantu) continued to colonize South America. He was still dominating his game, but now three of his cities in South America were being contested by Iroquois, who were also settling in South America. Dwayne saw this and shouted, “Wait, where are all of these people coming from colonizing my areas? I was supposed to own America!” Further, because other civilizations began trading technologies while he focused on investing heavily in military, Dwayne had fallen behind others in scientific discoveries. I showed him how to adjust his tax and science rate, but he was still concerned about his progress. His army was easily the strongest on the planet and he did not want to lose. Even successful students such as Dwayne had a lot to understand about the game, particularly balancing the different game systems (military, domestic, economy). Learning was continuous and frequently prompted by a failure to achieve desired goals – even for the most savvy of students. Still, discovering major features of the game system 20, 30, even 100 hours into game play is not uncommon in Civilization III playing. Having learned from others’ games, Tony (Iroquois, 1880) tried many strategies 221 to keep up with the Europeans, eventually settling on building a South American colony as the most viable one. First he tried trading for resources. As Tony entered the industrial age, he paused to scan newly available technologies and develop a plan to compete with the Europeans. He decided to pursue navigation, magnetism, and astronomy so that he could trade resources, especially horses, with civilizations on other continents. He eventually traded for technologies, maps and horses, which was a big moment for Tony, as he believed that access to horses would eradicate the Europeans’ military advantage. However, seeing other civilizations’ maps revealed that he was behind in several ways and needed to catch up. Horses alone would not make him competitive with the old world empires. Tony decided to colonize South America and build an economically robust civilization spanning both continents that could withstand a European assault. We examined the geography of South America, identifying natural resources and weighing its attributes against the challenge of building a civilization on a continent so filled with jungle. Tony knew that jungles were bad farmland and susceptible to disease, so I explained how the game models diseases, emphasizing ways in which the game is accurate and ways in which it is not3. Tony traded with the Polynesians, giving them democracy in the hope that they would be an ally against the Europeans. Tony was beginning to see the interrelationships between game systems, realizing that merely obtaining horses or saving money would not make him globally competitive; rather, he would need to build a strong infrastructure, develop his own research program, and ally From an historical point of view, Civilization III’s modeling of disease may be one of its most problematic features. The game accounts for how particular geographic regions (i.e. swamplands) generate disease, but it does not account for the role of mingling populations in its spread, such as when European colonists met Native Americans and brought them small pox. 3 222 wisely with neighbors. Tony was beginning to build system-level understandings of the game, understandings that he would later use to discuss historical concepts. Studying the Game as a Simulated System and Still More Questions Now that he had navigation, Tony sent a frigate across the open seas to explore the world and perhaps meet new people. Maybe the most interesting game play moment of the week occurred when his civilization reached Australia in the late 1800s and “discovered” the Aborigines. He was the first to make contact in the class, and it turned out in his game that the Aborigines had gone for 5800 years without making contact with any other civilizations. They had five small settlements and no technologies to speak of. I explained that, when the game starts, all of the civilizations are relatively even, but, because the Aborigines were isolated and had no resources, they did not grow as a civilization. Tony opened his foreign advisor screen to examine the differences in civilizations. He scanned their location, government, and treasury. We discussed how the game weighted differences among civilizations (e.g., how “scientific” civilizations got particular bonuses). Tony did not draw any conclusions about the relative advantages of different civilizations at this point; he was more curious about the outcomes of the game as a simulation. Tony found pleasure in sailing across the world, examining the outcomes of the simulation and spent much of the next few hours sailing around parts of the map that he was not familiar with. Tony discovered hordes of barbarians living in Madagascar. Tony could not imagine what Madagascar was; he had never heard of it before. I explained that Madagascar was settled by descendents of Australians, back when the islands were linked. I explained that they had not made contact with Africans until relatively recently. 223 We both marveled at how strong the barbarian groups had become and Tony stated that he thought it was a relatively accurate outcome of the simulation. Discovering islands such as Madagascar prompted Tony to ask many questions about world history which would be considered unusual for most history classrooms, such as who settled Madagascar, where did they come from, and to what ethnic group do they belong. On subsequent days, Tony discovered other Polynesian islands and began asking historical questions, such as: Who lives on these islands today? What native populations are left? Or what year did Europeans make contact with New Zealand? For Tony, much of the fun was comparing the outcomes of his game with history and, through it, thinking about history in new ways. Geography as a Tool Dwayne overheard the discussion and wondered if the game included people on Iceland. I explained that I placed barbarians in Iceland to model Vikings settlements. Kent yelled across the room asking if there were any other islands in the Atlantic. I said yes, there were the Azores, but they might not be large enough to be included in the game; they could explore with a frigate to try to find them. Dwayne then asked if I could help him find Japan. Kent offered to help instead: “Hey, do you want me to help you find Japan?” Dwayne laughed, since Kent’s geography skills were generally the weakest in the group. Kent then pointed to Russia and asked me who the inhabitants were. I was not sure. As students moved into the industrial age, they began building frigates and exploring the world, prompting them to ask many questions about geography. As the only link between the game simulation and history, I ended up answering many of these questions myself. A lack of other resource such as almanacs and atlases also contributed 224 to this impoverished information landscape, although I did have an historical timeline and a globe available which students rarely, if ever consulted. Students were most interested in understanding how to achieve their goals in the game and the underlying properties of the simulation. Students displayed curiosity about history and geography through their questions and listened closely to my explanations, but ultimately they wanted information that would link these domains, which only I could provide. Students continued to explore the properties of Civilization III and the differences between an historical simulation and a scripted interactive narrative. Late in the day, Dwayne angered a neighboring civilization, and said to Kent, “I think I might start World War I.” A few weeks earlier, I had explained the causes of World War I to Dwayne, which he planned to turn into strategy for use against the Chinese. Now, in a different game, Dwayne realized that he might have set off a chain of events that would lead to world war. Kent was still struggling to understand the game as a simulation as opposed to an interactive narrative, and asked, “Kurt, does the game have World War I in here?” I explained that there were no pre-scripted events, but that they could start their own World Wars through alliances. I gave Kent a version of the lecture that I gave Dwayne, this time using Dwayne’s game as another example of entangling alliances. Using the foreign relations screen, I showed him how two civilizations in his game had mutual protection pacts similar to Dwayne’s prior situation. “So, if you attack either of them, they’ll go to war with you. That’s a bit like how World War I started.” Dwayne had appropriated my explanation of World War I, now referred to the war about to ensue in his current game as World War I, which in turn prompted a discussion of simulated systems and interactive narratives. Both Dwayne’s and Kent’s games became artifacts mediating their 225 developing understanding. Kent struggled in the game and was becoming increasingly frustrated, so I suggested using knowledge of geography as a tool to catch up to other civilizations. Kent said, “These people (the other civilizations) make me sick. I’m in 1752 and I can’t make my ships go no where… minus three (gold) per turn. Christ!” Just as frustrating, other civilizations would not even trade maps without asking for hundreds in gold. I suggested that Kent “catch up” by sailing to North America using a galley, much like the Vikings did. I explained how he could go from England to Ireland to Iceland to Greenland and on to Canada. He got excited about this idea and set out for the new world. I tried to suggest to Kent (as I did earlier to Jason) that players could use their knowledge of geography as a “cheat” for succeeding in the game, by anticipating passage routes and the location of natural resources. Socially-Mediated Play Kent watched Dwayne’s game closely, deriving strategies from his play. Dwayne bragged about how his powerful boats intimidated the other civilizations and, soon after, Kent asked me how to build “big boats like Dwayne.” Later, Kent saw that Dwayne had submarines and shouted, “Yo, he can build a submarine. What did he discover to build that?” Dwayne answered, “industry,” which was incorrect. It became more and more apparent that Kent’s own goals, strategies, and interpretations of the game were shaped in important ways by his reading of Dwayne’s play. When Kent and Dwayne discussed the relative merits of communism, emergent shared understandings became more political. Dwayne had the opportunity to begin researching communism. Kent said, “Communism? I’d never go for communism!” 226 Dwayne agreed that communism was not desirable. I intervened, explaining that, regardless of their opinion of communism, as an idea, it led to social improvements, such as Social Security and new city improvements. Once Kent found out that he could learn the “technology” of communism without switching governments, he thought that pursuing it was a good idea, and Dwayne agreed. Kent’s evaluation of Dwayne’s choices in the game give Dwayne pause for consideration, first admonishing him for studying communism but then reinforcing his position, in the end agreeing that “discovering” communism was acceptable as long as Dwayne’s people did not become communist. I tried to mediate their conversation, explaining the role of communism in the game and in United States social history and making links between the two. I ended the class with a quick wrap-up of the day’s activities and tomorrow’s plans. I distributed game manuals and had each student turn to pages giving the explanation of each civilization’s advantages. I explained that the game is a simulation of how civilizations evolve, and a very imperfect one at that. I said, “Anything that tries to simulate the entire history of the world is bound to leave some things out.” I asked them if they thought that the differences between the Germans and the Bantu could be reduced to an extra army or a free technology difference. They answered, “No,” and then I explained that these slight differences could end up in very different game experiences, which is typical of a simulation. I brought up the case of the Aborigines, who had less access to resources, which resulted in them remaining a very small, struggling civilization in each game. I mentioned that, at the same time, “We noticed that in 1800 most of us hadn’t even crossed the seas yet, which is not very realistic. So tomorrow, we’ll talk more 227 about the nature of simulations.” They listened to the lecture half-heartedly, but overall, I was pleased to have introduced the concepts. DAY 2: Unpacking the Simulation The goal for today was to use the game editing tools to “lift the hood” and examine the properties of Civilization III as a simulation. After about 30 minutes of playing, I announced that we would take a break and then discuss their games. Kent laughed and asked, “A break from what? This is a break.” The class nodded in agreement and continued. New Tools and New Strategies Norman, still playing on a “fake” world, was mostly exploring with warriors, mapping unknown territory, and searching for barbarians and other civilizations. He planned and built his cities and secured natural resources quickly and without difficulty, in a routinized and skilled way. Kent (Egypt, 1000 AD) still wanted to create a civilization to be like Dwayne’s and tried using negotiations to his advantage. Early in the day he met Greece and then spent a fair part of the rest of the day at war with them. He lost and restarted the game. In his next game, Kent befriended the Greeks and traded technologies with them. Several times throughout the day he sang their praises, calling out, “I love these people” and so on. He signed right of passage agreements with them and used his workers to build their infrastructure, making Kent’s alliance with the Greeks the closest alliance that would arise all week. Later, the Romans threatened to attack. Thinking that the Greeks would protect him, he did not give in, which started another war. Quickly Rome attacked and it 228 was evident that Kent would lose again. As we watched Roman cavalry riding across Turkey, I asked Kent what he might do differently next time. I hoped to encourage him to reflect about parts of the game systems (economics, infrastructure) that he had been ignoring. Kent looked at me incredulously and countered, “Build a bigger military?” I pressed him further, but he only answered, “I don’t know…build more stuff?” So I asked if he had thought of investing more in researching new technologies, “Not really,” he replied. For Kent, there was no real relationship among infrastructure, economics, exploring technologies, and his military in the game. I showed him how to save his game each turn, so that he might try different strategies and go back and replay the game. Although Kent wanted to build a civilization like Dwayne’s, it was clear that he had far less mastery of the game system. All of Kent’s strategies were single variable solutions, focusing only on the military or befriending other countries for example. In contrast, Dwayne attended to political, economic, military, domestic issues, and their interactions all at once. Kent turned to Dwayne and asked, “Where is Rome? Do you know where Italy is?” presumably, so that he might launch a pre-emptive strike against Rome. Dwayne showed him where Rome was on his game. By the end of class, it was clear that Kent would be defeated by the Romans. He reluctantly continued the war, saying out loud to no one in particular, “I don’t like confrontation, but if someone just comes in, that’s what I have to do.” Kent continued with his plans to send immigrants to the Americas, which he now saw as much as an escape route as any chance to colonize. Knowledge of Europe, the Atlantic, and the Americas were tools that Kent used for his game play: knowledge of 229 Rome (mediated by Dwayne), knowledge that he could sail across Iceland and Greenland to the Americas without navigation, knowledge that the Americas were less densely populated and full of natural resources. Curiously, the promise of the Americas and the importance of colonization took on near epic importance as both Kent and Dwayne thought that colonizing another continent would insure economic prosperity. While hypothetically possible, colonization is not exactly the guarantor of success in Civilization III that students seemed to think. Faith in this strategy seemed based more on real history, especially colonial narratives such as America as the land of promise or of American manifest destiny in settling the West, than on anything within the game. How their understandings of real world history were mediating their game play became clearer to me. Exploring Game Concepts and Exploring History As they entered the industrial age, students encountered new concepts such as democracy, espionage, or replaceable parts. I discussed each with them, trying to historicize the concepts by describing them in terms of the particular eras in which they arose. Tony switched to democracy, and noticed how much it helped his economy and science. In the post-interviews, Tony recalled these effects as particularly important, describing democracy as his most important technological discovery. Interviewer: Tony: What were the effects of being in a democracy? At first I was in monarchy but my currency wasn’t going so well. It was hard for me to expand more in my civilization. Once I switched to democracy, a whole new door opened. I went from 10 gold to 145 per turn – 156 was highest. I became the richest civilization. I was able to bring my science up to 60 and make people happy, which gave me 10% other bonuses… I think they were military related. Switching to democracy meant that I gave it all (freedom, decision making) to the people. The people chose me, 230 Interviewer: Tony: which helps my government be more organized, compared to a king doing all of the work (as in monarchy). With a lot of money (in democracy), I can buy lots of luxuries, I can make my city grow, more people come in, which means my civilization is growing. It’s a big circle. Is this realistic? Yes, close enough. Playing Civilization III gave Tony a richer sense of the effects of technologies or social advancements compared to the particulars of that technology. From a pragmatic perspective, where concepts are known by their consequences, this pattern is not problematic. Still, the game did sharply mediate students’ thinking about history. As with the game, Tony’ game-mediated understanding of democracy has a decidedly materialist bent, demonstrated in the above example as he describes democracy in terms of its added efficiency. Still, Civilization III tied together disparate areas of history for him and allowed him to use historical ideas as tools for game play. His explanation during postinterviews of why the game would be a useful learning tool in school illustrates. Tony: Well, it [Civilization III] should be used. This game is perfect for learning. This game has everything in a history class all at once. While you play the game the teacher can tell you about things that happened in real life. Then, you use it to take advantage in the game. Discussing Simulation Bias At 10:30, I instructed the students to save their games and quit so that I could show them the game editor. Students protested, but after three minutes and much prodding, they left their games and turned their attention to me. I explained that we would be learning “How these games are actually made…what goes on inside the game.” I asked them if they could recall what a simulation was. No one spoke, so I explained the textbook definition of a simulation: Taking one real life system and portraying it through 231 another symbol system – like modeling the way civilizations grow and evolve and by showing them on the computer. I emphasized that Civilization III does not try to simulate absolutely everything about history, but rather only a few key aspects– especially relationships between geography and history. I asked them what they thought was missing from the model. Dwayne answered, “Japan.” I asked them why Japan was not in the game. Chris answered, “Because they came from another civilization.” I asked them if this had happened in any of their games: Had people revolted and started their own civilization? All of the students said no. I compared the forming of Japan to the American Revolution, commenting that the American Revolution could also not possibly be simulated with the game. I started a list of problems with the game, writing on the board, “You can never ‘start’ a new civilization.” Chris added, “No one bothered the new world. The Iroquois haven’t been conquered.” We discussed what this meant, and I wrote down, “Did not predict the way the new world was colonized very well.” I explained how Civilization was not a predictive simulation. “Say that you want to predict what would happen if you bomb somebody – if we bomb Afghanistan. Would you use Civilization to predict what is going to happen in the next 1000 years after attacking the Taliban? Hopefully not. But it might help you learn things about civilization. For example, has anyone met the Aborigines? What were they like?” Dwayne answered, “They have three cities. Aztecs have like ten.” I asked them if they knew why, and no one answered. I explained how the Aborigines were in the desert and had no nearby civilizations to trade with. They also must compete with other tribes, 232 who are modeled as aggressive barbarians. I asked if they had any cities with similar problems. No one answered so I asked those with cities in the jungle what happened. Dwayne answered, “The cities just sat there.” I compared that to the Aborigines. “Much like how the Aborigines’ settlements ‘just sat there on an island.’ Because they would have to sail half way across the ocean to meet anyone, they developed in isolation.” I turned their attention to the barbarians. “Some of you found barbarians on deserted islands. Was that realistic?” They thought that this was realistic. Kent commented, “Yeah, but the Aztecs were considered barbarians.” I asked, “Who were the barbarians?” Dwayne responded, “Nomads.” I explained how historically most every civilization has called civilizations other than their own “barbaric” (e.g. To the Romans, a barbarian was anyone who was not Roman. To the Chinese, it was anyone not Chinese). I discussed this tension between nomads and barbarians in terms of the Vikings, who were a lot like barbarians but evolved into mercantilist societies. On a map I had brought to class we looked at Viking settlements in North America and western Europe during the Middle Ages. For the first time since I began working with these students, we focused attention explicitly on the properties of Civilization III as a simulation. Dwayne and Tony had already started asking questions about the game as a simulation through their game play. This discussion allowed us to open up these concepts and share them with a broader group. Despite the successes of this conversation, it was clear that students still did not have a deep understanding of the emergent properties of the simulation, as evidenced by 233 their inability to explain why aboriginal settlements stagnated while others flourished. I decided to discuss the simulation rules more explicitly. Lifting up the Hood Next we opened the game editing tools, tools that allow designers to change the rule set underlying the simulation. Students found this exercise very confusing. I explained how they could use the editing tools to change the rules underlying the game, such as how much food it requires to make new cities. I explained how the tools would let them change anything that they saw on screen; in fact, they could convert the entire game to a Star Wars universe, creating a new planet, new military types and so on. Surprisingly to me, none of the students seemed intrigued by this at all, so I turned to their games specifically. I explained how I edited their scenarios to make them more realistic, removing horses from North America or uranium where it did not belong. I explained other minor changes I made, such as increasing the number of moves that units could make in order to speed the game along. The students still looked confused. The point of this exercise, to expose them to the properties of the model in order to make the game transparent and thereby make experimenting with the game both more fun and more pedagogically productive (e.g. Starr, 1994) seemed to be lost on the class. I had them open up a map of the earth to make the discussion more concrete. Students immediately raised questions about icons they had not seen before. Norman asked about the oil icon in Alaska; Chris asked about aluminum and saltpeter in mountains. I showed them how to add bonus resources, such as wheat or horses. I explained that they could give North America horses if they wanted. Next I showed them how to alter their maps, creating islands, lakes, or oceans. Students quietly experimented 234 with the controls for about five minutes. Seeing the Earth on the map, including where resources were located, was like seeing “the answer sheet” to some and they took great interest in seeing what geographic features were included and what resources were available. I showed them how to change the basic game rules. I chose rules that I thought would be obviously unrealistic, such as how they could change the rules so that entertainers would create increased science as well as happiness. This example was confusing, so I showed them how they might add wool to the game by creating a new “sheep” icon, linking wool to a technology, and then setting the bonuses so that it would create food and / or commerce. Basically, I led them through the interface, explaining what each element did, but the entire exercise continued to confuse them. They kept struggling to grasp what I was trying to explain. Although educators and researchers (e.g. Starr, 1994, Turkle, 1997) have long argued for the importance of “opening the hood” to simulations – giving learners access to the rules underlying simulations in order to better understand the rules by which the simulation runs, helping students understand the “positionality” of the simulation and remove interpretive barriers to understanding game rules – for these students in this context, seeing the rules underlying the simulation was too overwhelming. Even after playing the game over twenty hours, most students still had relatively little reference point for understanding the rule set presented in this raw format. This may seem surprising, even disappointing to some, but examining just how complex the Civilization III rule set and editing tools are may explain part of the issue. The “rules” tabbed interface (see Figure 5.1) contains 16 different tabs (ranging from unit type to 235 improvements and wonders). Each tab might control 5 to 25 different choices (i.e. different unit types or different improvement types). There are on average over 12 independent attributes to set for each type, which in turn can have 20 or more different levels or factors to consider. As a result, there are literally thousands of combinations that could result 4 . Changes as simple as adding “elementary schools” to the game might require fifty or sixty choices. Many of these choices themselves embody concepts relatively complex for many students, including bonus percentages, multipliers, or ratios. Eventually, most of the students found some intellectual hook in the editing tools. I showed Chris how the prerequisites work – using outlandish examples that he seemed to appreciate. We changed the rules so that players needed to discover the printing press before they could ride horses. Then, we created a natural resource for “books”, so that books would appear on the map after discovering the printing press. Chris asked about several other settings, such as how culture, espionage, civil disorder and the artificial intelligence of other civilizations worked. Kent asked if he could create his own civilizations and then play it. I said that he could, and I helped him build a Native American civilization. Kent immediately took to this activity, perhaps because he had so much difficulty playing the game under normal settings. I noticed that he was endowing North America with bountiful resources, perhaps trying to increase his chances of winning. Kent asked about several features, including the preferred and shunned governments, cossacks and ironclads. Perhaps, given our discussion of communism, he 4 At minimum, 16 x 5 x 12 x 20 = 19,200. At maximum, 16 x 25 x 12 x 20 = 96,000. 236 appreciated that the designer could set government types so that civilizations gravitated toward specific types. Norman also found this interesting, so I showed him how to change these settings as well. I tried to make links between issues they struggled with in the game and the game editor tools, helping them see how opening up the hood to the simulation might help them in the game. We went back to the government screen, and I explained that they could use the editor screens to learn about the advantages of democracy. We compared democracy to anarchy, examining factors affected by governments: war weariness, trade bonuses, 237 efficiency, espionage, resistance to espionage, military penalties. I continued to explain how they use certain variables, such as having the Americans never go into communism, in order to have the game behave realistically (See Figure 5.2). I also tied the editor tools to issues that they had struggled with during the term, such as slow technological development. We discussed reducing the cost for discovering advancements or ways of increasing trade. Grounding the discussion in terms of students’ games raised their general curiosity and connecting the discussion to issues that arose during their game play brought a few more students into the activity. Using the editor to understand relatively complex issues such as civil disorder became fruitful. Kent and Chris asked me if they could save their scenarios because they wanted to play them. Brainstorming for the Presentation We used the last 10 minutes of class to brainstorm ideas for their presentation. I suggested dividing the presentation in several sections: (a) Things you could learn about geography; (b) Things you could learn about foreign relations; (c) Things you could learn about history; (d) Things that are not realistic about the game; (e) Things we would change in the game; and (f) Other activities that could help you learn world history. 5 I mentioned globes as an example, pointing to Dwayne’s problems finding Japan on the map and suggesting that using globes might be helpful for learning and game play (other activities to help learn world history). I tried to model this idea and draw on Dwayne’s interest in Japan. I used the globe to explain how, in 400 AD, immigrants came to Japan from China. I suggested that they could alter the starting civilizations, adding Japan if they liked (ways to change the game). I asked if there were any other sections that they Following Sandy’s advise, I decided to scaffold their presentations through this outline rather than have them develop their own. 5 238 wanted to have, but students had no suggestions. I encouraged Chris, who had played as both the Egyptians and the Aztecs, to compare the experiences. “Egypt had a lot of gold.” Students were silent, and the class ended. Tony was the most intellectually curious student at this point, offering several thoughts that we would build on later. Otherwise, it was evident that I would have to guide students through the presentation more heavyhandedly if we wanted to finish by Friday. DAY 3: What Did we Learn? By Wednesday, an informal gaming culture began to emerge. Kent, Chris, and Norman oscillated between playing games and playing with the editor. Norman was quiet most of the day and seemed to want to be left alone, so the students and I respected this wish. There was quite a bit of joking today and game play was peppered with random commentary from other players and jeering from across the room. We also started working on the presentation today, which marked the first time that students began to reflect explicitly on the viability of Civilization III as a tool for learning world history. Students were now entering the late industrial / early modern age, bringing new challenges. Entering the Modern Era and Testing the Game System While Kent and Norman experimented with the editor, Dwayne and Tony continued playing their civilizations, which were now entering the modern era. Dwayne wanted to wage war on the Chinese (continuing his Japanese / Chinese fascination) and went about finding ways to attack China from Africa. Dwayne discovered flight (as did Tony) and was busily conducting espionage missions on other civilizations (as was 239 Tony). Dwayne asked me about marines. I explained that marines could launch amphibious attacks as in the movie “Saving Private Ryan.” I encouraged Dwayne to look in the Civilopedia, and he spent the next several minutes looking at military units. He even started up a very slow computer next to his desk so that he could read the Civilopedia in between turns. Dwayne called out, “They [the game] have tanks!” and asked me if tanks bombarded or attacked. I was surprised that he had a conceptual understanding of the differences between bombarding and attacking. He continued, “I think I’m about to take over the world. I have fighters and bombers, man. I’m beautiful. Can I send them across the sea?” After learning about aircraft carriers, Dwayne decided that he would use carriers to dominate the world. “I don’t see any of y’all building carriers,” he taunted. He sold gems to other civilizations to finance his military. For Dwayne, the game was largely a military struggle at this point, although he was using understandings of other systems to build his military. Now that Dwayne was wrapped up in the game, he also found the Civilopedia a valuable resource, and enjoyed learning about military technologies. Tony was also being dragged into war. The Russians settled in South America next to his expanding empire and the Celts landed in Nova Scotia. He had reduced corruption in his South American cities and was excited about trading technologies with them, but he was concerned that the Russians might attack his fragile South American settlements. Tony and I studied his civilization carefully, examining his cities and creating a strategy for defending both continents at once using harbors and railways, which would also increase trade. Soon the Celts began building cities in Nova Scotia, which frustrated him. He considered attacking the Celts out of sheer curiosity as to how 240 the other civilizations would react. Testing the game’s political system intrigued him, but he certainly did not want to give up his game, which he was quite invested in. Chris (Iroquois) was in the year 1990, and rapidly approaching the end of the game. Seeing that a victory was unlikely, Chris quit his game and started another as the Egyptians in order to compare how different geographies affected the growth of a civilization how that, in turn, affected the game. He asked several questions about specific terrain types, such as the jungle, the sea, and the ocean, how they affected a city’s production, and how bonus resources (i.e. fish, dolphins, and whales) affected the base rate of production. For the rest of the period, Chris played his new game in order to “analyze how geography affected the growth of his civilization.” Although Chris’s game play was driven mostly by game concerns as opposed to historical ones, his interest in using the game as a simulation to compare the role of geography in shaping civilizations surprised me, as it took on an almost scientific quality. This spirit of curiosity could even be found in Kent’s play on his newly modified game scenario. Kent made his warriors extremely powerful, created ironclads that could fly, and loaded his territory with gems, furs, iron, and horses. Kent later realized that even with his bonuses, he was not all-powerful. Units on horses could outrun him, and other civilizations could steal his resources. Kent asked me more questions about how I modified the game for the class. I explained how I took horses out of North America since the Native tribes had to fight the Europeans without horses. I also explained how I disadvantaged the Iroquois, Bantu, and Aborigines to model how they probably did not have large settlements in 4000 BC and how I advantaged the Babylonians as they were 241 probably the oldest civilization. Kent listened intently, apparently interested in the interplay between game design and emergent phenomena. Brainstorming What We Learned At 9:45, we began brainstorming for the presentation. Because turns were taking so long on these slow computers (often 30 seconds per turn), they could keep their games going during the discussion and participate in between turns. No one was close to finishing their game and students only had five hours of class time left, so I tried to squeeze as much game time as possible. I went around the room, asking students what they thought were most important discoveries and events in the game. I started with Tony. Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Tony, What were the most important discoveries or events in your game? I discovered that all the barbarians went to Australia. Why was that important? It’s important because, well, it just seems interesting that they would all be in Australia. Any discoveries inventions, or resources? Invention. Democracy. To me it seemed like your trading technologies were big. Is that true? Yes, that and being rich. Tony approached the question as an academic one, answering in terms of what was the most important thing he learned through the game. Of all the students, Tony was the only one to examine events emerging from the simulation and describe them as “interesting” or worth considering in terms of what they could teach us about history. I questioned Dwayne about his game, but Dwayne was very reluctant to participate in the conversation. He talked about the importance of flight, amphibious mobility, dyes, and rubber in his game, but these were all recent discoveries, the 242 consequences of which had not played out yet. These comments seemed to function more to brag about what he had accomplished than to reflect on what was actually important in his game. As before, Dwayne was reluctant to talk about his game unless it was asking me questions or bragging to his classmates. I moved on to Chris, who, perhaps not surprisingly, described the role of geography in his game. Kurt: Chris: Kurt: Chris: Chris what are your most important technologies, discoveries or events? Well, the game depends on where you’re sitting. Ok, geography. Give me an example. In Egypt you become rich because their geography has a lot of gold. For Chris, the most important discovery was no particular invention or discovery, but rather that the game was fundamentally about the interplay between geography and the evolution of civilizations. Chris’s gaming had become a study of how geography affected the growth of civilizations. Chris was picking up on the materialist orientation of the simulation and beginning to systematically unpack how geography affected particular civilization. Norman’s game play, in contrast, was still relatively simplistic. In part, this was because he faced frequent computer problems and was often starting over. On the other hand, he also wrestled with some of the most basic issues. such as defending a city against barbarians or maintaining domestic peace. Kurt: Norman: Norman, what was important in your game? Barbarians. Norman seemed reluctant to participate, so I reframed the question. 243 Kurt: Norman: Kurt: Norman: Kurt: Norman: Do you have advice for someone playing the game? Build a good defense. Build spearmen early. How about where you built your cities? I often tried to build them around animals, gold, near water. What would it do? Why build cities near water? Because of fish. There is usually food around there to hunt. For Norman, the game was mostly a management simulation. He described the things he learned as “How to spend and save money and what technologies you should discover first because some might be more useful in the end.” He thought that winning was a matter of discovering the right technologies. He attributed his losses to not building enough spearmen or not pursuing technologies other than navigation and falling behind as a result. He explained that the game was good for learning how to manage civilizations, particularly tax rates. I asked Kent what he discovered. Kent had not yet had much success and was reluctant to analyze how his game went. Kent: Kurt: Kent: Kurt: Kent: Kurt: Kent: I didn’t discover things. They did. I lost. What would you have done differently? Technologies. Gotten more technologies. What about geography? You put those horses and gems on your map. The gems I put in so I could sell them. Any other lessons you learned in the game? Location is important. Playing in America was easier. Kent acknowledged the role of technology in his games, particularly his own lack of it. I prompted him to think about the connections between his geographical location and his technological production, hoping that he will discuss the growth of his civilization or perhaps the importance of trading. His only response was that he had put gems in the game territory near his civilization in order to sell them, suggesting that he was not making any deep connections between these systems. He was able to explain how starting 244 in America was easier, perhaps due to fewer competing civilizations. In this discussion as in earlier ones, however, it was evident that Kent was making few connections among variables or systems of variables. I still felt like students were not digging deeply enough into some of the intellectual issues their games raised, so I rephrased the question in terms of lessons that they learned through the game. I asked, “What lessons have you learned? What strategies would you tell someone if they’re playing the game?” Immediately, students came up with some common rules of thumb. Tony: Chris: Tony: Kurt: Dwayne: Kurt: Dwayne: Kurt: Dwayne: Kurt: Tony. Dwayne: Make as many roads as possible. Helps with traveling. Always put 2-3 defense in every city. Yes, protection is a key. Dwayne, how about you? I don’t know. Anything about science? No. What do you build in your cities? I don’t know. Tony, you mentioned keeping a good bank account. Yes, being filthy rich is fun. I’m getting 200 gold per turn. (Tony ran over, curious about how Dwayne could earn so much money). It’s good to build up your money for when you get espionage so you can steal technologies rather than trade. Dwayne was now silent during discussions, even antagonistic toward the researcher. When I tried to reframe the question toward economics, he seized the conversation in order to display how much money he had earned. Discussion with students flowed much better when it emerged organically with their games serving as a starting point and then building into issues of what worked for them and, from there, generalizing up to more abstracted principles. Tony described how he was building roads in one term because of increased efficiency now that he was in 245 democracy and had discovered advantageous technologies. "Laborers work better under democracy, and technologies like replaceable parts help.” I was surprised that Tony could give this description so readily – he had combined information on democracy that he had read in the Civilopedia with my discussion of replaceable parts earlier in the week, and could now spontaneously use it to make sense of his game. I decided to push along the presentation, as I was nervous that they would lose interest in this part of their activity and not work on it at all. Kurt: Dwayne: Tony: I am going to help us set up the presentation. If we can get five things about geography, five on politics, five on history, and so on, then I think we will have the presentation. Are there things you learned about geography? Cities flourish around oceans. Yes, definitely. I wrote down this comment on a post-it note and stuck it on the board. Kurt: Kent: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: How about biases in the game? What do you mean? (Rest of class is silent). One big bias I’ve heard is that it’s biased toward technology. Because if you have technology, you end up winning the game, because you have money, technology and military. But that leaves out art and religion which aren’t as important in the game. Another bias might be as a ruler you can do whatever you want. As a president can you make all of these decisions? No. So a bias may be that it assumes that it would ever be possible to have this much control over a civilization. Although students were mastering the game controls and exploring the game as a system, few could begin critiquing the simulation for its underlying biases. I raised examples, hoping that students would latch on to these predispositions built into the game and discuss them further, but conversation ended. 246 Game Talk and Engagement Tony and Dwayne collaborated on their games. They examined the civilizations in one another’s games, discussed other civilizations’ income and technology, analyzing which had what kind of income and technology. Dwayne asked Tony, “Should I go with computers or what?” Tony nodded. Meanwhile, he was skimming the options of what cities he could build, pausing to admire the Hoover Dam. Tony noticed that the Celts just built a city in his territory. Chris encouraged him to go to war, although Tony wanted to spare the Celts. Chris: Tony: Chris: Tony: Chris: Tony: Chris: Dwayne: Bomb them. They’re just building little towns. Hello! They may be little towns, but they could grow. Who cares? They’re real people, man. Is that the Celts? I am stronger than everybody. Espionage! Oh my God, you have espionage! Why deal when you can steal? Steal technology from all of them. This interaction shows several things about the culture that emerged. First, students display familiarity and comfortability with one another; they feel free to agree, disagree, make requests, or debate each other’s claims wholesale without embarrassment or fear. Second, an intellectual discourse emerged among them, one that including publicly and collaboratively analyzing problems, asking for help, and negotiating out solutions. Here, Tony shows concern for the Celts, declaring that they are “real people” and deciding not to bomb them, before engaging in some braggadocio about his strength. Chris is both mocking and appreciative, first riding Tony for being afraid to attack the Celts then appreciating Tony’ technical superiority. This interaction also demonstrates how shared 247 game strategies emerged. Here, for example, using espionage emerged as an ideal strategy for avoiding war while still remaining technologically dominant. Still Learning the Game As games entered the modern era, still more questions arose. These ranged from the conceptual (e.g., What are barracks, catapults, the Colossus, the attitude advisor, treaties, libaries, city improvements, the forbidden palace, embassies?) to deeper questions about the game system (e.g., How does the artificial intelligence work?). Dwayne was particularly interested in understanding the game system. He wanted to know how the industrial production, food, and culture systems worked in detail. We discussed how to build city improvements (e.g., factories, power plants), and cultural improvements (e.g., temples, libraries, cathedrals) and increased food capacity (e.g., irrigating, harbors). I tried to foster more student-to-student help, but a few still had a fairly flimsy grasp of the game concepts. In a few instances, however, students were beginning to develop theories about the game and concepts more generally and were beginning to articulate and defend their theories about specific aspects of the game. Chris and Tony, for example, launched an extended debate of the merits of building embassies. DAY 4: Building the Presentation and Making Interdisciplinary Connections I managed to arrive on time today, but again, lost the first half hour of class to fighting computer problems. A teacher was using one of the computers he had lent to our group, so we had to find one for Norman. Eventually, we just sent him down to the computer lab on his own. Because we could not get Norman’s saved game to the lab, he had to start over for yet another day. In post-interviews, Norman commented that he 248 enjoyed playing Civilization III, and didn’t even mind losing the game, which increased his interest in the game “kept wanting to win every time (I lost) until like the tenth time, and then I just had enough.” Reviewing the Underlying Game Variables An hour into class, I called students’ attention to the front so we could continue brainstorming for the presentation. Today we specifically discussed the rule set behind Civilization III as a simulation. Students quickly identified the three main variables (food, resources, and commerce) and even Kent was able to join in the conversation. Next, we discussed factors affecting these basic variables. Students quickly identified that irrigation and geographical location affected food production. Through playing as different civilizations, students knew that river valleys generated the most food, and tundra the least. Perhaps not surprisingly, the students had clearly picked up on the three main variables behind the simulation and understood the factors affecting food production quite clearly. I turned the conversation to production (represented by shields). We had not talked much about shields, and not surprisingly, they had little sense of what affected their production. Kurt: Chris: Kurt: Dwayne: Kurt: Dwayne: Kurt: Kent: Norman: Where were your cities that had the most shields? The ones that had a lot of luxuries? Check one of your games. Who had a city with a lot of shields? Mine. What made them have the most shields? The ones with roads. I think you’re thinking trade. To affect shields, you want to build factories, coal plants, or mines. Whose cities made stuff the quickest? Where are they located? (There were some mumbles). Take a look at your cities. Mountains. You’re wrong. (We went to Kent’s game). 249 Kurt: Kent: Kurt: Kent: Kurt: Kent: Kurt: Tony: Look – where do they come from? Mountains. See Kent was right, forests, mountains and hills. Trade. Where did that come from? Where are your cities that are rich? I bet you guys know this one. Think back. When you were Egypt were you poor or rich? Rich. Why? I was near water. People trade along the water. How can you make more trade? Build roads…they also help you move faster. I closed the discussion with a small talk about superhighways, discussing about how they enable commerce and comparing the experiences of students with lots of roads to the experiences of students who had few. Even though I had mentioned the four game variables in the abstract at the beginning of the term and students had been interacting with them throughout the unit, the factors contributing to these variables (particularly shields) were still opaque. Students were far better at understanding parts of the simulation model that were depicted visually and had an immediate impact on their game play. They understood how roads and airports affected movement and they knew which cities grew quickly and which ones generated trade, but they didn’t grasp yet the interdependencies between these two features. Cultural Influence Lastly, I brought up culture. Students had even vaguer notions about what contributed to their civilizations’ cultural influence. Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: The last is culture. What is culture? What things lead to culture? Just about everything. Does geography? In some ways. How? I forgot. (Five seconds of silence). 250 Tony, who was very aware of the materialist orientation of the game, guessed that geography had an impact on culture. In reality, culture was the one (and probably only) thing in the game not affected by geography. I explained how culture (as a game variable) is a distinctly human variable, and that the game simulated culture through structures and wonders, which biased the game against cultures that did not build large permanent structures. Students did, however, understand the impact of cultural influence on the game play. Kurt: Tony: Kent: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: If you have an influential culture, does it help, does it hurt? You can win the game. Your territory expands. Excellent. It makes people happier, and sometimes it makes other people join your civilization. Culture flip? Right. So that’s how the game works. Your cities make four things: food, shields, trade, and culture. And the whole game grows out of that. Students’ notions of culture were tied closely to those game functions that they used most often. No one could say what culture was or what in the game led to culture, although each of them knew the effect of culture on their game. Tony even recalled “culture flipping,” the term we used for when a city’s residents were impressed by another culture’s influence and switched to another culture. I was a little surprised, however, that students did not infer more about the underlying simulation. Their ensuing questions then reminded me of how little background knowledge some brought to the unit. Norman: Kurt: Norman: Tony: Is North and America and South America considered the same continent? No. Doesn’t a bridge separate them? I don’t think they’re connected. 251 Several things about this conversation surprised me. First, it was curious that Norman did not know that North and South America were separate continents and that he thought that there was some sort of bridge between them. I was also surprised that Tony, who had been playing on North America and traveling to South America all week, believed that they were not connected at all. It reminded me that, if the game could minimally help them learn new social studies vocabulary, even that might be an academically valuable experience for many of them. I explained what continents were and gave a brief explanation of the Panama Canal. I used their games to show how they could build a port connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Cold War Revisited or Always Beware of the Damned Russians Tristan, a student in another class who was interested in Civilization III, walked into the classroom and started asking questions. He noticed that Dwayne was in 2003 and Tony was in 2020. He challenged Tony, trying to goad him into an arms race: Tristan: Tony: Tristan: Tony: Dwayne: Tristan: Tony: Kent: Dwayne: Why is Dwayne going into space and you don’t even have battleships? And wait, they’re still riding horses and stuff. That makes no sense. Why don’t you have jet fighters? Why don’t you bomb a neighboring country? Damn I’m sweating in here. Why don’t you build tanks? Tanks? I don’t need tanks. Tony, Tony, Tony. Why don’t we go by America’s principles? Build as many weapons as you can even though you don’t need it, “just in case war breaks out.” (The United States had just attacked Afghanistan, a war that most of these students were suspicious of). Isn’t that a little overkill? No. What was the cold war about – building as many weapons as you can, just in case Russia starts something? Build enough weapons to destroy the earth 10 times over just because “The Russians.” But I don’t need tanks. Always have tanks. Always beware of the damned Russians. 252 I was surprised to see that these students, who were not sure if North and South America were even considered different continents, had such sophisticated, critical views on the causes of The Cold War. Tristan, Tony, Dwayne, even Kent all joked about military escalation during the Cold War and the fact that the United States might have overspent on military for a threat designed to generate fear in the populace was taken as a given. Tristan looked on as Tony played. Tristan: Tony: Tristan: Tony: Tony, you still haven’t reached Africa yet? Isn’t the object to take over people with the military and rule the world? Yeah, kind of, but you don’t have to do it with military. It’s almost impossible to do it just with military. Really? Huh? Why? It would just be really hard. Hey! I have a missile. Tony was beginning to see the game as an interconnected set of systems and how military superiority alone was not enough to win the game. As several times before, he “recovered” himself after taking a pacifist stance by declaring that he did, in fact, have a missile. Sandy entered the class to call Tristan out of the room. Interdisciplinary Connections We resumed work on the presentation. I started reading through the post-it notes of students’ ideas of what they learned through game play. Our goal was to read them and organize them by theme. The activity broke down, leading to the most significant learning moments of the unit. I continued calling out students ideas of what they had learned. Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Kent: Kurt: Tony: Democracy makes more money and more science. Bias, because some people believe that technology will win the game. Cities grow slower in mountains and slower in forests. Geography. Discovering democracy helped my civilization. Politics. 253 Kurt: Dwayne: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Technology of flight. How did that help? Military superiority. Discovery of flight helped my military. Politics? It could also be history. Tony was beginning to see that there were multiple lenses for viewing technological advances, that each variable lie at the intersection of several interacting systems. I read one of their comments about the Nile River generating food and trade. Tony was making more and more connections among money, technology and politics. Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: You could say that you realized how as soon as people discovered flight that changed history. Nile River creates food and trade. Money allows me to buy technology, so Politics. When you have a lot of money you can do whatever you want. When you’re rich you can buy off other countries. Have you heard of the US selling fighter planes to other countries? No. Yeah – the US sells military to countries like Israel. Soon, Tony saw the problem with this activity: Because geography, politics, economics, and history are all connected (in Civilization III and in life), it is difficult to know where one domain begins and another ends. He was beginning to understand that it was impossible to talk about the importance of the Nile River without talking about economics, which then had political implications. This became clearer as the discussion then turned to amphibious warfare. Tony: Kurt: Could be bias…could be history and politics. In a way it’s history…it allows you to bombard other countries. But politicswise you can demand stuff now. Let’s put it in the middle. Ok, next. Luxury resources create happiness. 254 (Tony stood up, thinking. I transitioned to a topic more directly related to Dwayne’s game, trying to bring him into the conversation. Tony quickly regained his train of thought.) Kurt: Dwayne: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Unifying Africa made us powerful. Dwayne, where would you put that? Politics and geography. I got all of these resources then I could trade them with other countries. So it made my politics stronger. It makes more production. Everyone can work faster and more efficiently. Where should we put that, in what pile? Well, in some ways, they’re all related to each other. (General nodding) That could be one thing we learned. How would you write that? Well, money is the key… money is the root to everything. With money you can save yourself from war, and that also means that politics…with money, that ties everything together. Tony argues that money relates all these factors, perhaps prodded by my encouragement to find a single unifying theme, perhaps due to his own interpretations of the game, perhaps from his own personal beliefs. I encouraged the class to think more about connections between geography and politics. At this point, the majority of our topics – amphibious warfare, luxuries, geography, uniting Africa – were all in the middle of the chart connecting history, geography, and politics. Kurt: I want to suggest a change here. One thing we learned is that history geography and politics are all related. Why? Tony: Luxuries buys you money and money buys you everything. The right location gives you luxuries gives you income more income gives you technology which affects your politics. It all connects. Chris and Kent, who were listening closely, seemed to also grasp these connections that Tony was making. A taken-as-shared moment was emerging within the group. Chris: Kent: Tony: Dwayne: Yes. Geography affects your diplomacy because it gets your more resources and affects how they treat you. Geography can affect the growth of your civilization. It affects your war. 255 Tony seemed to have an epiphany about how the game helped him see interconnections between geography, economics, and politics. His idea then spread through the class. In closing interviews, he expounded further on these relationships: Interviewer: Tony: Interviewer: Tony: Interviewer: Tony: Do you think that playing Civilization taught you anything about social studies? I think it did. I always knew that certain locations helped certain people but with this, I have a better understanding of it. In some ways I have a better idea of like if you’re in the middle of a forest. Sure there’s a lot of things there, but your civilization doesn’t grow that quickly and money is hard to come by. That affects population, the mood of your civilization and food… In class, you said that geography affects politics which affects history. Could you talk more about that? Well, if you’re next to the ocean, that’s a good place to any city to be. It has food, water, the climate would be moderate, and that’s a good place for a city to flourish. If you have luxuries around water, that brings in trade – brings in money that you can talk with other Civilizations. If you have enough money you can buy a lot of things and you can sell a lot of things. How does that affect your foreign policy? You make a lot more friends if you have a lot more stuff. Everybody wants everything. For Tony, the most educationally valuable thing about the game was the way it helped him see connections between disparate areas and how basic social studies concepts (e.g. river valleys have better food production) affect an entire civilization. Tony had studied some of these concepts before, particularly where resources where located, but he now saw how and why they were important and how these issues deeply affected one another. Particular features of Civilization III may have been fruitful for enabling Tony to construct this understanding. For example, information encoded into maps (such as natural resources, rate of agricultural production) was put directly in the service of solving problems. 256 Later in the interview, I asked Tony if he detected any biases in the game. Tony: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: The form of government, democracy has been the best…any form of government could work for any civ, in some ways the ways technology works in the game is very true, like how we are now. I remember in history books they talk about how there was an arms race… the more technology we had the more powerful we should be, and there was a race to go to the moon or outerspace at least. I guess the more power you have in technology, the better you are in the game. So it might be realistic – at least it’s reasonable? Yes close enough. I have heard the same thing about geography. What do you think about that? Geography is the main game. Because if you’re in the mountains…in my other game I started next to the mountains and next to the water as well, and the water was the only thing sustaining me was in the water. I’m secluded from everything else but the barbarians snuck in, and everyone else sort of hates us because we’re weak people and they won’t share whatever they have. They only come in when I find something good. Then they start calling me. Do you want to trade this? Is that an unrealistic bias to you? In some ways, yes. Tony struggled with whether the game’s bias toward democracy and technology were problematic, in that he attributed much of the United States success to just these factors – its democracy and technology (and resulting wealth). What did strike Tony as a bias was that other countries were disrespectful to him due to his economic weakness, and they would only trade with him for their own material gain, which also might be considered a materialistic game bias. We decided that this was enough to get us started on the presentation. Norman volunteered to take the post-it notes listing students’ comments and turn them into a Powerpoint presentation. He went to work on the deck while I occasionally looked on. DAY 5: Finishing up Games and Building the Final Presentation 257 The students quickly and quietly got to work. Norman continued working on the PowerPoint presentation while Tony, Dwayne, Chris, and Kent finished their games. I thought of pulling everyone from their games, but I wanted them to have the chance to see their outcomes. Students played quietly for about thirty minutes. In between turns, Tony opened up the game on another computer and took screenshots for the presentation. Tony suggested that we get images of war and images from multiple cultures in addition to diplomacy and city screens. Chris was finishing his game. Tony looked over, saw that Chris had a thriving city, and suggested that Chris capture a screenshot of his city. He nodded and did. Chris spent most of the last day starting games in different areas and testing the relative advantages of each. Chris described some of what he learned through these experiments: “For Egypt it wasn’t a really good idea to have war with other cultures. They grew fast but there were so many around you – the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Romans, and Bantus – they were just around you. The Egyptians had a lot of gold, so they might try to gang up on you. As the Aztecs it was harder to be rich, but it was good to trade with other countries. They had less reasons to invade you.” Chris’s comparisons were a productive starting place for teasing out how geography had an impact on the growth of a civilization. Having students do similar experiments – or at least having students examine one another’s games more formally – seems a productive way of using Civilization III to stimulate inquiry. Students were very willing to compare games and, from them, could infer the games rules, systems, and biases. Comparing multiple games acted much like contrasting cases might for students in problem-based learning environments. By examining multiple cases they began to see patterns of deeper structure in the simulation, a feature of learning environments that is believed to lead to deeper learning (i.e. Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). Meanwhile, Dwayne was still in 258 search of Japan. He had two boats sailing about Asia in search of it. His final goal for the unit was to find and colonize Japan as the Bantu. I handed him a globe to help. Polishing the Presentation In reviewing their comments, I noticed that students did not suggest many changes to the game. I called out, “Ok, changes we’d make to the game…to either be better or better in a classroom situation.” There was silence. Ok, “What about pacing?” The students all called out, “yes, yes, definitely. The beginning moves too fast.” Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Tony: What about the barbarians? Yeah, they’re barbarians, but they’re still people. It seems to me that they should still be learning technologies. Should they just be slow, the way the aborigines were? Just put they need to be more active. Tony, like many students struggled with the representation of nomadic groups in the game. Many felt that barbarians were marginalized as peoples and insufficiently considered by the simulation in that they could not develop technologies or cities. Students also called out for a variety of minor changes in the scenario, such as giving scouts defense strength. Students found many inaccuracies in the game rules, the scenario properties, and the unfolding events of the game and enjoyed critiquing them, suggesting that a powerful use of Civilization III for learning is in raising questions about historical accuracy and then having students examine what those inaccuracies might be, and possibly even create more accurate scenarios. At minimum, such activities tease out what students understand and believe about history. As it turns out, they often have far richer theories than we sometimes anticipate and gain through standard assessment mechanisms. Tony continued creating screenshots for the presentation. We discussed what 259 images would best show the cultures of different civilizations, the variety of natural resources, and the building aspects of the game. Meanwhile, Norman fleshed out the slides. Overhearing Norman and I discussing “How learning in the game was different than learning other ways” Tony called out, “For one thing it’s more interactive. Playing the game forces you to learn about the material. It actually forces you to learn about other civilizations in order to survive.” I read off their comments about politics, “Don’t fight too many people at once.” I connected this to the adage “Don’t’ fight a war on too many fronts.” I struggled to organize the presentation. My original scheme was failing, which led to further discussion about what students felt they had learned. Kurt: Kent: Norman: Kurt: Kent: Norman: Kurt: Tony: Kurt: Norman: Tony: How should we do it (the presentation)? It starts with the introduction then explains the game. Then it jumps to what it taught us. Politics, history, geography, technology. Maybe we shouldn’t divide it. What if we went for the four most important things we learned from the game? What would those be? We’re mostly learning about government. Like how some forms of governments are better than others. We’re learning about managing civilizations. Let’s talk about managing, then. What parts are you managing? Resources…money, treaties, alliances,… you know…politics. You worry about how much you spend on science compared to how much on money… Most people go through geography and think it’s just a bunch of facts – it’s more important to know where it is on the map than anything about it. What were the differences between being isolated and having people to trade with? What were the differences playing as the Iroquois compared to Egypt? Well, when you’re isolated it’s good and bad. In some ways it’s good because you don’t really have any enemies, you flourish, it’s kind of bad because you develop at a slower pace. Do you agree with him, Norman? Yes (nodding his head). Yeah, as the Iroquois, I was doing fine…then I met the other people. 260 While most students were able to talk about coming to the kinds of understandings that I originally had in mind when conceiving of the use of Civilization III in social studies classrooms, such as seeing connections between disciplines or seeing geography as a process, they also believed that they learned as much about “managing civilizations” as they did about history. Some of these understandings make interesting loose analogies to different policy agendas, such as comparing investment in military spending and basic research, but I was a little concerned that students overgeneralize understandings given that the game probably functions as a poor “civilization management simulation” whatever that would even be. Norman entered the information into the presentation and Tony returned to his game. He asked Chris questions about SAM missile batteries and hydro plants. Dwayne asked about the SETI program. I tried to turn their focus back to the presentation. “What about history?” Tony responded, “No matter how history plays out in this game, it’s all based on the same rules – kind of like in real life.” I asked Tony to reiterate his comment for the class, to make sure that they understood this concept. Everyone nodded. The idea that history could be represented through a set of rules – an idea that might strike historians as odd or unusual – was completely acceptable to these students who had been playing Civilization III. Dwayne shot up out of his chair, interrupting the discussion. He had lost the game. The Agony of Defeat 261 Dwayne shouted, “What, you’re kidding me?!” Students started asking questions. “Who was it? How did they win?” Dwayne was far ahead of everyone and had been building a space ship. He believed that he was on the road to an easy victory. If Dwayne lost, no one stood a chance. Tony asked, “Did they build a spaceship?” I answered, “No it would have been some other way…maybe the UN?” As the group crowded around Dwayne, he vented the frustration common to losing a game of Civilization. “I was at the top of the world record, what the heck? Look at my culture for Christ’s sake. What the hell? I’m more powerful than all these bastards.” I explained that another civilization might have built the UN and held a vote. I explained how “If you’re in good standing, they will vote for you. So if you’ve been good to civilizations, giving away technologies and stuff, then they’ll vote for you.” Dwayne went back to a saved game and the rest of the class continued theirs. Dwayne had decided to strike back. He explained, “I’m going to put nuclear subs all up and down their coasts and blow up those bastards… They wanted advanced flight (an advanced technology). They’re not getting it.” I refocused the discussion on the presentation. “How do roads and an infrastructure contribute? What did you learn about that?” No one had any answers. I explained how irrigation and roads could be seen as infrastructure. “For example, what are the advantages of US having good highways?” “The military moves faster.” I looked at Tony’ game. “See, yours is almost connected because it has airports. So imagine trying to send troops across America with backroads. Imagine how we would have sent troops across the country without superhighways or planes.” A few students 262 nodded their heads. Wrapping Up the Presentation Tony polished the PowerPoint presentation while the other students finished their games. Each student volunteered to take one slide, except for Dwayne. I assigned a slide to Dwayne, but he gave no indication that he would participate in the presentation. An hour after class, students gave the presentation in a large cafeteria before the rest of their school (about 200 students). The students’ presentation went smoothly; students basically read from the slides, (see Appendix H). The other students were surprised that Norman, who is shy and does not like to talk in front of other students, actually read his slide. Tony read Dwayne’s slide for him, as Dwayne sat quietly in the back of the room refusing to stand in front of the group. The Civilization group compared favorably with the other groups, who made documentaries about local neighborhoods, recorded pop songs, or edited and shot other videos. Whereas most groups focused on production, the civilization campers also confronted academic content. I stayed for the whole end-of-year ceremony. Watching the school celebrate, applauding students’ successes, sharing joy for Jenny and her young baby, mourning the loss of a student who was shot – it was moving to myself as well as other students and teachers. The students bought me a gift certificate to a local board games store. During the ceremony, I bid farewell to all of the students I had worked with over the past month and we made plans to try to connect over the summer or to play the multiplayer expansion to Civilization (Civ III: Play the World) next fall. 263 Chapter VI. YWCA After-School Context Longfellow Middle School is a suburban, working-class middle school outside of Boston Massachusetts. The community is made up mostly of blue collar working families, many of whom are recent immigrants. Historically, the community has supported education more than many neighboring communities although economic hardships of the 1980s did affect the school district1. In the past five years, the district has tried to “catch up” with wealthier suburbs, applying for state and federal funds to improve its facilities. This case occurred at The Longfellow school, a mathematics and science magnet school which resulted from one of these grants. Only a few years old, Longfellow was very well kept and still looked new. Although the school was a technology magnet school, most teachers did not use computer technology in their day-to-day teaching, according to Earnie Fitzpatrick, the school science and technology coordinator and designated “pedagogical change agent. ” A former industrial arts teacher at the school, Earnie’s role now was to partner with other teachers to tackle projects such as building greenhouses in science classes, architectural models in mathematics classes or robots and solar-powered bicycles in after-school programs. The YWCA camp occurred in Earnie’s computer lab. My relationship with Longfellow and the YWCA arose from a phone call from Laureen Scibinico, the executive director of the YWCA. She was looking for innovative, technology-enhanced educational programming for grades 5-8. The next week I met Laureen and two other program coordinators to discuss teaching an after-school unit with Civilization III. We decided that Civilization III would be both entertaining and academically challenging for these students. We met two more times before the unit 1 Interview with Laureen Scibinico and Kristen Repoza, May 2002. 264 began to discuss the YWCA’s goals, the students it serves, and curriculum ideas. Both of these meetings included Earnie Fitzpatrick. We decided to frame the unit as “computer enrichment camp,” which would mean that we would not expect outside reading or other homework. Students could come and go as they pleased, although we could expect regular attendance. They reminded me that, as participants in a computer camp, students would expect to have mostly “hands-on” time with computers. Everyone agreed that “hands-on” activities where students could be creative usually worked best for engaging students. I drafted a letter to the parents of children who attended Longfellow but were members of the YWCA which is how we recruited participants. Twelve students signed up for the camp. DAY 1: Introducing the Game It was another nerve-wracking first day today. The second researcher and I installed Civilization III on as many computers as we could before class, but several computers malfunctioned or never worked correctly at all, so setting up the computers spilled over into game play time. Students were patient and quiet, and most students could sit at their own computer. There were 12 students in all, with two high school aged teaching assistants from the YWCA and another student’s sister, who was not participating, but just “watching.” The YWCA participants had warned me that these were not the most academically gifted students, but they were angels compared to the Media students. They all listened to our instructions and quickly and quietly sat down as we invited them into the room. Setting Ground Rules and Introducing Game Concepts 265 Earnie introduced me and the research project, and spent several minutes laying down the ground rules for the lab. We were using Earnie’s private lab, apparently the only lab in the district where we could install our own software. There was no mistaking that the lab was Earnie’s domain, and it was a gorgeous lab indeed. When Marvin, one of the students, walked into for the first time, his mouth dropped wide open, he looked around and said, "Wow!" Interestingly, these were only Pentium IIs, but the room was clean, the chairs were quality, rolling office chairs, and each computer was set in its own spacious carrel, giving the room an elegant appearance that the students reacted to immediately. I had each student write his or her name on a post-it note and then introduced the game. I described the purpose of my research, highlighting that Civilization III is a commercial game that most people play for fun (anticipating issues about the game’s enjoyability that we encountered at the Media School). I covered the main four ways to win the game: (1) military domination, (2) political victory, (3) cultural domination, and (4) space race. I avoided two of the less obvious ways to win the game; my objective was to give students a very clear sense of the game goals and why they were playing, hoping to avoid the problem we had at Media with kids not perceiving the point of the game. I introduced the basic game play in terms of four phases: (1) building / managing armies, (2) building infrastructure, (3) building cities, and (4) managing foreign policy. The projector did not work for the game demonstration so this explanation was probably too abstract for students. Next, I wrote a few goals on the dry erase board in an attempt to help these students develop clear goals: (1) build two cities, (2) build roads and irrigate, (3) build a defense to defend from barbarians, and (4) meet another civilization. I left 266 these goals on the board in case students felt lost. While students may not have entirely understood this introduction, they seemed to at least understand the point of the camp. After this 15 minute presentation, students started playing. Most of the students with working computers were generally curious about the game and began of their own accord. Many computers crashed, however, and I spent much of the first hour trying to get the game working on a few computers so that everyone could participate. I explained the basics of the game – how to make units, what each unit did, how to change city production, and how to build new cities to students individually. Within fifteen minutes, students encountered problems with civil unrest in their cities. I stopped the class to describe the city resource window again. Some students asked about natural resources, so I introduced the concept of luxuries, explaining that students could use dyes, incense, silks, or gems to make their citizens happy. Computer failures and failures with the projector continued to prevent us from getting a smooth start. Starting Game Play During this first 20 minutes of play, despite my attempts at providing a clear introduction and the students’ general cooperativeness, most students were not as enthusiastic as I had hoped about playing. They played through the tutorial, clicking around the map with hesitancy. I had somehow expected them to bubble over with excitement about the chance to play. Whether it was the game’s packaging, my introduction, how the program was advertised, or just their own expectations about the program, I am not sure, but they definitely approached it more as an “educational program” than as a “top-selling computer game” that one might pay $50 for and play in her spare time. I tried to sell the idea of “ruling the world” to the students. Seven of the 267 twelve students in the class were girls. To appeal across gender lines, I tried to highlight the creative appeal of the game, the idea that students could create a civilization that reflected their values (i.e. military vs. artistic vs. scientific vs religious). Despite their lack of enthusiasm, students worked on the game with very little complaining; no students were refusing to play, standing up in their chairs, or trying to leave the room as had happened in the Media case. After observing two groups learning the game, I started to think that both the Media students and this group’s hesitancy was because the game was so complicated. There is a lot of text on screen, the action is slow at first, and learning the game demands some thinking. For the next ninety minutes, I moved from student to student, hoping to establish more personal relationships with each of them, learn more about them as people, help them get engaged in the game play, and develop strategies for integrating lectures with game play. Meeting the Students, Meeting the Game Social gamers. By the second half of class, most students were engaged in game play. Alisha, Miranda and Vicky were all on one computer. Vicky kept getting computers that did not work. She, like Jordan, was being extremely patient and was very eager to play the game. So she patiently sat with the other girls and talked about the game, contributing her opinions and laughing aloud with Alisha and Miranda. All three girls reported being at least somewhat interested in social studies. All three are also second or third generation immigrant students: Alisha is Portugese and Latino-American, Miranda is Chinese-American, and Vicky is Haitian-American. At the height of their collaborative game, they had three cities, but two were conquered by China. They had three roads, and one irrigated area. Miranda explained, "First everyone admired us, now everyone hates us 268 because we conquered them." They used their workers to build infrastructure, their warriors to visit other civilizations, and their cities to create more units. Although the girls all expressed an interest in having their own computer, they did not seem to mind collaborating. The three girls chatted as they played their game, quickly creating the first affinity group of gamers in the classroom (Gee, 2003). Sandy was a seventh grade girl who considered herself an average or poor social studies student, and as the second researcher later described, “was not the most curious of students.” She seemed more interested in social relationships than learning but was rarely defiant or rebellious; rather, she came off as guarded and more interested in “blending in” with other students. Sandy frequently looked over to Vicky, Amy and Miranda while she played, indicating that perhaps she wanted to be a part of their social circle. After only a few minutes of playing, she was already at war with a neighboring civilization. She spent most of the day playing as Egyptians battling the Babylonians, which she seemed to enjoy. She built the Colossus which looks quite impressive on screen and eventually excited her with the game. After the first hour or so, she was making a peace treaty and thought that she had one city, but was not really sure. Willing gamers. Marvin was a sixth grade student of Haitian and Dominican background who reported having an “A average” in social studies. He was eager and enthusiastic about playing the game and was a frequent contributor to class discussions. He quickly jumped into his game and within minutes was engaged in very focused play. After thirty minutes, Marvin restarted his game so that he could play as Egypt, declaring, "I love Egypt." He read the dialog boxes carefully, speaking the words quietly as he read. He was obviously weighing the decisions carefully, frequently asking me for advice on 269 what units to build, technologies to pursue, or strategies to use in dealing with other civilizations. He had many intriguing theories about the rise and fall of Egyptian, Roman, and Greek civilizations and was happy to share them with us throughout the term. Kevin was a sixth grade African-American boy who came across as thoughtful and conscientious. Kevin listened intently during the initial lecture, smiled and joked with peers, and was quick to help other students or answer discussion questions. He was very excited about playing the game and was eager to talk with the researchers. Kevin carefully read the dialog boxes, consulting with all of his advisors before making decisions. He took their advice very seriously. At one point, Kevin conquered a Russian city, St. Petersburg. His military advisor asked if he wanted to raze St. Petersburg. Kevin asked what “raze” meant; when I explained that it meant "burn it to the ground," Kevin looked relieved that he had made the other more peaceful choice. There was a lot to learn in the game for Kevin. For example, at one point, his financial advisor told him he was running low on money, and he decided to get more money by researching “Bronze working," a logical move that actually would be of little help. Further, he was not sure how many cities he had. Overall, Kevin was engaged in the game and interested in talking to us and participating in outside activities. Jamal was also a quiet, conscientious sixth grade African-American boy. Because of the shortage of working computers, Jamal sat and watched Kevin as he played for the first 30 minutes of class and then got his own computer to play. Jamal and Kevin seemed to be friends, but each was still very interested in playing his own game, to the point where Jamal did not interrupt Kevin while he played. When Jamal did get his own computer, he became quickly engrossed in the game. Jamal sat with his eyes just inches 270 from the monitor, focused intently on the action. This approach to play could be contrasted with the girls, who gladly played together. For the girls, talking about their game seemed to be a large part of the experience, whereas Jamal and Kevin, for example, wanted to play silently on their own. Ricky was a seventh grade Latino boy who said that he did poorly in social studies and did not like school. He was quiet, even despondent most days and often refused to answer interviewers’ questions unless they were about video games. He played a lot of video games, and enjoyed talking about Diablo, Grand Theft Auto, and Starcraft. Ricky brought game manuals to class, and often spent his free time reading through game manuals or drawing pictures of game characters. He seemed antagonistic to authority and as if he could be a “troublesome” student, which Earnie later confirmed. He was cautiously enthusiastic about playing Civilization III. Although he had not played it before, he had heard of it, and was a fan of real-time strategy games such as Age of Empires. Perhaps not surprisingly, he was very confused early on, wondering why units would not move in real time like they would in a real-time strategy game. I noticed that he had lined up five warriors to form a wall around his city – a strategy common in realtime strategy games but of limited value in a turn-taking strategy game such as Civilization III. I explained that the warriors would be more valuable staying in cities both for protection and to help control civil disorder. Ricky nodded, but did not change his strategy, perhaps trusting his own experience with real-time strategy games more than my advice. He was very focused on his game, reading the dialog boxes and moving his units carefully. He gave short answers, and both researchers had difficulty engaging him in conversation as he wanted to be left alone to play his game. 271 Jordan was a gregarious sixth grade Caucasian student who loved games. His computer did not work right away, so he spent the first twenty minutes of class trying to debug the game or waiting for assistance. He kept asking, "How much time do I have left to play?" and was clearly disappointed about losing so much playing time. When Jordan finally did start playing, he was full of questions and comments. He wanted to know whether units could build on the water and if they could build boats, why his units were disappearing (he was convinced that his units were mysteriously disappearing from the game), and why he could not see his units “closer up.” By the end of the day, Jordan had one city and wanted to know, "How do you get food?" He was very curious, talking loudly about his game, asking questions, calling for researchers’ attention, and trying to capture my attention whenever he could. Like Jason from the Media school, Jordan probed me to learn about the game and freely shared his frustration about its turn-based format; Jordan also had played Age of Empires and wanted the units to respond to his orders in real time as they did there. He voluntarily filled out post-it notes commenting on his thoughts about the game. The confused. Nadya was a shy, quiet sixth grade Haitian-American student (Haitian French-Creole was her first language). She quietly played her game, cooperating with researchers when offered the chance, but not actively seeking out their assistance. Nadya built a city but didn't know how to build a road, nor what irrigation meant. She was not especially interested in the game, frequently pausing between turns to sit and stare into space. It was not clear that she could read the instructions in the tutorial. Still, she managed to move her units around the map and could change her city’s production. 272 Although Nadya was not particularly engaged in the game and learned more slowly than some, she still remained positive and cooperated with researchers. Alice and Tara, who were sisters, were the most confused and the least engaged of the students. Tara (age 11) had difficulty reading the text and was unable to understand the choices she was making about technologies, the advice she received from advisors, and the basics of diplomacy. Both girls complained about the game, rolled their eyes, and put their heads down on their desks. Tara had several questions about basic game concepts, such as pottery and irrigation, both of which were terms she had never heard before. The second researcher helped Tara get started; yet, even with significant coaching, Tara could not do many basic game tasks, such determine what types of land could be irrigated. Alice, Tara’s sister, had a better grasp of the game and was engaged for a little while. She had one city and was trying to build another. I noticed that she had several entertainers in her city. When I came by Alice to help her, I quickly realized that she had little, if any, understanding of the basic controls or concepts in the game. I tried to give her an overview of how the resources worked, but getting her up to speed was a daunting task. She kept saying how hungry she was, asking for the time, and looking out the window for her parents. Both Alice and Tara had difficulty reading the game text and were visibly disinterested in the activity. Near the end of class, Nadya had abandoned her game, so Vicky took over Nadya's computer and started playing. Vicky had been waiting patiently for over an hour, and Nadya did not seem to care at all, so we did not stop them from trading. Unexpectedly, there were two high school-aged “teaching assistants” in the class who 273 spent most of the time talking with one another. We tried to think of ways to get them involved in teaching, but they did not understand the game very well (nor the “content” either, so it seemed), so for today we just let them sit and watch students. Consolidating What We Learned At the end of the (150 minute) session, I pulled the group together for a fifteenminute discussion. They were understandably a little tired by this point; it was 5:00, meaning they had been in a full day of school plus two hours of intensive game play. I began by asking, “What kinds of things did you build?” They mentioned workers, settlers, warriors, temples, spearmen, and the Collossus. I asked what each structure did, and students called out answers, such as “build roads”, “build new cities,” or “make people happy.” Miranda, Marvin, Vicky, Jamal, and Kevin paid the closest attention during the discussion. Miranda and Marvin offered responses for nearly every question and seemed to have a firm grasp on the game. Ricky, Sandy, Amy, and Nadya could offer vague answers for some of the questions. Amy and Tara had no idea what we were talking about. As students called out units and functions, I wrote their responses in two columns on the board. Recalling the confusion at the MEDIA school, I tried to make clear connections between the units and their function, highlighting specifically how each structure or unit helps them. As I led the discussion, I tried to be as specific as possible. For example, in describing temples, I said that building temples helps the practice and spread of religions, which makes unhappy people in your city happy. I also reiterated the functions of workers: building mines to increase production, irrigating land to increase food, and building roads to increase commerce. My hope was that constantly explaining 274 concepts in terms of the four basic game variables would reinforce these basic concepts for students and make game play clearer faster than it was at the Media School. The second researcher noted that, despite the successes of the first day, there was still a lot of confusion due to the game’s complexity. Game terms, such as Bronze Age, irrigation, and despotism, presented obstacles for many players. Indeed, there was so much reading in the game that it was almost worthwhile for these students as a reading lesson alone. The second researcher also commented that, as a reading teacher, she was impressed by how motivated these students were to read, pouring over every word, carefully weighing the meaning of sentences, particularly those that involved negotiation between their civilization and others in the game. Thus, although the class got off to a slow start, we were encouraged that students were willing to learn the game system and that there seemed to be many opportunities for students to learn world history concepts through game play. DAY 2: Adopting Goals and Mastering the Basics of Civilization III The plan for today was to introduce the lesson, do a quick timeline exercise, and then administer the survey. The pretest and survey went well; unlike at the Media School, these students actually seemed to read the questions and filled in their survey. Students had mixed opinions about social studies. Marvin was clearly the most interested in the topic, describing social studies, geography, and history as all “fun.” Marvin responded similarly on the Likert items, scoring a 4.0 on the “attitude toward social studies” scale. Jamal, Miranda and Sandy also reported liking social studies but to a lesser degree. Only Ricky thought that social studies was boring. Clearly, we had much more “buy-in” with 275 the program than we did with the Media School students. Students sat when asked, listened (for at least a few minutes) to what I said, and seemed genuinely curious in the game now. Even though the program was not for a grade, they were open to doing structured activities such as the survey. Seven of the twelve students attending today were girls. Building Civilizations Standing the test of time. Marvin was very engaged in the game. His goals were to build a “huge” infrastructure, discover more civilizations, make allies and build big mines. He enjoyed talking to the researchers, reporting that we taught him how to talk to his advisors, read more difficult aspects of the interface, gauge his scientific research progress and use the Civilopedia. Marvin figured out how to solve most of the basic game problems and was now building mines, roads, city structures. He shared with us his biggest problem with the game: He wants to see lots of individual soldiers on screen instead of one unit representing a large army. Seeing his units would provide him visual feedback on his progress and further live out the fantasy of replaying history. He enjoyed history and playing Civilization III was a way for him to participate in it. Earning money. In contrast, Jamal just wanted to make more money. Like many students, he struggled with making enough money to support an army and fend off barbarians. He approached the game strictly as a military conflict and had not built many roads, so there was little commerce in his civilization. I noticed that few students were building roads at all and, as a result, their cities were isolated, unable to trade luxuries. Further, students could not defend their civilizations easily, as moving military units took several turns. Like Jamal, most students approached game situations (i.e. barbarians) as 276 isolated problems and did not discern how bigger cities, a stronger economy, or increased production capacity were all interrelated and would ultimately lead to a stronger defense. Exploring geography. Much of Amy’s (Iroquois) initial play was about exploring geography; She had three warriors exploring North America but her civilization of two cities was not doing very well. She was broke, her population was stagnating, and she constantly battled with barbarians. She wanted to create workers to build more roads, but her cities could not support them. By midway through class, she had started a new game because she “had a sad little city with not much going on.” She did not seem to mind failing and starting again. I showed her how to create roads, defend her workers from barbarians, and manage her cities’ production. This time, her civilization thrived. She protected her workers from barbarians and built more cities with more roads. Most of all, she enjoyed exploring the geography with her warriors, quickly learning that she would need to devise strategies for improving her civilization’s economy, infrastructure, and defense in order to support such exploration. Stewarding her people. After a day of watching Miranda play, Vicky was hungry to play the game on her own. Vicky (Egyptians) was all smiles and eager to talk with researchers whenever we visited. “My game is going well. Things are good. My people are happy.” She spent the day exploring the controls, moving and building units, and experimenting with the city screens. After seeing how quickly Vicky picked up the game after watching Miranda, I thought that having students watch the game on a projector might be a good idea. The second researcher disagreed, thinking that Vicky would have been confident and positive regardless. For her, the fun of the game was creating a civilization and making her people happy through her strong leadership. 277 Forging relationships. Miranda (Iroquois) was also very involved in her game and eager to chat with researchers. Most of Miranda’s game played focused on relationships with other civilizations. She explained how the Aztecs were polite or the Babylonians were at war, using the exact terminology from the negotiation screens. After her first day of warring, staying in the good graces of other civilizations became very important for Miranda and she could go on in detail about who was being nice to her, who attacked her, the last time she was at war, and how she made peace. Miranda frequently called leaders by name and asked researchers about the historical leaders of each civilization. She explained how she learned to examine city resources, including the amount of food, resources, and trade her city had. She also had a seemingly endless parade of questions about game vocabulary: “What is an archer? What does ‘pillage’ mean? What does ‘irrigate’ mean? What are the rockpiles (mountains)? What do they do? How can I make civilizations less angry with me? How many people are in your city?” Miranda, more than any of the others, was interested in comparing her game to “real life.” She wanted to know how big her cities’ populations were in actual size, which I showed her. She enjoyed talking with researchers; in fact, we had to be careful not to spend all afternoon answering her questions. For Miranda, the game was about meeting other civilizations and socializing with the virtual characters, specifically making treaties, going to war, and making “friends” with allies. Orienting to Civilization III as Gamers Jordan and Ricky sat in the back of the room and talked about their games throughout the day. Both students oriented to the game first as gamers and only second as a students engaging in a history simulation. Ricky had difficulty reading some of the 278 words in the game and asked Jordan a lot of questions as a result. He also asked Jordan about general strategies, such as, “Should I build spearmen or archers?” Jordan counseled Ricky and gave him tips such as “learn map making and build galleys,” although it was not entirely clear where Jordan was getting these strategies. Jordan was both critical and excited about the game. Jordan ranted against the turn-based game format and complained about his cities in disarray, but then would ask get excited about the game after seeing the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China: “They have the Pyramids!! Will you show me how to build that?” He was an adept game player and learned the game system with little help. Later, Jordan asked if he could keep the game. I told Jordan that he could after the unit if he participated regularly, and so he said, “Well, if not, then I’ll buy a copy,” and returned to reading the dialog boxes. Interestingly, Jordan did not return to the class for several weeks, apparently, because he had downloaded the game from Kazaa and was playing at home. At the beginning of the day, Ricky was indifferent toward the researchers but eventually he opened up as he saw that I could be a very useful resources for helping his game play. By the end of the day, he had a stream of questions for me any time I was in the area: “How do you get ivory into your cities? How can I defeat these barbarians? How do I stop my cities from rioting?” Given that Ricky “hated” social studies and reported being a poor student in the subject, it was interesting to see him so curious about the game. He was interested in building an army and going to war, much as one might in a real-time strategy game. Ricky clearly identified himself more as a gamer than as a student. I helped him whenever I could, encouraging him to think about game problems as the result of interacting complex systems rather than as a series of isolated problems, 279 but he was more interested in quick fixes that would get him into battle than approaching problems systemically. Indifference and Restlessness Nadya had one city. She was laid back, if not indifferent toward the game. On the one hand, she was one of the first students to begin playing, and she quietly played throughout most of the period. We asked her several questions, trying to probe her opinions about the game, but she sat quietly, shrugging, nodding, or giving one word answers. Like yesterday, she also spent a fair amount of time staring into space or looking at other things. Although Nadya was learning the interface she still did not find anything about the game especially compelling. At 4:15, Amy stood up and said, “I give up. This is too hard,” and dropped out of the program. She and Monique (one of the high school teaching assistants) had been playing the game and lost. Amy read at about second grade level; as a result, she had absolutely no idea how to play the game. Earnie told me that she and her sister are inclusion students and have some severe learning disabilities. He said that their parents typically enroll them in programs as a form of day care. In reality, the game probably was too complex for Amy or Tara to find too enjoyable. Wrapping Up and Consolidating What We Learned By the end of the day, most students had between two and four cities. Most understood how to create entertainers, how to build roads and irrigate land, and how to build new cities. Students met other civilizations today, which they seemed to find very inspiring. By far, students were most engaged in the game when they met other civilizations. I spent much of my time answering questions about specific terms or 280 functions, such as “What is irrigation” or “How do I get ivory?” Most students were taking to the game. Sandy, Marvin, and Ricky all told us how much they liked the game. The teaching assistants were much more involved today. They helped students read and answered whatever questions they could. More often, they spent much of their time alerting us that students needed help. A few times, I saw them take the mouse over from students; I was not sure exactly what they were doing as they clearly did not understand the game. Table 6.1. Students compiled list of problems in the game and their shared solutions. Problem Increasing Money Increasing Food Increasing Happiness Solutions Build roads from every angle going into cities Build bigger cities Increase cities’ production to build city improvements. Build marketplaces. Sell luxuries to other civilizations Irrigate squares Build cities in river valleys, flood plains, grasslands Build Temples and coliseums Create entertainers Find luxury resources Connect cities with roads to increase trade How do you increase defense? What are the effects of natural resources and different geographical areas? Keep two defense units in every city. Explain attack / defense / movement Incense, Dye, and Furs are luxuries Horses, iron, and coal Natural resources can be traded How do I build stuff faster (increase production)? Build mines in cities Choose the terrain carefully (hills) 281 At the end of class, we held a 15 minute discussion on “How to solve your problems in Civilization III.” I went from student to student, listing their game problems on the board. Students shared solutions to these problems with the class. Marvin and Miranda were the most active participants. An overview of these problems and solutions is listed in Table 6.1. I tied this discussion back to the four primary game variables in order to reiterate the basic structure of the model underlying the game. DAY 3: Social Gaming and Recursive Play Class began with a short discussion designed to help them recall our activities from the previous week (the class met twice per week) and develop strategies for dealing with the most common problems with the game. I asked them to recall the point of the game, and Marvin answered, “To take over the world.” Miranda called out, “build big cities.” Others called out, “make people happy build culture, and conquer enemies.” I added building spaceships through researching technologies. Students all recalled the game’s multiple win conditions and most students had appropriated Civilization III as a game for some pleasurable purpose. Different students were finding different aspects of the game engaging. All together, five girls and two boys attended today, and the girls were every bit as engaged as the boys were. I asked what strategies they had for winning the game and students called out ideas: “Keep people happy, make food, use entertainers, keep two military in every city, build warriors, use spearmen for defense, build temples and cathedrals, built forts and armies.” 2 I wrote these items on the board under their respective categories. I then reviewed the differences between workers and settlers and explained how settlers build 2 Some of these elements were notably absent from students’ games at this point in the activity. 282 cities and workers build roads, irrigate fields, and mine hills. Nadya observed that roads increased trade by two, a close observation which surprised me. These students had more or less mastered basic game strategies and could solve common game problems. New questions cropped up as they delved deeper into the game. Game Questions After this fifteen minute review, students began playing. A number of students had questions, but Miranda (Aztecs) monopolized the researcher’s attention through a barrage of questions: What is a galley? What is a barracks? What is American despotism? What do the 5.5.0 symbols next to American despotism mean? What is the difference between workers and settlers? Miranda tended to grab the researchers as soon as she could and was eager to talk about her game for as long as they would listen. I explained all of these concepts, although I was a little concerned that Miranda, who seemed to understand the game as well as anyone did not know the difference between workers and settlers (a relatively elementary game concept). Kevin (Russia, 430 AD) was still being overrun by barbarians and losing money because he was only attending to one or two variables rather than addressing game challenges systemically. Kevin realized that one problem was that his cities were not growing quickly enough (because he was building cities in hilly and forested regions rather than near river valleys and grasslands). I helped Kevin decide where to build cities, showing him how to place cities near waterways and natural resources. I suggested that Kevin build roads to luxuries to help his economy. By the end of class, Kevin’s treasury was “dangerously low,” which created some anxiety. Unlike Miranda or Marvin, Kevin 283 did not reflect much on his play. He was unable to solve even basic game problems (such as what locations are good for building cities) without assistance. Self-sufficient Play A number of other students were becoming self-sufficient players; they developed goals in the game, understood how to solve basic game problems, and perhaps most importantly, were willing to work through problems independently. Vicky (Egypt), for example, played quietly most of the class. Vicky played thoughtfully and purposefully, carefully reading the dialog boxes while following word by word with her mouse. Vicky’s civilization was quite advanced; she scouted areas for their natural resources, strategically placed cities on the map, built mines and colonies to access natural resources, connected her cities with roads and strategically place defensive units in mountains to defend against barbarian and encroaching civilizations. In post interviews, Vicky described in detail where Romans, Bantu, and Nubian (barbarian) civilizations were on the map. Vicky analyzed patterns in her game, noticing what cities were growing quickly and which ones were not. Vicky optimized resources by using cities that were production centers to build defensive units which Vicky used to defend her civilization. Marvin (760 AD, French) was also self-sufficient, although he spent the first two days at war with other civilizations which impeded his progress. Midway through the day, the English began conquering Marvin’s cities, and he hoped to build a “getaway boat” to sail to Africa. Within minutes, Marvin had lost the game and restarted again. This time, he focused on building his infrastructure. He built mines, roads, and colonies, but was still attacked by other civilizations. Marvin’s computer was very slow, so he used the down time to talk with other students, monitor other games, or ask the researchers 284 questions. At one point, Marvin saw that Sandy had 230 gold and called out, “Look, she has 230 Gold! How did you do that?” Sandy and Marvin talked more about their games for several minutes, although we were unable to catch the details of the conversation. In fact, Marvin spent about half of his time walking around the room, and a researcher easily could have been busy just following Marvin. For Marvin, the game was a very social experience, and he enjoyed watching others play and learning from their different play styles. Social Play Marvin spent much of the class moving from game to game, watching game unfold between his turns (like Tony in the MEDIA case). About midway through class, Miranda and Sandy started playing collaboratively. They looked at each other’s cities, switching from computer to computer. Marvin became interested in their talking and listened for a few minutes before joining Kevin and watching his game. Kevin explained that he was Egypt and Egypt was powerful. Marvin asked, “How do you know?” Marvin was skeptical as he thought that military power was historically determined (as opposed to the result of a simulation), and that the Romans were the most powerful, the Greeks were the second most powerful, and the Egyptians were even less powerful, because the Romans conquered all three civilizations. This pattern was holding true across all of the games that Marvin was watching, as well. Marvin was also studying the Romans in school and was eager to expound upon the many virtues of Roman civilization – particularly Roman legions and Roman military strategy. Marvin told Kevin that when his computer restarted, he was going to play the Romans because in his opinion, they were the most powerful civilization in the game. 285 Recursive Play Now that they understood the basics of the game, several students started new games today. Amy (Iroquois) started over so that she could build more settlers, scouts, and colonies. Amy had a good understanding of the game; she could recall her civilization, year, and the functions of settlers and workers. Later in class, Amy lost again. Amy restarted for a third time, vowing to build a better defense. She explained that she lost her other games because barbarians attacked and she was not prepared. Her plan was to exploit the luxuries near her, including silk, ivory, and gems to support a stronger military. Amy announced, “This time, I have more in the city. My city is bigger.” Like Marvin and Vicky, Amy was able to make connections between class discussions and her game. When Amy lost, she reflected on why, developing causual inferences and then developing new plans to rectify the situation. The ease with which Amy restarted her games suggests that she was quickly learning the interface. In post-interviews, Amy commented that she liked the game because she “liked that you played in the world and you could change history.” Late in the day, Miranda lost a game she had been working on for a few days because she could not appease a rival civilization. Miranda complained, “They keep attacking my cities. I made a peace treaty but then a couple of minutes later they went to war.” Miranda was visibly frustrated, but not dejected. Miranda went back to another saved game and made it to 1700 AD. This experience only further cemented in Miranda’s mind the importance of careful negotiations. For Miranda, losing had become a necessary part of the game play and learning, and she used failure as an opportunity to learn about the game system, altering her concept of the game system and then trying new strategies. 286 By the time the researcher visited Nadya (France), she had already lost one game. Nadya explained how she lost her first game: “I had to abandon Paris. I had to lose. I couldn’t make workers because my population was not growing.” Apparently, Nadya had been reading a fair amount of the on screen text. In fact, Nadya also had a good grasp of the game; she was creating warriors and knew of the functions that workers and settlers performed.3 Nadya did struggle with the common problems of an unbalanced economy and civil disorder. I showed her how to adjust her tax and luxury rates, and she continued playing. We gave the two teaching assistants tasks to do today (loading games, etc.). Half way through class, Monique started playing the game herself. Monique, who an 18 year old high school drop out who worked for the YWCA was immediately engrossed in the game and read through the text on the different civilizations very carefully and took the game very seriously. Monique explained that she read each description because she likes to read, and chose England because they had the wheel and the alphabet. By the second researcher’s suggestion, Monique shared with the class what she found out about different civilizations and encouraged students to read through the Civilopedia. The class ended with a quick debriefing about the day’s events, and we focused discussion on commonly experienced problems, such as balancing budgets and building strong economies. After two hours of playing, the students all looked fairly spent. Only Marvin really participated in the discussion, and even he was distracted. The researcher noted that I spent the most time today with Marvin and Miranda. The two most vocal students, Marvin and Miranda both had dozens of questions for whomever would listen 3 Nadya did have a few interesting misconceptions about the game. For example, she wanted to know how players “collect” gold on the screen, akin to how one would collect gold coins in Mario 64. 287 and were eager to share their feelings about their games, tell stories about their game or share theories of history. DAY 4: Civ III as a Simulation Today we used the “real” maps. I set an agenda on the board with the following directions: (1) load a saved game, (2) Play Civilization, and (3) 4:40 discuss. Jordan and Kevin were absent. Jamal dropped out of the program. There was a new student, Joey, today. I spent about ten minutes getting Joey up to speed. I explained the three major phases of the game, the major game concepts, and how to control units. He seemed to grasp the basics, but after I left he stared blankly at the computer for about a minute before trying the game. All of the other students (8 students: 3 boys, 5 girls, 2 highschool aged assistants) were quickly engaged in the game (aside from Monique, who also had problems). I began class by moving from student to student, noting their progress and asking questions about their games. I showed Vicky (Egypt) her government screen, explaining that her government is in despotism. Miranda (Aztecs, 870) asked what the numbers by the city names meant. Barbarians and Civilization III as an Historical Simulation Marvin (Rome) tried to use history as a guide for his game and believed that lessons he was learning in social studies class could be directly applied to the events on his screen. He had four cities packed closely together because, he explained, “Rome fell because it had spread out too far.” Marvin also kept huge cash reserves. As I was interviewing him, a list of “top civilizations” popped up and Marvin cheered excitedly because Roman civilization was the strongest in the world. “See that!” His goal for the 288 day was to expand his cultural influence and create more religious structures. He explained, “That always helps out,” but would not get any more specific. Marvin’s game play continued to be mediated by history, which led Marvin to keeping strong borders, maintaining a strong economy, and attending to people’s happiness. Later, Marvin (Roman, 400 AD) called out excitedly. “I lost 300 men in war so far, but I’m doing good. Taking it over little by little.” Marvin, who wanted to see each individual soldier represented visually on the game board, thought of each military unit as representing hundreds of men, and insisted on referring to his units that way. “Oh my God! Germans, Greeks, Iroquois, America… all about to attack me! The Aztecs are saving me.” These civilizations all surrounded him, effectively creating a buffer between him and the other civilizations. Marvin explained that his strategy was to try to convince Egypt to join his side and then hopefully chip away at the forces allied against him. “I need to build more cities, too,” he added as he instructed his science advisor to research the code of laws. Marvin approached the game systemically, attending to nearly every aspect of the game, ranging from military to economics to foreign negotiations. As he learned that it was impossible to take on the world alone, he became fascinated by negotiating. Ricky (China, 1 AD) struggled to expand his civilization beyond two or three cities and to fend off the barbarians who attacked him from the North. Every time he tried to build roads to access the dyes and horses around his cities, barbarians would attack. As a result, his civilization was militarily overmatched, economically stagnant, and domestically in shambles (constant civil disorder). I showed him how to protect his cities and colonies against barbarians and helped him devise a strategy for expansion. Later 289 (920 AD), Ricky shouted in frustration as hordes of barbarians surrounded his city and ransacked his capital. He carefully showed me where each one of the five barbarian uprisings originated on his map. He felt that being stormed by barbarians was unfair, saying, “Where do they all come from? Do they have cities? And how do they discover horseback riding and have horses when I don’t?” Ricky pointed to his civilization. “I have roads, I have cities. How do they get 15 horsemen without any cities?” Ricky and I discussed whether or not it was “fair” that the barbarians had advanced technologies such as horseback riding or whether it was a flaw in the game logic. We discussed the differences between barbarians and civilizations (the former nomads, the latter living in settlements) and how it might be possible that nomads develop horseback riding. I explained how some barbarian groups in reality were quite rich and powerful and that, in about 600 AD, barbarians did in fact invade China, even ransacking its capital. I pointed to Ricky’s map, showing him how barbarian tribes came from the north and the west in his game, just like in history. Ricky nodded, although the historical accuracy of the scenario was little solace for the fact that his civilization had been nearly overtaken by barbarians. Here, I am encouraging Ricky to see connections between his game and history, encouraging him to examine his game play as historical simulation. Unlike Marvin, who took delight in this relationship and turned to maps and eventually history books as resources, Ricky was more just interested in beating the game. Whenever I walked by Ricky’s desk, I was barraged with questions. For example, at one point he asked, “What does pillage mean? And why do they keep telling me what the other civilizations are doing? I don’t care what the French are building. 290 And how do we know what age we’re in? I heard you telling Miranda that she was in the Iron Age. How do you know that?” I showed him how to open up the technology tree– a tool that became quite important at the Media school – to see what era he was in, as well as what technologies he needed to enter the next era. Although still frustrated about his failing game, he was perfectly willing to discuss what was happening with whoever would listen. Amy (Iroquois) sat in a relatively isolated corner of the room, playing her game quietly. Occasionally she would chat with the other girls. Amy explained that her goal was to “make it into the 2000s,” a goal that we may have seeded by emphasizing how far along she was in the game. I asked her what strategies she had for making it into the 21 st century. She replied, “Making money, keep the people happy, build a defense.” She did not mention researching technology or science. In terms of allocating her civilization’s resources, Amy’s primary focus was on military instead of urban development, luxury goods, and economic infrastructure. As a result, she had only three cities, and was far behind other civilizations in the game. For Amy, the point of the game was to last as long as possible, so she only addressed issues which she saw as having an impact on her immediate survival. Each problem was treatable by affecting only one or two variables at a time. In part, Amy may have failed to realize that she was falling behind other civilizations because her civilization was isolated in North America and she had no opportunities to trade with other civilizations. Unwittingly, her geographic isolation had led to less feedback on the consequences of her decisions, since little competition was nearby to take advantage of weaknesses inherent in her civilization’s development. Despite her civilization’s geographic isolation (or perhaps because of it) Amy sent out a settler on a boat to find other civilizations and explore distant areas to see if she could 291 “see something interesting.” For the first time, I realized that students playing in more populated areas receive more immediate and ongoing feedback on the consequences of their decisions. Without the capacity for failure, it seemed, students received less feedback and therefore predictably held onto less-than-ideal strategies (and perhaps lessthan-accurate understandings) longer than others. Students began investing in their own goals within the game. For example, the primary goal for Nadya and the other girls was to see who could survive the longest. Like Ricky, Nadya was attacked by Mongolian barbarians on horseback. She asked for help making horsemen so that she could fight back. She also asked why the Chinese were not listed as one of the largest countries in the world when the list of “top civilizations” appears. This omission concerned her because, if the Chinese were the biggest civilization in the world, she thought that the game should portray that accurately. I explained that the game did not necessarily represent history exactly but rather modeled some of the underlying factors behind it. So, playing as China, she might grow one of the largest civilizations in the world because of plentiful river valleys and China’s large natural borders. She struggled to understand what I was trying to say about rule-based simulations and emergent properties. Mastering Civilization III By mid-class, most of the students in the room had established personal goals for themselves within the game, understood the basic mechanics, and were well on their way toward achieving their aims. Miranda (Aztecs, 990 AD) had become particularly adept with the controls, navigation, and various windows. She read through screens and made decisions very quickly. In fact, I had to slow her down to follow what thought processes 292 and game activities she was engaging in. Miranda had been fighting barbarians for the better part of the first few days and, in response, had decided to build up a horde of warriors to defend her cities. Her economy was now in shambles because she could not afford to pay all of her warriors. Earlier, I showed her how to build more roads and marketplaces to expand her economy. She recalled the strategy and tried it out, but it failed, so she decided to disband warriors for money. Driven by her desire (she was failing) to build a strong economy, Miranda was now trying several game strategies, examining the relationships between different systems (i.e. building an infrastructure and military spending) trying different strategies and even bucking researcher advice, when Miranda believed that her civilization could not support a large military. Confusion with Game Concepts A few concepts in the game caused students confusion. Vicky (Egypt 1200 AD) discovered monarchy and was confused as to whether or not she should “revolt,” stating that she “likes her people” and did not want to have a revolution. I explained that despots ruled through force and fear, whereas monarchies ruled by the general populace’s belief in her divine right to govern, meaning that her civilization would be happier and more efficient under a monarchy. She decided to revolt. Amy (Iroquois Republic, 1765 AD) struggled to manage her economy with cities that were frequently in disorder. Some students’ confusion arose from bad interface or confusing terminology, others were from misunderstandings related to game play. As in the MEDIA case, I spent considerable time helping students. In many cases, this help was in analyzing and understanding how they were not reaching their goals, whether it was making money, generating research, keeping their citizens happy, or generating a defense. In these instances, students lacked 293 the conceptual tools to understand their game play, and I was a tool for analyzing events and creating explanations for what happened. Collaborative Play Sandy, Vicky, Miranda, and to a lesser extent Amy, spent the second half of the day playing separate games but developing strategies collaboratively. It began with Vicky getting up to take a look at Sandy’s game in the middle of class. She wanted to see how Sandy, who was also the Egyptians, was doing. When Vicky came back, she decided that her cities are too crowded and she needed more. Vicky had packed each of her three cities along the lower Nile, and was convinced that building cities further apart would help because some of her citizens were unhappy because the cities were “too crowded.” In reality, Vicky’s people were unhappy because the city was growing in size and social classes were emerging. I explained the difference to her, but then also emphasized that spreading out was a good idea so that she could take better advantage of natural resources. I suggested that she expand into the Arabian Peninsula to take advantage of the incense and horses and perhaps gain control of the Red Sea. I briefly explained the historical importance of the Suez Canal and showed how whoever controlled the Canal would control the Red Sea. As I left, Vicky opened up her Civilopedia and started reading about horses and chariots. She explained that she’s “interested in horses” and would like to get some. This experience altered Vicky’s game somewhat; she had little interest in military strategy or controlling territory, but she was motivated to protect her civilization through horses and bring them more luxuries. As a result, she refocused her game on settling the Upper Nile Valley. 294 Sandy’s (Egypt, 1305 AD) goals were to create new cities and stay alive, but unfortunately, she lost her game. As she reloaded her game, Sandy yelled out across the room, “Amy, what year are you in?” Amy was in 1765, the furthest of any students. Sandy kept a running tab on everyone’s games, reacting to their progress vocally. This discussion spurred a competition among the three girls to see who could last the longest in the game. Sandy competed with Miranda and Amy, monitoring their games and reacting to their progress. Miranda frequently initiated conversations by asking questions, at times as a way of comparing her progress to others (and perhaps showing off a bit). After founding a new city, she asked how many cities Sandy had (she had six). After entering a “Golden Age,” she publicly (and with a proud display) asked what that was. She queried other girls for game facts, such as what an aqueduct was or if any other girls had the code of laws rather than simply look up the information in the Civilopedia. Overhearing the conversation, Nadya rolled her chair over to the other girls so that she could “get some tips” from them. Amy sat to the side, spinning in circles. The girls joked and laughed. The tone of this emergent competition was generally friendly, and rather subtle; most of the boys had little sense that this competition was occurring. It did however have a powerful effect on students’ games. Amy became increasingly concerned with only making it to the 21st century and Sandy’s play became about keeping up with the other girls. This shift made the activity about competing with one another rather than with the game system itself, reshaping game practices away from mastering the game system and toward adopting whatever practices would most quickly advance them in years. 295 Miranda was less affected by this competition, as she effectively reframed the terms of the competition in order to make it winnable. At one point, Sandy tried bragging about her game. “I get horseback riding in three turns,” Sandy said. Miranda answered, “So, I get 26 per turn.” “26 what?” Sandy asked, as she rolled her chair over to Miranda’s desk (It was 26 gold per turn). They both looked at Miranda’s game and then scooted over one more seat to look at Vicky’s game as well, as they were now curious about Vicky’s game. Vicky showed Sandy and Nadya her civilization, highlighting how she had planned and organized her cities so that her people were happy. Vicky was supposed to leave early but became so engrossed in the game that she forgot all about it. Later, Sandy lost her game. As she waited for it to reload, she asked Miranda, “What are you working on?” Miranda immediately responded, “Code of Laws. Great library.” Sandy then decided to play as the Aztecs, perhaps influenced by Miranda’s success as the Aztecs, which Sandy often made public with other students. Amy (Iroquois 1804 AD) went back to her chair and continued playing. She explained her game to the researcher. “I’m down in Mexico right now. I went all the way around South America (via a galley).” Her goals were to explore the rest of the Earth and find a passage to Africa or Europe by boat. Because Amy did not have any other civilizations to trade with, the game was primarily about exploring. Amy’s goal was to simply last as long as possible, and as a result did not see value in building a larger network of cities for scientific research or additional production. Without being forced to fail and start over, Amy did not have to grapple with multiple aspects of the game system. Debriefing 296 The teaching assistants, Tammy and Monique, spent the day helping students and playing the game. Tammy played Civilization III most of the period while Monique watched. Occasionally, Tammy asked questions, such as what “automating” meant; I explained it to her. In the last ten minutes of class, we broke for discussion. I wanted to help students draw connections between their game events and history, so I drew a timeline on the board going from 4000 BC to 1835 AD. Ricky had asked about the ancient and middle ages, so I then added them to the board. Sandy and Miranda volunteered that they were in the Middle Ages. I wrote in 1 AD to reinforce the BC / AD distinction. I asked students clarifying questions on topics that seemed to confuse them or areas of the game where they were confronting continuous failure. Ricky explained his barbarian problems. Miranda joined the discussion, adding that she had problems trading technologies. This discussion showed how students were frequently willing to share frustrating failures, and that whole group discussions (in this case) could be used to support learning the game. DAY 5: Digging Deeper into the Game As students dug deeper into the game, distinctive play styles emerged and affinity groups became more pronounced. Sandy, Miranda, and Vicky periodically talked as they played. All three also spent a lot of time interacting with other civilizations. Miranda and Vicky were tackling more complex goals, such as how to build a robust civilization and how to keep their peoples happy. Sandy and Amy’s goals were much simpler and they approached their game challenges as simple problems with one or two solutions. Marvin continued to read the game off of history. Although Jordan’s game was effectively 297 modeling several aspects of the history of Chinese civilization, he was making little connections between his game and history. Building Civilizations and Complex Problem Solving Miranda wanted to build a bigger civilization and she was very interested in maximizing her use of resources so that her cities would grow. I showed Miranda the effects of irrigation and roads on cities’ production. We compared one of her cities which was along the Rio Grande with one in the jungle and examined their food production. Next we consulted her domestic advisor and looked at her budget. Eventually, Miranda decided that she needed to disband her warriors to get her budget back under control. Over the second half of class, Miranda spent most of her time trading with other civilizations in an effort to gain money. She was especially interested in meeting and negotiating with the historical characters, and she said that Joan of Arc was her favorite. Miranda facilely navigated through the different game systems, examining the effects of her economy on her civilization, anticipating how her city might grow, and weighing the advice of advisors. The problem space of the game was becoming increasingly complex for Miranda, who was using strategies across different systems to achieve her goal of building a formidable civilization. Vicky also focused on building a civilization, but her primary goal was “to make her people happy.” Vicky was very protective of her people, and she built walls around each of her cities before anything else. I asked Vicky to explain this, and she said, “security for my people.” Caring for her little people seemed to be a primary motivation for Vicky. In the post interviews, Vicky explained her favorite parts of the game as “getting to build cities, make friends, and go to war Vicky also built workers to mine gold 298 so that her people would be happy. All of this happy-making drove Vicky to read the Civilopedia, carefully consider what improvements to build, and study geography to locate resources for her people. Simpler Goals, Simpler Problems Amy (Iroquois) was still wresting with basic game functions: battling barbarians and preventing civil unrest. Her goal was to build more settlers and hence more cities. Amy had several questions about the governments, so I explained the social systems of the Middle Ages, tying in game concepts of feudalism and monarchy. I was not sure if she grasped the differences between despotisms and monarchies. Although the game gave students a good framework for understanding relationships between government and religion, the lack of specific cases, such as the English crown, makes all of these concepts abstracted from their historical antecedents. In the post-interviews, Amy did recall some basic information about governments, stating that a “monarchy is when you have a king or queen and republic is when you elect a ruler.” In regards to historical concepts, the game was a good introduction to technological concepts for Amy, and helped her make some connections between historical concepts which could be useful in later studies, but did not produce deep understandings. Amy engaged in little recursive play. Because her goal was simply to last as long as possible and she was in contact with no other civilizations, she experienced no failure. She had no reason to stop, analyze her game, and try new strategies. Sandy was losing frequently, and began restarting her game more frequently, but rarely did she analyze the causes of her failures and try to build new strategies. At one point, Sandy had three cities in Egypt, but was attacked by the Greeks and lost her game. 299 I showed Sandy how to reload her saved game, which she liked because it meant that she could keep in the “race to last the longest”. As Sandy’s game reloaded, I gave her, Vicky, and Miranda the same just-in-time lecture about feudalism and monarchy that I gave to Amy. Sandy paid relatively little attention, as she read the causes of her failure as of making the wrong decision (i.e., going to war / not going to war, trading technology / not trading technology). Like Amy, her goal was to make it as long as possible, so she had no incentive to restart her game and try different strategies. Using Game Resources Marvin was enthralled with nearly every aspect of the game. The early part of the day Marvin struggled with barbarians who attacked his workers continuously. Next, it was the other civilizations. He was at war with Egypt and building political alliances in an attempt to survive. “I want to build alliances so they won’t kill me,” Marvin explained. I showed him the technology tree (to show him what new technologies he could research), which he then read through them in some detail. He seemed very interested in nearly every aspect of the game and spent a lot of time reading the Civilopedia. In the post interviews, Marvin recalled what he learned through playing the game, drawing on information in the Civilopedia. Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Did playing the game teach you about history? In a way it does. For instance, it shows you the date or year where they wheel was made or the alphabet was discovered. I didn’t know that the alphabet was discovered around BC. I forgot what year, but I remember it’s like 2000 BC. I thought it was like the 1500 or around the (the age of) knights and kings. Who do you think invented the alphabet before you played this game? The English, because back then they were the classiest and smartest. Now who do you think invented the alphabet? 300 Marvin: Probably the Egyptians with the hieroglyphics. It was the first writing to be done. Marvin took a generally intellectually curious approach to the game, which often manifested itself in observations in game and comparisons to history, such as in what year the alphabet was discovered. Most students got a general sense of these dates, but Marvin, who read through the Civilopedia and technology tree closely explored these facts more deeply and made connections between these facts and his game. For Marvin, who enjoyed reading the game as a simulation of history, reading the Civilopedia and learning about different inventions was part of the fun. The game created a context for Marvin to ask questions such as in what year was the alphabet invented and think about the flow of knowledge across cultures. The Costs of War Marvin lost his war and then went back to an earlier saved game, determined to use his allies better (an example of recursive play). He created allegiances again, but unfortunately, these entangled allegiances got him into war again. For Marvin, much of the game was about politics and war. In post-interviews, Marvin shared with researchers how playing the game, particularly how experiencing the consequences of decisions, taught him about politics and war. Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: What else did you learn through playing the game? Inventions, the wheel, alphabet. Also that war isn’t always the way. Why? Because it doesn’t…if you always wanted to win it wouldn’t be the outcome. Why? Something will happen; it will turn on you. It’s like a strategy game. You have to know when you want to do a move. You have to think about it before you actually do it. I learned that the hard way. 301 Interviewer: Marvin: Marvin: Interviewer: Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: Oh yeah, how did that happen? I went to war with the Aztecs, and they had a treaty with everyone against me. Did you start the war? No. They did because they threatened me, and I said, “No take your threats somewhere else.” Could you have signed a treaty with the Aztecs? No. You had to go to war with them? Yeah. They were in a difficult position, but I thought I was going to win. They made an alliance with everyone against me. What do you think about the United States being in wars? Does it change your views? Yeah. In modern times if you become strongest nation out there…they should always be peace. Why? War always leads to destruction and lost armies. You thought this before the game? No. afterwards. You lost a lot right? Yes (sadly). For Marvin, the political components of the game taught him about the responsibilities of political power. The Aztecs were a warring tribe and much more powerful than his civilization. They threatened him for strategic resources or political gains, which frustrated him Soon he learned that he could not compete with the Aztecs who were backed by global political alliances. Marvin saw his game in terms of complex interacting variables and systems, but also understood the interconnections among civilizations; (in his game at least), no one superpower could dominate the entire globe without allies. He saw connections between the political power of the Aztecs and the contemporary United States and, playing as an underpowered civilization, drew a lesson from this experience, specifically that war leads to destruction and loss and that strong nations have an obligation to maintain peace. 302 Jordan had watched Marvin’s game closely and was now afraid of the barbarians. He wanted to learn from Marvin’s mistakes, so I suggested that Marvin give him tips. Marvin explained that you should have two spearmen in every city and also use spearmen to protect workers. Jordan asked about luxuries, and Marvin explained them as well. Marvin and Jordan were learning from one another, using each other’s games as contrasting cases for understanding the underlying game system. Although Marvin and Jordan talked (and the girls frequently talked), there was much less sharing of information and comparisons across games in this case than in the MEDIA case. In the MEDIA case, every student followed at least one other game and most students watched at least two games. This cross-case analysis of games seemed to lead to deeper understandings about the game system and, potentially, about world history. Attack of the Barbarians, Failure and Frustration Ricky (China) struggled with starving cities and invading barbarians. I tried to help Ricky, but I could barely get in a word edgewise, as he interrupted me with more questions. Ricky was more frustrated with the game than any student I had seen up to this point. While frustration due to losing occasionally motivated students, today, it was obviously getting the best of Ricky. I was a little surprised that Ricky, the most experienced gamer in the group was having the most difficult time dealing with game challenges, although the amount of reading in the game and the complexity of game problems might have favored stronger students. Still, the fact that Ricky was not a strong student but identified himself as a gamer may have made these losses all the more painful. Most girls in the class were finding more success than him. 303 Ricky started complaining to me, “I like faster games. This is too slow.” I empathized with him. “It’s frustrating when you have to sit back and watch yourself getting attacked, isn’t it?” He agreed. Wave after wave of barbarian continued to come after Ricky. At one point, 60 barbarians were attacking. They came from Russia, Thailand, central Asia, everywhere. I explained to Ricky how the Mongolian horde wreaked havoc on most of the world after the turn of the century, but he was not impressed with how the game faithfully modeled the barbarian attacks. Adding to his frustration was that he became locked in a race for control over Thailand and Cambodia but the Indians settled there before him. Over and over again, Ricky narrowly missed achieving his goals because the computer AI built a settler before him or a group of barbarians attacked him before he could defend himself. As Ricky struggled more and more with the game, his identity as a gamer became at odds with his failure, and he began resisting the game, suggesting that it was too slow, essentially not a real game. DAY 6: Social Play Today, I wrote a list of goals on the board that students could choose from: (1) become a democracy, (2) build a railroad between two cities, (3) enter the industrial age, or (4) choose your own (develop a personal goal and share it with the researchers). My goals were to introduce some new concepts that students were attending to, create more purpose to their games, and encourage them to consider parts of the game they might have overlooked, such as government, infrastructure, or technological advancement. I passed out a worksheet describing each unit’s attributes and a print-out of the technology tree. The second researcher noted that few of the students seemed to pay any attention to 304 the discussion. Marvin called out, “Can we just play the game?” Another asked, “Can’t we just start?” None of the students made any of these goals or showed any signs of giving them any concern during the day. Marvin read the “democracy objective” (number one) and said “I already have that” (which was incorrect). Overall, students were just eager to play the game and rejected this activity as interfering with their game play. Students appropriated Civilization III as a tool for several different purposes. The encompassing camp activity system gave students this freedom; students goals and intentions of playing the game were in line with the rules of the camp, and students knew that they could continue playing by their own goals. For some students (Marvin, Vicky, and Miranda) this contradiction was not problematic at all; in the case of Marvin his play was about reading the game off of history, a goal that was producing desirable practices and (as I will argue later) useful understandings. Vicky’s goal of making her people happy forced her to consider several interrelating systems of game play and consider geographic issues (i.e. where are luxuries located) and game issues (is Monarchy good for her people) in order to fulfill her fantasies of pleasing her people. Miranda’s game play was also complex, as her desire to build a civilization meant that she had to juggle several game systems in building a defense, an infrastructure, and an economy. For students’ with simpler goals, who were not wrestling with the complexities of the game systems and treating game systems as simple, single solution problems, learning was much simpler, typically confined to algorithmic solutions to dealing with problems rather than generating deep understandings of inter-related game systems. Religion, the Republic, and the Industrial Age 305 Marvin, Vicky and Miranda all were comfortable with the game concepts and achieving success. Marvin’s game (Rome, 50 AD) was going much better than last time and his plan for the day was to not make the same mistakes again. He described those mistakes as trading away horses to his enemies and going to war. Marvin’s next plan was to support religion, which would make his people happier. I asked Marvin why religion was important to people; he answered, “I don’t know.” He now had 14 cities, and had built harbors in each seaside city. Marvin maneuvered his archers to maintain a defense, counting the total number of archers he had and multiplying that number by 100 so that he could imagine how many troops there were. Next, Marvin wanted to build the Great Wall for even more protection. I explained that he needed to discover construction to build it, and that he ought to invest in science and technology if he wanted to stay globally competitive. Later, Marvin explained to the second researcher that he was building libraries in every city. “I did what he told me. I’m not holding back on science.” Marvin was convinced that staying out of war was the key to victory, and eager to build a civilization that mixed happiness, military power, technological advanced and culturally superior. Vicky’s game (Egypt, 1375 AD, Monarchy) also began to take off, which caused Miranda to take notice. Vicky had only five cities, but her economy was booming (1571 gold +15 per turn), and she was even about to discover the Republic. I explained to Vicky the differences between Republic and Monarchy. “In Republics, people elect a Senate who represent them. They started in Greece and Rome. Only free men could vote, though. But for those people, they had more political power than under a Monarchy, where there was an all powerful king.” Vicky listened attentively, nodded, and declared 306 that she would research Republic to make her people happy. Vicky used the Histiograph to gauge her progress compared to other civilizations. In the post-interviews (which occurred the following week), the researcher asked Vicky about governments. Interviewer: Vicky: Interviewer: Vicky: Interviewer: Vicky: Interviewer: Vicky: What is despotism? It’s like kind of a government that you are. Would you want to live under despotism? No. I think I had despotism though. I’d rather have monarchy. Why? You only have one God. And people are saying that it’s good. Do you know what a monarchy is? It’s like almost like you get to rule better and people look at you as a God. Vicky was somewhat familiar with concepts such as despotism and monarchy, offering monarchy as a more preferably type of government to despotism. Vicky also made general associations for the features of these governments, such as linking divine rule with monotheism. Miranda (1300 AD, Aztecs) moved her chair over to watch Vicky’s game. In the race to the future, Vicky was in 2nd place. Miranda was in a despotism and decided to study The Republic after hearing my talk with Vicky. She had five cities, and was building up her infrastructure to better balance her economy, religion, technology, and military. Like Marvin, Miranda wanted to build a balanced civilization. This goal of building a balanced civilization situated Miranda in a deeper problem-solving space than the other girls, who simply wanted success along one axis (such as longevity). As a result, Miranda engaged in deeper analysis and problem solving than these other girls. Social Play 307 Sandy (Egypt, 1465 AD) took more and more interest in the game itself. For the first time she sought out help from the researchers. She asked about geographical features, such as iron, or why it took so many turns to build palaces. Sandy was still technologically quite primitive, but she was experiencing some success and talking-up her peers and the researchers. She began asking researchers questions about game systems such as production, and began building libraries and city walls in her cities. Sandy even started reading the Civilopedia, which pleased us because Sandy was not as strong a reader as some students, and frequently struggled to pronounce game terms such as despotism. Sandy started the unit disinterested in the game, but appeared to continue with the unit in order to be a part of a social group. She continued to ask Nadya and Miranda what years their games were in and make random announcements such as, “I have so many warriors I am going to make barracks!” (which was particularly interesting because barracks served no such function). Being part of this group was a central component of Sandy’s play throughout the unit and she continued to push social play, but more and more aspects of the game itself struck Sandy’s curiosity. After a few days of frustration, Ricky finally held off the barbarians, located their camps, and chased them from the Mongolian highlands. As he discovered new lands, he “right mouse clicked” on the land to learn more about its carrying capacities. In between turns, Ricky slid over to watch Miranda and Vicky’s games; in fact, he spent a lot of time with Vicky and Miranda today. They talked about their games, gathered around Vicky and Miranda’s computers. Vicky and Miranda showed off their games, and this group demanded a lot of attention. Ricky’s participation in this group was striking, if for no 308 other reason than he was acknowledging that he had things to learn from other students (girls). Shaka’s Got New Clothes: Fashion as a Sign of Social Progress Sandy initiated some of the most interesting game talk of the unit when she made connections between the leaders’ dress and social progress. Sandy noted that Hammurabi dressed a lot like Lincoln and developed a theory that the more advanced civilizations had more advanced clothing. Sandy looked at her screen and pointed to Greece: “See, it’s because this other guy changed…and Shaka Zulu…and Joan of Arc. Maybe they have more technology and stuff.” Sandy, Miranda, and Vicky looked at the pictures of their advisors, comparing their outfits with those of the other leaders. The girls were very intrigued by the differences in outfits between leaders and spent several minutes debating as to what it might mean. They realized that there were connections between trade, technology, and attire, and eventually realized that entering new eras caused changes in outfits. Soon, Marvin joined in the conversation, asking, “When am I finally going to get to change clothes?” Marvin was hoping to enter the industrial era and excited about the prospect of changing his clothing as well. This class paid attention to the leaders’ outfits, both as a sign of progress and as an intrinsically exciting aspect of the game. Indeed, in post interviews Miranda commented that if there was one thing she would change about the game, she would like to be able to change the color of her leader’s clothes. It is not so surprising that a girl, Sandy observed that the game represented social advancement through fashion, given how fashion and clothing are usually associated with girls’ play. 309 Perhaps more surprisingly, Marvin was equally intrigued by the changing of the clothes.4 This interaction suggests that using fashion creatively – such as to show progress or status could be a way of drawing a more diverse range of players to gaming. Querying the Researchers and Fighting for Attention. Vicky, Marvin, Ricky, and Miranda enjoyed showing off their civilizations to researchers and frequently seemed to be asking questions about their game just to strike up conversations. Vicky (1070 AD) also had several questions for the researcher, some of which seemed obvious, such as “What does the load button do (to load into ships)? Others may have been more functional (i.e. Will you help me decide where to place cities?”). But most of the time, she wanted to share her work with the researchers. She enjoyed giving tours of her cities, showing off the different structures such as aqueducts using the “eye view.” At one point, Miranda pulled the researcher aside to announce that she built two more cities and was now up to five. This mildly competitive play seemed to engage the girls by adding an extra layer to the game experience, a meta-game by which they discussed their games. By the time I came to Ricky (China, 1030 AD), he had several questions, such as why could he not build the Great Library. He read that he needed aqueducts for his cities to grow, and his plan was to explore Asia and meet other civilizations to trade with. Thus far he had not explored much beyond China’s borders (due to the barbarian threat). He had horsemen exploring Europe and India, but he had not explored Indonesia, Africa, or the other continents. Curiously, this isolation mirrored China’s own cultural isolation for thousands of years. Similarly, Ricky was building a road to connect his cities through 4 Many game critics have noted similar patterns in massively multiplayer game play, where players will go through great lengths to get special clothing or matching outfits. 310 central China and connect up his silk and dye resources which closely mirrored the silk road that was built in real life for just that reason. We discussed these features of his game in depth, which Ricky found interesting, although these facts did not reappear in any discussions or post-interviews. He also had a lot of questions: Why do some cities grow so slowly (they were surrounded by tundra)? Why can horses only move one square per turn (they are in the mountains)? Ricky seemed almost hungry for information now – a stark contrast to earlier in the unit when he was quiet and despondent. Now that he had some successes, he was much more open to the researchers and the unit in general. It could be said that Ricky had now appropriated the researchers as a tool for game play. Game Challenges and Language and Literacy Nadya (1675 BC, China) came in at 3:15 and was still very quiet. Recalling that Ricky had a lot of problems with barbarians in China, I asked Nadya if she had problems with Barbarians; she answered yes. I asked her who the barbarians were and she responded, “Indians.” She showed increased awareness of several game concepts; she knew the date of her civilization, the technologies she was studying, and her type of government. Tammy, who sat with Nadya most of the time, asked Nadya if she would like to do this in History class. Nadya said, “Yes.” Later, Nadya went to Sandy’s desk to see how she was doing, signs that Nadya was engaging in social play and desiring to learn more about the game. Of all the students, Nadya was perhaps the most difficult to pin down. As a native French speaker, Nadya struggled with much of the language in the game. At times, it was difficult to know if she was paying attention to the game at all; at others, she made intriguing insights about the game. 311 The example of Nadya is instructive in that it points to the challenges in playing Civilization III for such a young student, particularly the reading demands that the game places on students. Whereas students in the MEDIA case had been exposed to many game concepts (some repeatedly), most of the 233 different concepts were new. These students had some familiarity with the concept of Egypt, China, or Rome, as evidenced by their comfort in selecting these civilizations. Basic military units (i.e. warriors) and basic technologies (iron working, mathematics) were also graspable and about within their reading level. But consider some of the other early concepts that students confronted in the military: hopilite (Greek warrior), legionary, musketman, catapult), in technology: Ceremonial burial, masonry, mysticism, construction, currency, philosophy, literature, polytheism, code of laws, in government: despotism. Again, what was most demanding about these concepts was that success in the game demanded that students not just recognize these terms, but understand their meanings, and anticipate their consequences to students’ games. In game resources designed to support game play are all textuallybased. Consider the following entry for “warriors”: The warrior is late Stone Age infantry, armed with stone axes and clubs. The earliest military forces were simply the citizens of the city, armed with whatever implements they could use as weapons. Although a militia made up of warriors was inexpensive, they were no match for organized armies. Warriors were usually used as stopgap measures while waiting for superior units to be trained, or to defend a city that had been temporarily cut off from military support. In a crisis situation, an assembly of warriors is better than no defense at all. This explanation situates the warrior unit in historical terms, drawing from historical concepts (the Stone Age) and military terms (infantry). For a sixth grade student, many of whom may be struggling with inferring meaning from text if they are reading at a third grade level, this passage is quite complex. Consider even the basic vocabulary and 312 concepts in this passage that could be difficult for a sixth grade student with below average language students: military forces, citizens, implements, stopgap measures, crisis situation, or assembly. And this passage suggests the potential obstacles just in the Civilopedia and basic game moves. Consider the main map, city, advisor, and negotiation screens. In the map screen, students’ government, year, cities (and foreign cities), and technologies are represented textually. On the city screens, city improvements and items under construction are represented through text, as are the headers for the different game systems (luxuries, strategic resources, production, food, commerce, pollution, and garrison). Consider the negotiation screen (Figure 6-1, which includes the foreign advisor). Obviously, the items up for trade are all represented through text. The advisor gives different facial expressions, signaling the general tenor, but more specific information is conveyed through text, as when in the MEDIA case, Kent asked Dwayne what “reprehensible” meant. Perhaps most importantly, feedback from the other civilizations are conveyed through text, as is the general status of the relationship (polite). In post-interviews, Marvin, Miranda and Vicky recalled these terms specifically. Gamecritical information is revealed both through visual icons and through text and success in the game demanded that students read and interpret complex texts. These students employed diverse strategies for inferring meaning from the game and generating game strategies. Everyone learned some through trial and error and through querying researchers. Most everyone turned to the Civilopedia at least periodically, skimming the text or even reading it thoroughly. Students inferred meaning through context or tone, as well. The second researcher, a trained reading teacher, was 313 most impressed at how game play recruited complex reading practices, as students wrestled with new vocabulary, negotiated meaning with peers, and compared text with meanings from game play. For these students, reading and interpreting texts were common, challenging practices that had a big impact on game play, and there was a direct relationship between those students’ reading skills and game success. Tammy and Monique, both of whom were high school students with stronger reading skills were both totally caught up in the game today. Monique tried playing as several civilizations, including India, Rome, Egypt and France. Monique lost again for the third time, but kept playing. More than any of the younger students, Monique read through the full text information, trying to make decisions on all the civilizations. She enjoyed reading through the Civilopedia and using it as a resource for game play. Seeing Monique’s success in the game and fascination with its complexity reminded the researchers that the language and reading demands of the game were significant, and that the game’s complexity frequently appeals to adults as much as middle school students. DAY 7: Religion, Culture, and Wrapping Up I started class today with a discussion of culture points and religion. I tried to address students' questions or problem areas. Marvin, Jamal and Jordan were very attentive, Marvin especially. I explained how in previous versions of the game, culture, religion, and the arts were entirely left out of the game and that the game designers added the variable of “cultural influence” to model how emerging cultures exert influence over an area. I explained how the game represents cultural influence through the size of the border around their cities and how cultural influence increases the chances that other 314 cities would join your civilization. Next I explained the role of temples and religion in making citizens happy and the effects of building temples, oracles, and cathedrals on city happiness. Students listened and were attentive, but aware that this was their last day to play, students were more interested achieving their specific game goals. Winning the Race For Sandy (Egypt, 1766 AD), who had two cities, the game was a race to see if she could last as long as Miranda and Amy. She noticed that she had less money, less technology, and fewer luxuries than her peers but was very pleased when she met other civilizations, announcing to the class when she met Joan of Arc or Alexander of the Greeks. Unfortunately, Sandy eventually lost a city to the Greeks and another to the Babylonians, leaving her with no gold and only one city left. After another 30 minutes of struggling with her one remaining city, Sandy lost and restarted her game. This time, Sandy “let the Greeks come over if they wanted.” Sandy, who was publicly competing with other students to last as long as possible into the future chose to frame the question as a relatively simple one of an enemy attacking. How Sandy was engaged by the game (as a context for social play) had a direct impact on how she responded to losing. Whereas losing sent Miranda or Marvin into recursive play cycles of problem analysis and experimentation, it simply motivated Sandy to click on something different. Amy (Iroquois, 1912 AD, Republic) was easily the furthest along in the game. She built a galley and was exploring South America. The boat made it to Brazil before sinking. Amy built another one and resumed exploring. Her goal was to map out all of South America. Eventually, the long turns and lack of other civilizations to interact with frustrated Amy. Amy pulled Moby Dick out of her bag and read in between turns. She 315 paid little attention to her four cities and made no effort to strengthen her civilization in order to stand up the Europeans. Although she built a cathedral in one city, she more or less ignored her cities and civilization, using cities to build more warriors and spearmen. After a few turns, several of Amy’s cities were rioting or in disarray, but Amy did not seem to care. Amy’s responses in post interviews reveal to what extent this goal of surviving to the end mediated Amy’s game play. Interviewer: Amy: Interviewer: Amy: What it would have been like to play as China? I’d have more luxuries. I would have lasted longer. Was that the main goal of yours? To last long? Yes, I wanted to make it to the future. For Amy, the game play was almost exclusively about preserving her civilization until the 21st century, to see if she could build a Native American civilization that survived into the future. Because she had no contact with other civilizations, she stopped worrying about her economy or domestic infrastructure. Whereas before Amy read through screens carefully and weighed the importance of decisions, she now just clicked through screens haphazardly. Finally, the Celts landed in Nova Scotia in 1968, and Amy immediately started trading with them. The Celts were much, much more advanced than Amy’s Iroquois. They had battleships and tanks and quickly began colonizing North America. Amy did not seem bothered by this in class, but in interviews, described how she felt. The interviewer read the quotation critiquing the United States abuse of power in American foreign policy.5 “We have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real test in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not to deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of 5 316 A lot of people did gang up on me and I didn’t do anything to them. I just walked through their territory because I had to get to one of my cities. When the Celts came over they had battleships. I felt scared because I didn’t want my people to die. Interviewer: Do you think they could have killed you at any point? Amy: Yeah. Interviewer: How did you react? Amy: I put people and along the shorelines so they couldn’t get people in. Then they ended up killing everyone on the shorelines. So then I put a lot of people inside my cities to defend them. As Amy described, soon the Celts attacked her Iroquois nation. Amy felt scared for her Amy: people, and sad that there was nothing she could do to intervene. We were surprised to see this reaction – particularly in response to the reading on American foreign policy. While I anticipated that some students would draw connections between power and their games, we did not anticipate that students would be shaken up by the experience. Later in the interview, the interviewer probed Amy further to understand to what causes she attributed this disparity between the Iroquois and the Celts. Interviewer: Amy: Interviewer: Amy: Interviewer: Amy: Why did the Celts colonize North American instead of the Iroquois colonize Europe? Because they could get different inventions from the Romans, Chinese, and different people so they could make a boat to sail across. I had only myself to get the inventions…I couldn’t discover things fast enough. Then, I did keep discovering things and they wouldn’t trade with me. They wouldn’t take my money. Did you meet anyone else? Persia. I think that’s it. And the Aztecs. Why didn’t someone like China come over? Because they (the Celts) are greedy. They had a big army and were strong. And they thought they could wipe me out. Because Amy had such little feedback during the game, she had little idea how far behind she was in her game. She had no other students to compare games with (as students did in the Media School) and as a result, was literally shocked when the Celts settled North America with battleships. Not until it was too late did Amy see that she was behind in altruism and world benefaction – unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization.” 317 technology, and perhaps even worse, she did not see any way that she could catch up. By saving and restarting her game, Amy did hang in the game until 2012, meaning that she reached her goal of making it to the future. Perhaps not surprisingly, Amy recalled the exact ending date of her game in the post-interviews. Miranda (Aztecs, 1530) withdrew from the race to last the longest and now sought to “make her people happy.” She had seven cities and was planning to build an eighth on Cuba. Her civilization was thriving; she just discovered engineering and had 1200 gold. She explained that her primary goal was to make her people happy. Miranda had several questions around game concepts such as “engineering” and vocabulary such as “convey.” Quietly, Miranda withdrew from the main social group and became more invested in her civilization. She took great pride in what she had created and enjoyed showing it to researchers. Miranda’s game play was much more complex than most students, and this game play evolved in reciprocal relation with her game goals. Using the Game to Learn Historical Concepts and Using History as a Cheat Jamal started up a new game and, after hearing my discussion of religion in the beginning of class, decided to study ceremonial burial first. Jamal and Marvin wanted to know what polytheism and monotheism were, so I went to the chalkboard. I broke down the words monotheism and polytheism into their root words and explained the meaning of mono and poly. We then brainstormed which civilizations we thought belonged in each category. I reiterated how religion played a part of a civilization’s “cultural influence” and citizens’ happiness. Students were struggling with some of these concepts but they had a stake in understanding these concepts and their impact on game play given their game goals. After missing several days, Jamal had difficulty with some basic game 318 concepts and asked questions about unit strength or changing cities’ production. He had only two cities, one of which was rioting, but he did not seem to mind as he was caught up in a battle with the Romans. Although it was late in the unit, students were still interested in learning about these concepts and enjoyed using the game as a context for learning historical concepts. Marvin (Rome, 740 AD) entered a new era, the Middle Ages. He had begun being attacked by barbarians and was concerned that they might topple his empire. He brought his textbook in today and asked if he could use it. “Is this cheating?” Marvin asked. I said that no, it was acceptable for him to use a History textbook to help play the game. I asked him why he would use it and he explained that he wanted to see what the historical boundaries of the Roman Empire were and how he might avoid being destroyed by barbarians like the Romans were. He examined the map to see where different civilizations were located, how their borders evolved throughout history, and how he might use this information to improve his own game. Marvin planned to use mountain ranges as natural borders, and try to see where and when the Roman civilization became too spread out. In this instance, Marvin was using history as a tool for mediating his game play. That a student considered using a textbook (which most students have to be bribed or threatened to open) “cheating” in order to play a the computer game struck the researchers as quite ironic and suggests a potentially powerful way of using texts in the service of game play. Whereas many want to pit one media versus the other in the design of learning environments, this instance shows that the real power is in finding ways that they overlap and intersect, finding ways of engaging students in game play to a point where they want and need information stored in texts for solving problems. 319 Marvin turned back to his game and noticed that he was the “weakest” civilization on the list. He asked how to strengthen his civilization. I explained how he might try to build up his economic infrastructure rather than concentrating only on military. He became concerned that he was losing gold every turn. He built “wealth” to try and bolster his economy but noticed that he was falling further in debt despite it. He called me over to help. I showed him how to make marketplaces to build his infrastructure. I was surprised that Marvin, who seemed to understand most aspects of the game, had not yet learned about marketplaces. Later, Marvin explained to the researcher how his goal was to build more cities in order to build up his cultural influence and “take over other cities.” Marvin also had several questions about new game concepts such as legionnaires or Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The advisors were a useful form a of feedback to Marvin, encouraging him to reflect on his civilization and examine his game more closely. After learning that he was the weakest civilization, Marvin and I analyzed his military, saw that he needed a more robust economy to support a military, and then went about improving his economy. Thus the game feedback prompted Marvin to analyze his game systemically and identify patterns across systems. 6 For Marvin, a bidirectional understanding between the game and history was emerging. In the post interview, Marvin expounded on this relationship. Interviewer: Marvin: Interviewer: Marvin: 6 What would help you learn more about social studies? Playing the game. At the top left corner there is an AA that stands for encyclopedia (Civilopedia), it shows you when things actually happened. Things that you never knew about or things you never think about. It tells you what wars and who discovered this. Did you ever looked at it? I know some kids never did. I did. Because for construction I wanted to build a cathedral. Because if you build your culture, it will spread and become more great. This same feature could possibly be used to help more isolated civilizations. 320 Marvin, like many of the students thought that social studies was about memorizing facts, but he saw the game, which includes the Civilopedia, as an information-rich space that would be ideal for learning social studies. Using Other Civilizations as Feedback Ricky (China, 1630 AD) learned from his earlier mistakes with barbarians and was expanding his infrastructure as he grew. He now had five small cities, all linked by roads, and his goal was to make more cities and expand his empire. He sent a group of horsemen into the mountains of Mongolia to find the remaining barbarians. These horsemen eventually made it to Europe, and he began trading with the Romans at around 1645 AD. Once he met all of the other civilizations, he finally had a context for comparing his progress against other civilizations. He saw how behind he was in technology but also reasoned that at least now he could trade with other civilizations and perhaps catch up quickly. Meeting other civilizations made Ricky feel a part of the global trade network, and he now had feedback on his progress and felt clued into the greater game processes. Turns took almost 30 seconds to complete, so Ricky read a Gran Turismo game manual between turns. Differing Play Styles Jordan (Egypt) returned today for the first time in weeks. He downloaded Civilization III from Kazaa (a file sharing program) and had stopped coming to camp so that he could play at home. He had hoped that by coming today he could get a free game. Jordan and I discussed some questions he had about the game, particularly about revolution and government. He suggested that Marvin attack the other civilizations more aggressively. “If you take them over right away, you do better.” Having been playing the 321 game on his own, he had developed a different, more aggressive play style than the other players. Whereas students in the YWCA case played according to the “rules” of school, not aggressively, avoiding war, being kind to other civilizations, Jordan was fairly ruthless in his approach. Marvin, who was averse to going to war, decided to watch before trying this risky strategy. “Do it Joe, then I’ll watch.” Jordan attacked the Greeks, which caused the Babylonians to attack him as well. When Jordan tried to make peace, both civilizations refused to acknowledge his envoy. Even though Jordan was willing to give the Greeks his entire treasury to end the war, the Greeks refused. Jordan commented, “Uh Oh. I’m in trouble. They won’t even talk to me.” By 4:30, the Greeks had destroyed him. His computer promptly crashed, and Marvin said that he thought the computer was making a point. As discussed earlier, for Marvin, the biggest lesson learned from playing the game was that “war isn’t always the way.” Game play styles arose as an combination of several factors, including students’ ethics, goals, classroom culture, and the affordances of the game (particularly its balancing). Concluding the Unit I closed the unit by showing students how to retire from the game. I wanted to show them how the game projected key statistics about their civilizations. Marvin and Miranda were particularly interested in these statistics, such as their civilization’s literacy rate but most students had little clue what these statistics were or meant and the class ran out before I could explain them in any real depth. I thanked students for attending the unit and made arrangements to meet with them for post-interviews. We conducted interviews over the following two days. Five students came to post-interviews (Marvin, Amy, Miranda, Vicky, and Ricky). As in the Media case, 322 students, all developed understandings of where civilizations and barbarians originated. All of the students also discussed the importance of different kinds of geography in influencing the growth of their civilizations. As described in the case, students developed differing understandings of governments and technologies. Miranda, Vicky, and Marvin could discuss concepts such as monarchy, whereas Amy and Ricky had more impoverished understandings. The interview with Miranda, a strong student who succeeded in the game was particularly telling. Miranda: Interviewer: Miranda: Interviewer. Miranda: Interviewer: Miranda: I don’t like social studies. What in school would help you learn more and like it? Just have a different teacher. Other years I like it. Are you good? Yes. I always take notes. After Columbus reached America, European countries colonized America. Why did Europeans colonize America instead of Native Americans colonizing Europe? Because the Indians didn’t have the transportation…maybe they’re not good at making some kind of boat or something. Or they didn’t get along with the Europeans enough to ask them for a ride over to Europe. This excerpt highlights just where some of these children were coming from. Just out of elementary school, liking school and learning were matters of having the right (nice) teacher. Of course, as middle school students, they were now expected to take notes, and good students were those who took the right notes in class. In terms of learning in school, Miranda was just entering a phase where the locus of learning was expected to be hers, and not just the teacher’s. Miranda’s response to the question about colonization shows both how her game was not about colonization, but also, just how playful her own ideas were. Miranda’s idea (and phrasing) of the Indians “didn’t get along with the Europeans 323 enough to ask them for a ride to Europe” reminds us that these kids are, afterall, eleven and twelve years old. Initially, Miranda reported “little” from the experience, as she was not taking notes or mastering facts, but she later came up with some things she learned through play. The later facts she recalls also reminds the reader of her age. Interviewer: Miranda: Interviewer: Miranda: Interviewer: Miranda: Interviewer: Miranda: Interviewer: Miranda: What were the most important discoveries in your game? Printing press, writing, and the alphabet and math. Because the printing press is writing a book. You didn’t have anything to stamp over and over so you had to keep writing over and over. With the alphabet you couldn’t write like words, and math you have to have measurements. Where did you get these ideas? School? No, I asked Kurt for some of these. Well what did you think? (As opposed to Kurt). I like the printing press. What are the most important discoveries of all time, not just in your game? Ummm shoes. Clothes. Any others, maybe 2 more. Maybe chairs, beds, TVs. These comments reveal the playfulness in Miranda’s thinking and game play. The printing press had little discernable impact on her civilization as any “tangible” game reward, but in terms of her imagined civilization, giving her people books was quite important. This play was mediated by the instructor (Kurt) who provided just-in-time explanations to augment her play. These comments also reveal a lack of historiocity, as each of these discoveries are items important in her own life as well. Most students had similar kinds of responses; they recalled particular concepts from their game play (usually mediated through the instructor) and formed theories of history informed strongly by their own lives. However, few of the remarks were as endearing and honest as Miranda’s. 324 Chapter VII: Conclusions The purpose of this study has been to examine (a) what practices emerge when Civilization III is brought into formal educational environments; (b) how Civilization III engages players when used in learning environments; (c) how learning occurs through playing Civilization III in different contexts; (d) the affordances of using games (specifically Civilization III) in world history education; and (e) how should we think about designing learning environments that include games. Importantly, this study does not try to argue for or against using Civilization III in any particular learning environment.7 Instead, I offer a framework for thinking about Civilization III as a tool for world history education. Admittedly, this framework is far-reaching, exploring the potentials for using games in formal learning environments, making connections between game play and the emerging discipline of world history and justifying a somewhat unusual approach to world history education. Previous chapters described the practices that emerged in three disparate contexts where Civilization III was used to support learning. In this chapter, I readdress the initial research questions and core theoretical issues, examining data from all three cases. The following chapter is a cross-case analysis of the practices that emerged, the ways in which Civilization III engaged students (or didn’t), and how learning unfolded, in three learning environments. 8 The case narratives (Chapters IV, V, VI) detail the practices that emerge when Civilization III is used as a tool for learning history; 7 Such a value judgment is beyond the scope of any one study. What to teach and how to teach are intricately tied to local instructional goals, needs, constraints, and opportunities (Reigeluth, 1999). The teachers participating in this study all valued the units with Civilization III and expressed interest in continuing with similar studies; however, such considerations would situate this study in the realm of curricular theory, a philosophical enterprise which brings with it social and political considerations beyond the scope of this study. 8 Questions (d) what are the pedagogical potentials of games (specifically Civilization III), and (e) what pedagogical models are useful for thinking about games (specifically Civilization III) in learning environments, are explored in the next chapter (Chapter VIII Implications). 325 conclusions about those practices run through each. However, the first two main conclusions of this chapter – discussions of how Civilization III was appropriated (or not) as a tool for understanding history and the socially and culturally mediated nature of game play – speak to this issue specifically. I argue that game play is not purely a humancomputer interaction but rather one mediated by social relationships (particularly evident in how and why students appropriated Civilization III). Both of these issues are deeply tied to issues of engagement, which I also discuss in this chapter, highlighting it as a social phenomenon indelibly tied to appropriation and learning. Last, I discuss how domain learning unfolded across the cases, arguing that game play provided students background knowledge and, for some, a nascent systemic level understanding of world history. Civilization III was an effective instructional resource when it provided a context whereby geography and history could be used as tools for play. Learning world history through a simulation changed the way that some students viewed history in fundamental ways: By the end of the units, many saw history as emergent phenomena arising from an underlying rule set. Although most students could articulate that rule set at least in part, few understood the materialist and managerial biases of the game itself. These assertions are tied to these particular cases and should be seen as petite generalizations, generalizations that the reader may or may not find applicable to other situations in which they are familiar. Although I do not offer any grand generalizations, generalizations that can be applied beyond these cases, where possible, I have drawn connections between the phenomena at work in these cases and existing theoretical claims. In the implications chapter (Chapter VIII), I explore some of these theoretical 326 issues further, particularly implications for the design of educational games and gamebased learning environments. Appropriation of Civilization III The process of learning to use Civilization III can be described as one of appropriation (Wertsch, 1998), whereby participants learn not just how to use it but why – in effect, making the tool their own. Central to this notion of appropriation is that subjects not just understand how to use a tool, but that they come to understand and adopt the purposes for which it was intended to be used. These cases suggest that there is potential in using Civilization III for educational purposes in schools, but the contradictions that emerged remind educators that it is a complex tool, one developed for entertainment purposes and designed to be learned over dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of use. In this section, I discuss students’ struggle to learn how to play the game and the tensions between learning the game and learning world history. I then discuss students’ appropriation versus resistance of the goals of the unit in the settings examined and contradictions that emerged between the tool’s commercial purpose (entertainment) and its repurposing as a learning tool within the units. In a way, these two purposes were fundamentally at odds, creating tensions for both students and teachers – tensions deeply tied to the culture of schooling and the nature of standard classroom practice. Civilization III can indeed provide a context in which geography can become tools for exploration and play, yet the extent to which students took these possibilities up varied dramatically by context. Next, I discuss students’ active consumption (de Certeau, 1984) of the game – how students “made the tool their own” by repurposing it for their own 327 goals and activities. I argue that, in each case, students’ engagement in the activity was deeply tied to their appropriation of the tool. Learning to Use the Tool Civilization III is an artifact created through the games industry and used by gamers for entertainment. It is quite a complex achievement, involving hundreds of thousands of man-hours of work and providing hundreds of hours of entertainment. As the third game in the series, Civilization III builds on existing game genre conventions and previous game designs, 9 giving avid gamers a leg up on understanding the game interface and dynamics. Still, players normally spend several hours learning how to play the game and how to use related resources (i.e., game manuals, game guides, the Civilopedia) as tools for learning. More importantly, they learn from one another – sharing hints, tips, and strategies either face-to-face or via web communities such as Apolyton.net. These resources mitigate the steep learning curve of figuring out how to simply play Civilization III. In the contexts examined in this study, however, students faced this daunting learning curve in controlled educational settings, which turned out to be impoverished contexts for learning how to play the game. In both the Media and YWCA settings, students did not directly appropriate Civilization III as a means for studying world history; they first had to struggle with merely learning how to use the tool. Contrasting the learning trajectories of these two settings highlights the complexity and variability in how a tool is taken up and used. For the Media students, it took several class periods for students to understand even the most basic elements of game play, and 8-9 class periods before most could play fluidly. Some 9 In some respects, the interface and game play of Civilization III is simpler than that of Civilization II. Some of units and elements from Civilization II were stripped away for Civilization III in order to appeal to broader audiences. 328 students withdrew from the unit before even making it this far, and a handful of the students who stuck with it until the end were still confused with basic concepts and had only a cursory understanding of the game fundamentals. 10 In the YWCA case, these struggles to merely learn how to play the game were far less pronounced. Students were briefly confused at first but soon were able to diagnose and solve their own problems within a few hours. Students had more prolonged interactions with the game interrupted by fewer technology failures and rudimentary confusions about, for example, how to navigate the interface. That the YWCA students took to Civilization III much quicker and more easily than the Media students might be surprising given that the YWCA students were younger, not required to participate in the unit, and not graded on their failure or success. At both sites, however, it is hard to overstate the mismatch between students’ game skills and the game’s complexity; even late in the unit, students in both contexts still had questions about fundamental concepts used in the game (e.g., irrigation). One place this mismatch became most apparent (and most disadvantageous to learning) was in moments of failure. Failure is endemic to any game; it is through trying a strategy, watching it fail, figuring out where and why it went wrong, and then modifying it accordingly and giving it another go that players become engaged in and adept at a game’s underlying rule systems. Across both instructional contexts, students’ biggest difficulty was in unpacking why they lost. When a student’s city revolted, they had difficulty making connections between their citizens’ happiness, their economy, tax rates, and the amount of goods and luxuries available. Students looked for “easy fixes,” places where they could adjust one variable to reverse their fortunes. Yet, playing Civilization III is a much 10 Recall that, in the case of one student, the Media teachers felt the game was simply too complex for her to grasp. 329 more complex activity where players must learn to think systemically about several different interacting factors affecting a civilization’s growth at once. Students needed support in interpreting the causes of their failure, making inferences about the game system based on it, and then devising solutions. Most Civilization III players do. The difference here, however, is that, in these contexts, the students relied heavily on instructors 11 for help rather than game manuals, the Civilopedia, online fan-sites, or (crucially) other gamers. Students rejected the tutorials and game manuals outright, yet also lacked a rich enough repertoire of game concepts and strategies to either interpret their failures in the game in meaningful ways or assist their peers in doing so. There were inadequate materials (i.e. tutorials, cheat sheets) for supporting game play within the classrooms studied, and thus a contradiction emerged between the students’ novice ability to play Civilization III and the lack of resources available for them to learn the game. Better resources for remediating students’ understanding of and facility with Civilization III as a tool might speed its appropriation and reduce students’ difficulty with the unit. Buying Into the Purpose of the Tool The first week or two of activity at the Media School were full of contradictions, marked by anxiety for the researcher and confusion for students as they negotiated the boundaries of the emergent activity system. The researchers were foreigners entering a close-knit school culture with an agenda of using Civilization III, a complex computer game, in order to help students learn world history. Many students at the Media School initially rejected this activity, much as they rejected school-based history education or most any externally-mandated activity that was not perceived to be in their immediate best interests. Even for those students who were gamers, it took a few days before 11 As the collaborating teachers did not understand the game, I became the primary resource for game assistance. 330 Civilization III was appropriated as a tool for gaming, let alone as a tool for learning history. In addition to feeling that the game was too complex and difficult, many students did not see how it could help them in school or real life. The shift in classroom culture toward the end of the second week in the Media class (case one) demonstrates the importance of understanding and “buying into” the purpose of the tool. After drawing the map of the world on the board, explaining where students’ in-game civilizations were on the map, and making links between the curriculum and the game explicit, students finally started to find value in the game. For many students, it appeared that part of this new revaluing of Civilization was discovering that it could be used as a tool for hypothetical history. Other students never quite made this connection. By late in the unit (case one), however, game play and historical inquiry had become enmeshed. Students began asking historical and geographical questions in the context of game play, using geography and history as tools for their game, and drawing inferences about social phenomena based on their play. Throughout the research conducted with the Media students (case one and two), these complex activity patterns in which historical inquiry and game play fed into one another became more and more prevalent. Nevertheless, it was not until very late in the formal school unit (case one), or perhaps even into the week of summer camp (case two), that students began appropriating Civilization III as a tool for studying world history. Even then, not every student appropriated the game for this purpose of learning about world history. Those students who did not see Civilization III as a useful tool for understanding history resisted, even rejected, its use. For example, students rejected classroom discussions, debriefings, and using log sheets. In the subsequent summer camp 331 (case two), the demands of the presentation drove students toward reflecting on and learning from their play activities; however, the game still competed with the presentation activity over students’ attention. In Wertsch’s (1998) work, he describes how one cannot assume that just because an individual uses a tool that they have appropriated it. He writes, “Cultural tools are not always facilitators of mediated action, and agents do not invariably accept and use them; rather, an agent’s stance toward a mediational means is characterized by resistance or even outright rejection” (p. 144). Given the game’s steep learning curve and the level of commitment it therefore exacts from those just learning how to play it, it is not surprising that some students resisted it outright, either playing it only for pleasure or completely withdrawing from the activity. Moreover, the broader context of the game unit was one in which history itself was not taught, not included in the examinations, and therefore framed as a topic of little value, particularly in terms of graduating from school. Thus, there was an implicit contradiction between investment in learning to play the game to (eventually) learn something about history and the broader curricular goals within the school. This, in part, caused a tension between the students’ goals and the goals of the instructor and researchers. The purpose of the instructor’s just-in-time lectures and discussions was to resolve this contradiction by creating opportunities for learning within the context of game play. In the YWCA case (case three), Civilization III more easily fit into the encompassing activity systems and students showed much less resistance to appropriating it.,12 not just as a tool for entertainment but, more critically, as a tool for learning. That this same group showed less trouble appropriating how to use the tool seems no 12 Comparing the academic achievement of students in these two groups would be difficult. I believe that they read at similar reading levels; both groups could read most of the words in Civilization but stumbled over bigger words. Students in the YWCA class had stronger identities as students, however. 332 coincidence. As Wertsch (1998) might suggest, being able to use the tool and buying into its purposes seem to go hand in hand. While students still struggled at times with the game mechanics or understanding the causes of their failure, they did not resist the encompassing activity system or the primary purpose of playing the game as a way to learn world history. Because the camp was a computer enrichment camp, there was no contradiction for students between the large investment that learning to play the game required and the broader program purpose. Still, there were contradictions between the students’ goals and the instructors’ goals with the former focused on learning to play the game and the latter pushing students to use the game as a way to learn about history. For example, many of the questions students asked were about how to play the game, as opposed to questions about history. On the one hand, the curricular demands and students’ expectations of an after-school enrichment camp were less than those of the Media students (cases one and two), and therefore the contradiction was less powerful in driving activity. On the other hand, students still resisted guided game play, discussion, or reflection activities, as evidenced when one students shouted, “Can’t we just play the game?” As in the Media case (cases one and two), this contradiction was partially diminished by the instructor creating opportunities for learning in the context of game play through just-in-time lectures and discussions. Making the Tool Your Own Building on the work of de Certeau (1984), Wertsch argues that appropriation of a tool is a productive act in that users of tools are always remaking them by repurposing them for their own use. For these students in these cases, appropriating Civilization III also meant making it their own, but it was not until a few days into the instruction that 333 students began developing their own goals within the game and, in so doing, repurposing and fully appropriating the tool. Students developed unique goals and reasons for playing Civilization III that shaped the practices that they engaged in and the understandings that emerged from them. In the Media School (case one), with the exception of few students who were already strategy game players, the students were initially uninterested in playing Civilization III. Despite the intuitive appeal of playing a popular commercial computer game as the basis for a unit, students were not engaged in the activities and even less successful in navigating its problem space. It was not until the students mastered the controls and basic game concepts, and then developed their own specific goals related to the game play13 that they became engaged in play. Students became engaged in the game once they established their own particularized goals within the game space, thereby repurposing the tool in a myriad of distinct ways. Within all three cases, engagement emerges as a process of goal formation and adoption, whereby students learned to find goals in the game playing experience that were worth pursuing. Different students gravitated toward different affordances of the tool, capacities that gave them a “way in” or “hook” and therefore made them “sticky.” For some of the more advanced students, the most engaging part of the game was that it allowed them to replay history, to play-out historical hypotheticals, such as: “Why did the Europeans colonize the Americas as opposed to the Chinese, Incans, or Iroquois colonizing the Americas?” Other students became engaged in the game as a tool for exploring geography. One student simply enjoyed building her civilization and nurturing and protecting as one might a pet, becoming peeved when other civilizations threatened it 13 In addition to an understanding of how the game could help them learn world history. 334 and engaging in long, contested battles over strategic territories. Two others who also took great pride in their civilizations had similar goals of nurturing their people. Other seemed more engaged in the social aspects of the activity, describing their goals as, for example, “Keeping up with Dwayne,” and “playing with my friends.” Some students, as they became more adept at the game, found themselves interested in it as a system and tested various strategies. Still others were primarily engaged by the competitive nature of the game (and seemed to be somewhat agnostic of content) and chose various win conditions for themselves as goals (e.g., to be the strongest civilization on the globe, to make it to the modern era, etc.). How students repurposed the game and for what end goal varied not only across students but also over time and with social interaction. Students’ goals continuously evolved while playing Civilization III. These goals were not simply a matter of studentgame interactions; rather, they developed in relation to student-student practices and teacher-student practices as well. As such, they should be understood as socially situated phenomena. For example, as one group of students played Civilization III and started to understand its underlying logic, they began using the game as a simulation to test how the game system worked and explore differences between the impact of geography on old world and new world civilizations. This work was wholly collaborative and its fruits were a joint product of each student’s work. When the game was an effective learning tool, the practices of playing Civilization III and learning world history became entwined. The following section explores in greater depth the nature of the activities that arose when Civilization III was brought into the three learning environments, developing assertions about common 335 practices across them and the necessity of understanding game play as a sociallymediated phenomena. Game Play as Social Practice Game play needs to be studied and understood as a social phenomenon rather than a purely human-computer interaction. In all three cases, the game Civilization III was only one component of the emergent activity; classroom norms and cultures, students’ intentions, and communal participant structures were equally if not more important in shaping how the activities unfolded. Students appropriated Civilization III or resisted its appropriation not as individuals, but as members of social networks that were activated through several factors, including individuals’ identities and the affordances of the game. As students decided to participate, withdraw, or reshape the activity to meet their goals, the social construction of the game also changed in dynamic relation with the game affordances. One might expect that local cultures would affect how game play transpired, yet the activity systems that actually emerged were much more complex than I had anticipated. Mediating Cultural Norms At the Media School (case one), the individualistic classroom culture was intolerant of externally-mandated activities, and students rejected reading, discussion, or even gaming assignments that did not interest them. On the first day, most students ignored my introduction to the unit, and a third of the students decided not to participate.14 Students refused to take the pretest, to participate in group discussions, and, 14 Recall that the regular instructor of this group had warned that some of the students would refuse to participate if only to be “antagonistic.” 336 at times, to tell me even their names. Just a few days into the unit, several students were all kicked out off class for disruptive behavior while we discussed the readings, and those who did participate in the activity did so with reluctance and resistance. Participating in externally-mandated activities was not the cultural norm, and it was clear that, in this context, we would have to lower our expectations about the power of Civilization III to attract students’ attention and serve as an anchor for other activities. In contrast, at the YWCA, students flocked to the game immediately and after 20 minutes all of the students were engaged in game play even though the unit was not a mandated school activity. Throughout the case, students willingly shared information, answered questions, and even brought in outside resources, such as textbooks, into the classroom. One reason that these students’ more readily appropriated the game may have been because their participation in the camp was entirely voluntary, suggesting a greater commitment to the program and presumably a belief that the activity had relevance to their own lives. However, many of these students were enrolled in the program by their parents, and one could have just as easily predicted that students attending an after-school program on their free time would be less likely to participate in structured school-like activities, not more. In each case, the cultural norms of the given context mediated how students played the game. In the Media School (case one), students showed few inhibitions in their game play. They used dominant, even aggressive, strategies. Their goals were to rule the world, conquer other civilizations, declare war on weaker civilizations, or even eradicate entire civilizations of people. Media students were not at all apologetic for these goals and even discussed them in terms of historical precedent, using American imperialism as 337 justification for their activities or deliberately trying to change the course of history to advantage historically disadvantaged peoples. Consistent with the more “middle class” style of interaction, the YWCA students were generally less combative. Students adopted goals such as protecting their people, surviving to 2000, or discovering a new world. Females dominated the game talk in the room, and the game at times became a mechanism for negotiating social relationships. Students in each case oriented to the game in different ways, and this orientation was mediated by the intersection of personal goals, game affordances, and social relations. Mediating Social Structures Even though Civilization III is a single-player game, few students actually played the game in solitude. In all three cases, students followed one other’s games closely. In the YWCA setting (case three), most students devised meta-games – activities that spanned across different games, tying together their activity. By the end of the Media school unit (case one), most students in class were intimately familiar with one other student’s game and at least casually familiar with two or three others. Students would examine particularly successful (or unsuccessful) games of their peers, looking for information on how colonization was unfolding and what this might mean for their own civilization. The affect of such sharing was, at times, dramatic. Players, for example, sometimes completely restarted their games after seeing how a peer’s game was going, deciding to switch civilizations for better access to resources or strategic geographic locations or wanting to try someone else’s strategy. One group of three students in the Media school setting is an interesting case in point: Tony, Jason, and Chris, all of whom sat next to one another, played as the Iroquois. 338 Across all three games, students focused primarily on building a civil infrastructure and exploring their continents for resources. In part, this activity was shaped by the particular challenges to playing as a North American civilization: fewer opportunities for trading technologies, resources, or goods. However, their game play activity was equally shaped by their own individual goals and the joint collaboration taking place. Chris and Tony both reported being “interested in geography” and hence spent significant time exploring their continents. Jason was more interested in mastering the game system itself and therefore spent much of his time calculating the relative strengths and weaknesses of geographic areas and approaches to expanding his civilization. While these individual goals gave shape and direction to each student’s play, their collaboration with one another likewise played a significant defining role. All three students pooled their knowledge about the geography of North and South America and experiences within the game, allowing each to “learn lessons” from the others as when Tony learned from Chris that he could meet other native tribes and profitably fold them into his civilization. This strategic knowledge flowed across the group in the form of colonial imperialist rhetoric, entailing a particular partiality towards certain elements of the game (i.e. power) over others (i.e. humanity) and, therefore, a set of some means and ends over other alternatives. Other students in the same classroom (i.e. Dan and Shirley) engaged in discourse designed to display social solidarity rather than share knowledge or strategies per se. Though they might play together in casual ways, monitoring one another’s games and sharing general tips and strategies, such pairings typically engaged in a kind of “parallel play” making their games a topic for talk whose underlying function is not to advise but 339 to socialize. Partly, this might be due to students confronting very different challenges within their games, although in such interactions there was little evidence to suggest that they were interested in learning from one another per se. Instead, such talk was more social in nature, designed to maintain social contact. Students’ activities also clustered around observation of each other’s game play. In some more or less stable social groups in the classrooms, clear leaders emerged. At the Media school and camp (cases one and two), one group of mostly boys clustered together, informally sharing game experiences, with Dwayne clearly at the center of this group and others sitting beside him watching him play. Another student frequently commented that his primary goal was to “keep up with Dwayne.” When Dwayne changed his goals, others followed: When Dwayne started trading luxuries, Bill wanted to trade luxuries; when Dwayne played as the Bantu, Bill wanted to play as the Bantu. In this same context, one student (Kent) who, perhaps more than any of the others, enjoyed watching others’ activities, frequently served as a conduit between groups, sharing information and helping the other students. In fact, the student was such an effective means of spreading information and strategies throughout the class that, within a week or two, both researchers began seeding him with information to share with other students who needed help. There was a strong positive relationship between belonging to an informal game playing group and understanding how to play the game: Across both cases, those students who learned to play the game most successfully were a part of informal game playing group within the classroom. Students in such groups used the time in-between turns to watch others play, learning information about how to play the game (e.g., building roads 340 with workers), specific strategies (e.g., using horsemen to scout territory and eliminate threats from hostile tribes), and general strategies (e.g., colonizing South America for luxuries) from other students. In the YWCA case, the three students who profited the most from the game were those who played socially, calling out to other students and getting out of their chairs to observe other students’ games while they waited between turns in their own. Students who were lost, still struggling with the most basic game functions weeks into the unit, were those who sat alone and did not talk to many other students. Perhaps the strongest example of an emergent game affinity group that fostered intellectually productive play was in the Media case where Chris, Tony, Jason and Norman learned from Dan’s experience being overrun by the Celts. Students in this group repeatedly examined each other’s games, noting the consequences of others’ actions in order to circumvent failure in their own. Tony in particular learned from other games quite readily, drawing lessons on the necessity of exploring continents, capitalizing on natural resources, and trading technologies from the outcomes of other people’s actions, not his own. Several taken-as-shared meanings emerged about the importance of trading with other civilizations or strategies for meeting other civilizations. These shared understandings included the importance of horses in colonization, the pitfalls of being isolated in the Americas and unable to trade technologies with other civilizations and the importance of colonization in a civilization’s growth and evolution. Competitive Groups Interestingly, the most competitive group in these cases may have been the group of middle school girls – Vicky, Miranda, Sandy, Amy – who were all interlocked in 341 competitions to meet other civilizations, make friends, and make it to the year 2002. Miranda was both physically and socially the center of this competition. She acted as the communication hub, with the other girls either asking her about others or reporting to her their progress. The exact rules of this competition evolved over the course of the term. Initially, Amy, Miranda and Vicky played collaboratively, adopting the goal of meeting as many civilizations as possible. When the girls got their own computers, each girl retained this goal of befriending as many other civilizations as possible, which became the basis for the initial competition. This competition evolved into a race to see who could make it to the modern era. When it became apparent that Miranda was not going to make it to the modern era, she opted out of this competition, revising her goals to “making her people happy.” Consistent with theories of girls’ competitive play (See Laurel 2002), these girls adopted much more subtle forms of competitive play than the boys. Whereas Bill explicitly wanted to “play like Dwayne,” Miranda, Amy, Sandy, and Vicky constantly formulated and then reformulated their goals as a part of the social game play process. Engagement, Gameplay, and Formal Learning Environments One of the intuitive appeals of using games in formal learning environments is the hope that they will engage learners, motivating them to do academic activities through using fantasy context, curiosity, challenge, and choice (or agency) (Cordova & Lepper, 1996). In these cases, motivation was a complex phenomenon, perhaps better understood as a process of developing and realizing goals than simply one of motivation. Each student in these cases came to the unit with distinct motivations, whether it be to preserve 342 an identity in the face of authority or socialize with peers. Some students were never engaged by the game and rejected Civilization III as both a tool for gaming and a tool for learning. How each student appropriated Civilization III was mediated both by personal goals and by encompassing social contexts. Students’ engagement in the game could be described in a variety of ways, ranging from desire for transgressive play to desire to socialize with peers. When examined in social contexts, these motivations map closely to Bartle’s (1996) model of player types, highlighting the diversity of ways that Civilization III engaged players and suggesting that perhaps motivation is better conceptualized as a series of goals rather than as a single descriptive factor. Most importantly for educators, how students appropriated Civilization III as a means for their own ends within the overarching classroom activity had a profound impact on the kinds of practices and learning that emerged in this unit. Replaying History Civilization III provided students resistant to authority or to studying world history pathways into domain understanding. For example, Dwayne (cases one and two) enjoyed playing as civilizations that he believed were oppressed, using his knowledge of geography, history, and military strategy to rewrite history. First, he played as the Japanese trying to colonize China; later, it was the Bantu trying to colonize South America. This game play focus – trying to reverse history – caused Dwayne to ask historical hypotheticals in support of his game play. Under what circumstances might a pan-African civilization thrive? What strategic resources would need to be harnessed to support such a civilization? How did particular geographical features (i.e. the Sahara desert) affect the History of Africa? 343 Dan also played the game in order to “reverse history.” Dan was completely disengaged and uninterested in playing Civilization III until day five when he learned that, not only could he play as the Iroquois, but he could also potentially reverse history by conquering Europe instead of the other way around. Dan’s focus was almost exclusively on preparing the Iroquois to defend themselves against the impending invaders; on several occasions, Dan was asked what the game was about and he answered, “overthrowing the colonial forces.” He played the game purely as a military struggle between the Iroquois and the Europeans, focusing his efforts on building warriors and spearmen rather than a robust civilization that might rival the European colonizers along several axes. In the post-interviews, Dan reported that he learned very little about “what actually happened” and instead, learned about specific geographical regions, negotiating with other civilizations, and strategies for defending his cities. It is ironic that Dan walks out with a nascent understanding of important causal factors in “what actually happened” in history believing he learned little, presumably because it was not information in the recognizable form of descriptions, dates, and facts. For these two students, a critical component of the game playing experience was the opportunity for what Zimmerman and Salen (2003) call transgressive play. For them the appeal of Civilization III was largely how the game could be used as a tool for playing through fantasies of alternative histories where traditional power structures are challenged and historical outcomes are overturned. Interestingly, this hypothetical study of history is increasingly popular among historians as a way of developing deep understandings of historical phenomena (cf. Cowley, 1999). Exploring Alternative Histories 344 Tony (case one and two) reported being interested in social studies and seemed to enjoy reading the game off of history and history off of the game perhaps more than any other student in these case studies. By the end of the camp, Tony emerged as a leader in the class, making several key observations about history and geography based on his game play, including observations on the role of luxuries in shaping history and how these luxuries (a product of geography) affected economics and politics. In fact, it was connections among history, geography, and the game that first attracted Tony to Civilization III. His favorite parts were exploring the globe, studying geography and meeting other civilizations. Tony found it particularly interesting to examine how and why different civilizations evolved in relation to their geographical location. As such, he was not primarily motivated by a goal of “overturning history”; rather, he played as the Iroquois primarily because he wanted to start with the geography of North America and secondarily because he liked studying Native American civilizations. Tony frequently read the game as an historical simulation and noted interesting phenomena that one would not expect. He found pleasure in playing as the Native Americans and seeing how his game unfolded compared to history, particularly how the game forced him to weigh considerations such as conquering other tribes or expand into new continents. He was curious about the underlying simulation properties and became fascinated with studying what patterns of civilization growth emerged, such as the stunted growth of the Aboriginal civilizations. Gradually Tony’ play became more and more historical-question driven as he explored the game world as a simulation of historical events, examining what occurred and why. 345 Chris was also interested in geography and played as a Native American tribe, but Chris eventually became interested in relations between geography and the evolution of civilizations much more explicitly. Chris spent several hours running experiments to examine how geography had an impact on the evolution of civilizations. Chris learned that Egypt’s geographic location made it grow quickly and quite wealthy, but it also made Eygpt a desirable region to occupy and left Egypt open to attacks. Chris shared these results during group discussions and included screenshots in the group presentation. Playing Civilization III piqued Chris’s interest in geography, and Chris found pleasure in using it as a tool for exploring the impact of geography on history. Whereas Tony and Chris read the game as a simulation, examining how the rule sets produced emergent action, Marvin approached the game as a much more literal representation of history. His play was mediated by his prior knowledge of ancient civilizations, particularly Rome. For Marvin, playing Civilization III was a chance to be one of the civilizations from his textbook and he used his textbook as a “cheat” for playing the game. Marvin believed that understanding causes of the fall of Rome would help him in the game, particularly as he wrestled with issues of imperial expansion and the defense of his territories against barbarian attacks. He used the text to predict how other civilizations might expand or where natural resources were located. Marvin wanted an even more accurate game, one that would let him try his hand at leading an accurately simulated, historically known civilization. Whenever he could, he reinterpreted the game to meet these needs, calculating the exact size of his army or imagining how his Roman legions were organized. Building a Civilization 346 For many students, including Jason and Miranda, building a civilization in and of itself was a primary motivator and the predominant game practice. In the YWCA class (case three), Miranda was at the center of a competitive group of girls. During the unit, she reported finding many aspects of Civilization III intriguing: meeting other civilizations, interacting with other leaders, seeing leaders’ clothing, and exploring the globe. Later in the game, Miranda became divested from this group and focused more on building a rich, powerful, and technologically advanced civilization, which meant attending to her infrastructure, trade, and management of natural resources. When asked to describe her favorite part of the game, Miranda said, “I liked to build the cities and change my cities to making people happy.” This response was not surprising given the consistent focus in her game play on just these activities, her frequent checks to see how big her cities were in actual numbers, and her boasting about her civilization to the researchers. Jason also derived satisfaction from building a civilization, which manifested itself in Jason’s concern with maximizing natural resources. He frequently started and restarted games because he was not satisfied with how he was using natural resources. For example, early in the term Jason struggled over control of the farmland, timber, and resources of Michigan; later, Jason planned his cities very meticulously, making sure that he was maximizing the amount of production from every city. More than any of the other students, Jason employed a very mathematical approach to the game, calculating in numbers the amount of resources he gathered from the land. Although all of the “builders” placed special emphasis on irrigating land, building roads, and developing 347 mines, Jason was unique in his frequent mathematical calculations and assessments of the most effective use of resources. Protecting your Civilization Andrea (MEDIA case) also was interested in building and conquering, although her play stemmed more from a territorial desire to protect her inhabitants than any outwardly aggressive stance toward dominating the globe. Andrea’s war mongering started early in the unit when civilizations moved into her territory to found cities. By Day 6, she could accurately claim, “I guess I’ve been fighting most of the time.” However, Andrea also ran her economy and civilization into the ground from the constant battling with civilizations. Yet, she took this all in stride, laughing at her misfortune and joking about her troubles. She seemed to take pride and pleasure in these battles, bragging to the researcher, “You’ve got that right. You don’t mess with me.” By days 10 and 11, Andrea took more interest in building her civilization, asking me for help understanding the game’s economic and cultural systems (and not just military). Vicky (case three), who started the unit playing with Miranda, had similar goals. In the post-interview she reported that she liked, “getting to build cities, make friends, and go to war.” During her play, Vicky showed a particularly strong interest in protecting her cities and her peoples. She placed multiple defenders in each city, built city walls for protection, and put barracks in. Rarely was Vicky attacked and, when she was, she defended her cities capably. In class, Vicky said that her goal was “to make people happy” by immediately providing “security for my people.” Beating the Game 348 Like Dan or Dwayne, Ricky was also interested in fighting and ruling the world, although he did not read his game off of history like they did and did not show any particular concern for protecting his people or making them happy. Ricky’s primary goal was to beat the game. On a micro level, Ricky struggled to fend off barbarians, build a civil infrastructure, and meet other civilizations. Much of his game play was about building the silk road so that he might trade with Europe. He frequently lost the game and had to start over. Ricky was frequently frustrated and struggled more than most other students with survival. Part of this may been that Ricky played as the Chinese, a civilization whose geopolitical position is somewhat disadvantaged unless the player understands the properties of the underlying simulation (or perhaps Asian history). Although the Chinese have strong natural borders, plentiful resources and fertile river valleys, they are exposed to barbarians in the North and isolated from other civilizations. Ricky’s game resulted in many emergent phenomena surprisingly similar to history, including the formation of natural borders similar to China’s, the barbarian ransacking of his capital in 600 AD, a silk road for trading luxuries, and thousands of years of development in relative isolation. Ricky found little solace in these emergent phenomena. By the last day of class when it was clear that Ricky was not going to win the game, he became increasingly interested in reading the manual to Grand Theft Auto III in class between turns and when teachers were attending to other students. Pulling out a Grand Theft Auto III manual in class allowed Ricky to not just kill time, but also display himself as a gamer before his peers. Civilization III as a Race 349 For many students, particularly Amy, the game was about trying to last as long as possible. Amy’s primary goal was to make it to the year 2002. This goal of making it to the present day arose from the group of girls (Amy, Sandy, Miranda, and Vicky) that had formed a competitive group at the YWCA site, and at one point or another each girl adopted this goal. Amy held on to it until the end, taking pride in the fact that her civilization made it the longest. She did not seem to care that she lacked a strong infrastructure, was not the most powerful civilization, had a largely unhappy citizenry, was behind in technology, or was clearly not going to win the game. She was not even particularly concerned when the Celts landed on her shores in Nova Scotia. For Amy, the game was all about making it to the present day. She even began disbanding troops because they took too long to control and were not in the service of her goals. The students took interest in Amy’s game and ran over to see her game when they learned that she had made it to the present day. While each student played the same Civilization III game, their actual activities were radically different. They adopted unique game goals and participated in very specific game practices. On the surface level, many students shared similar low-level goals, such as building a civilization or defeating an enemy, but these low-level goals stemmed from very different meta-goals and in very different game play experiences. While Jason closely examined the natural resources surrounding cities in order to maximize production or agriculture, Miranda closely monitored her people’s happiness, checking the number of content in each location, changing luxury rates and creating cultural structures. While Vicky was defensive, even downright protective, of her people, Dwayne concocted elaborate schemes to dominate global politics. These divergent cases 350 underscore that game play is an emergent phenomena, by which simple rules produce complex outcomes depending largely on the game player and her goals (Johnson, 2002). As Doug Church (2000) argues, authorship of a gaming experience is one part game designer and one part game player, and game play resides at the intersection of these systems. Social Play Bill, Kent, and Sandy all were very social players who did not have much success with the game and whose primary interest in the activity seemed to grow out of the social relationships that it fostered and helped maintain. All three students had difficulty learning the game and were frequently lost. For most of the unit, all three had goals directly related to another’s play (i.e. build a civilization like Dwayne’s, last longer than Miranda). Not until relatively late in the unit did they develop more interest in the game itself, as evidenced by their later questions about the underlying game system and its emergent properties. There was little evidence showing that any of these three students learned much about social studies or world history through the activities. Even by the end of the unit, these students were still confused about basic game concepts, where their civilizations were located, and how the game operated as a simulation. Bill’s game was mediated by his relationship with Dwayne. He only developed goals in the game after he sat next to Dwayne and saw what Dwayne built. He frequently checked in with Dwayne to see what he could learn about the game and used him as a way of seeing the possibility space of the game, developing goals and picking up strategies for achieving them. This is not to suggest that Bill was indifferent to the game: He liked properties such as conquering and building, and getting feedback about his 351 progress in the form of “building his own spot” (i.e. his own castle). However, for Bill game play was by and large a social activity. Kent was also a very social gamer. In the first several days of the unit, Kent rarely sat down, instead walking about the room observing games. He served as a conduit of information, learning from others’ play and spreading tips and strategies among them. Throughout the unit, Kent was aware of several other games and spent considerable time watching others play. Part of his reluctance to play may have been that the game was too difficult for him; Kent frequently needed help reading the text and had difficulty playing the game. Even at the end of the unit, he was still confused with the game, unable to lead a civilization into the Middle Ages and not really sure where his civilization was on an actual globe. Sandy was another player whose interest in the game appeared to be mostly social. Sandy also had difficulty learning and understanding the game, and it was not until relatively late in the unit that she started asking for help understanding the basic game systems. Most of Sandy’s talk involved announcing her successes to Miranda or Vicky or asking how they were doing (i.e. what year were they in, whether or not they had discovered a given technology, how many friends they had in the game). Sandy was very competitive with other students and seemed to have a strong desire to show that she could fit into their social circles. By the last days of the unit, she was starting to take a more active interest in the game itself, even noticing that leaders’ attire changed as they entered new eras. This knowledge became a focal point for discussion and quickly spread across the room. Understanding Motivation 352 In these cases, goal formation or motivation were socially mediated processes. At one point or another, nearly every student was inspired by someone else’s game, coopting the goals, strategies, and practices of other players in order to win the game. In the case of the YWCA girls (case three), a fairly close-knit game-playing group emerged, in which the girls were competing with one another along multiple axes at any given time. It was interesting to watch how the group would form around one goal, such as making it to the present day, and then how students would peel away from the group and articulate other goals, such as meeting other civilizations, making friends, making their people happy, or “getting rich.” There was a competitive element to this talk, and girls would frequently revise goals when they saw another girl with similar goals. A classic example of this occurred when Sandy asked the other girls a series of questions with competitive undertones (i.e. What year are you in? How many cities do you have? How many friends do you have?). This exercise can be thought of as a process of querying the group until she finally found an axis by which she was achieving relative success. For these students, motivation was a complex phenomenon, occurring at the intersection of personal goals and fantasies, the possibility space of Civilization III as a simulation, a desire to learn world history through the game, and at times, the social pressure to complete the presentation for the other classes. This multi-dimensional view of motivation closely resembles Cordova and Lepper’s (1996) proposed framework of fantasy (or context), control, challenge, and curiosity. However, the social situatedness of this activity – the way that the social context of the school and the camp played a role in students’ motivation and the way that students’ goals shifted and changed throughout the activity in response to the context – suggests that framing students’ practice not as 353 motivation, but as goal-driven activity may be fruitful. For these students, Civilization III was an endogenous historical game; studying and replaying history was part and parcel of the fun. These cases also suggest that no one type of game or game play activity is going to appeal to all players. Richard Bartle (1996) describes how MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) players come to game experiences with wildly different goals, differentiating among socializers, achievers, explorers, and player-killers (or direct competitors). Raph Koster (2001) ties this notion to single player games, suggesting that player killers are frequently drawn to competitive first person shooters (e.g. Quake), while explorers might more likely take to first-person stealth games (e.g. Thief). I would extend this argument further, arguing that the case studies examined here demonstrate that popular games are playable via many different play styles, not just a few. Civilization III held these students’ attention, in part, by being playable several different ways, making the game play experience customizable. Jason might begin by wanting to build a civilization and win the game, but then eventually become more interested in maximizing resources. For Tony and Chris, the game eventually became a tool for simulating ideas – mostly toward the goal of becoming more skilled game players but also, in part, to devise and test theories about history. The ways that gamers customize their experiences through personal goalsetting, means-seeking, and novel problems-solving is not entirely idiosyncratic but does suggest that taxonomies that only include one or two dimensions or axes along which players might be typed are too simplistic to capture the range of ways that students might become engaged in learning through game play. In the next two sections, I turn to the ways in which Civilization III facilitated or impeded learning world history, then to the 354 constellation of affordances and constraints of the game that appear to contribute to this pattern. Learning Through Gameplay Success in Civilization III demanded that students master some basic facts, such as who the Babylonians were and where they originated from, as well as understanding relationships among geographical, historical, and economic systems. Playing Civilization III and talking about their games on even on the most basic level meant that students were introduced to new terms and concepts. As Tony commented, students were “forced” to master some basic concepts for even rudimentary success in the game. For example, if a student did not know who rivaling civilizations were or where they came from, it was often difficult to survive even a few thousand years. For those students who were successful in game play, knowledge of history and geography became tools that players used to achieve game goals. As students failed in their games (which they often did), they were forced to go back, analyze their games, and see where they went wrong. This debugging-of-strategy process involved constructing an explanation of what went wrong (i.e. losing a war due to a weak economy) and then devising strategies to remediate it the second time around. Analyzing game failure was difficult for students, and the teacher’s role was frequently to help students interpret why they failed and to make analogies between their games and real history as a way of understanding game play. The few students who did become adept at analyzing games and identifying patterns across traditional disciplinary boundaries began using Civilization III as a simulation tool for examining broader questions, such as what is the 355 role of geography in influencing the development of civilizations. Here, distinctions between learning the game system and learning world history broke down as students used the tool and used interpretations of history reciprocally. Background Knowledge For the majority of students in these cases, the basic terms and concepts employed in Civilization III were new. A few students simply learned to read or pronounce these terms; others learned their rudimentary definitions and could point to an example but could do little more than that. Still other started to draw connections between game systems and historical systems, and still others developed genuinely robust understandings for what each meant. In one somewhat unanticipated outcome, students reported learning many geographical facts, such as where Egypt, Nova Scotia, or Greenland are on a global map. Some of these labels were names that I introduced, as I tried to give students basic geographical terms as tools for talking about each other’s games. Who the Celts were and where they came from was a common question for students playing in the North America. Egyptian players had to deal with the Babylonians and Greeks. Asian and European players frequently asked about the barbarians. Because political geography is not explicitly covered in the game, we did not assess students’ knowledge of it. Closer examination of students’ pre and post-knowledge of political geography would likely be useful for teasing out what understandings emerged through game play. Taken-as-Shared Meanings Several taken as shared meanings arose in the Media case, as students played their games and asked one another for advice, examined the consequences of decisions, and 356 predicted how events from one game might relate to the unfolding of others. In the Media case, several students came to see their long term survival depended on colonizing the new world for resources. This pattern was influenced by several factors, including a scarcity of resources for those who were playing in the old world, an awareness of the relatively unsettled lands in the America, and perhaps a mobilization of historical understandings of the Americas in colonial European history. Perhaps surprisingly, not one student questioned the importance of colonizing the Americas, and most every student who survived beyond 1000 AD planned to colonize the Americas in order to gain resources or land to accommodate their growing population. The lack of horses in the Americas and the importance of horses in military history was a second taken as shared meaning to emerge across the group. Both just-in-time lectures and lessons from students’ game play emphasized the military importance of horses, as students playing in the Americas went to great lengths to gain a supply of horse. These two taken as shared understandings were mutually reinforced from several angles, including classroom discussions, just-in-time lectures, and experiences in game play. Two more key understandings emerged among students playing in the Americas. The first was that American tribes could attempt to pre-empt European settlement of the Americas by reaching the old world first and making contact with several civilizations, allowing them to trade technologies and gain a supply of horses. At first, most students playing in the Americas simply wanted to build a civilization, particularly a defense to hold off colonizers (who most students assumed would be Europeans). Once the Celts landed on the shores of Nova Scotia in Dan’s game, students realized that they would need to gain technologies and trade for horses if they hoped to survive. As a result, 357 students realized that they could reach other continents by “reverse engineering” either the Native American migrations across the Bering Strait or Viking voyages across the North Atlantic (along Greenland). Students playing as the Iroquois paid close attention to each others’ games as they played out these game experiments (and this information did not flow to Kent, who was playing as the Egyptians and not attending to other games by late in the week). Eventually, they learned that such voyages were hypothetically possible, but that gaining horses or trading technologies alone were not enough to compete with the Europeans. A second taken as shared understanding was colonial rhetoric as a means of justifying colonial expansion in South America. As students wrestled with how to treat the Polynesians, an argument emerged for liberating the Polynesians from their backward way of life: their lives would improve as a result of being Iroquois. Students took a perverse joy in the thought of Native American tribes conquering other civilizations and justifying it as benevolent. Central to this understanding was students’ reflexive awareness of what they were doing and saying. Tony joked and shared in this talk, although eventually he and Jason both tried to spare the Polynesians in order to trade with them. Both had also learned that trading with other civilizations was a critical factor in obtaining technologies, gaining resources and the eventual colonization of the Americas. Limitations in Facilitating Conceptual Understandings Civilization III was effective for introducing students to related geographic and historical concepts but not as good at facilitating deep conceptual understandings of them. Evidence of this pattern abounded; throughout the units and in post-interviews, researchers would ask students what particular concepts meant (e.g., monarchy); most 358 students were able to do little more than describe its basic features, such as “it is a type of government.” Vicky is a prime example of this. In the post interviews, she could recall that “despotism” was a kind of government and that she had started her game with it but wouldn’t want to live in one. She did, however, know that “monarchy” was another form of government and accurately described how it involved organized religion. Yet, her understanding was hybridized and she mistook “monarchy” to be a church-state. This kind of spotty familiarity with some game concepts (but not others) was common: though they had nascent understandings of some game terms, particularly of those aspects related to their game success or failure, few grasped such concepts with any depth. Tony recalled very specifically that Sun Tzu’s Art of War helped his army by improving his fighting; other important technologies, including iron and bronze working, meant little to him. Marvin, who read the game as an historical simulation and spent a lot of time reading the Civilopedia, recalled a number of facts from the game, including that writing appeared before the birth of Christ. That students did not develop robust understandings of these concepts should be somewhat obvious. The exact nature of most of these concepts (e.g., monarchy) are less important in the game than what you can do with them. In other words, students do not need to know what monarchy was or have any sense of what the specific socio-political arrangements were that we have come to label as monarchy. They do need to know monarchy’s effects on their civilization (i.e. decreased corruption, increased trade capacity). In part, this is because most concepts represent new game capacities, and are introduced with very little historical explanation. The Civilopedia describes these terms, 359 but ultimately they are cleaved from the historical referents from which they arose (See Figure 7.1). This explanation is a generally accepted definition, basically a simplified encyclopedia entry and not far from a standard middle school textbook definition. A few words, such as sanction, alleviate, or ameliorate were difficult for these students to comprehend. Teacher, students’ games, Civilopedia vs Maps, historical texts, primary documents Students vs Adults / Organizers Shared Trust; NonSchool norms vs Constructive Play, School norms Increased social status vs. Understanding social studies Civilization III vs. Social Studies Phenomema Friendly Factions vs Collaborative Communities of Inquiry Individualist, Competitive vs Collaborative Inquiry Figure 7-1 Contradictions that emerged in Media Case A second factor worth mentioning is the sheer number of concepts that players must have at least some cursory understanding of in order to understand the game. The simulation includes six governments (anarchy, despotism, monarchy, communism, 360 republic and democracy), 76 civilization improvements ranging from social orders (e.g. feudalism) to types of religious systems (e.g. theology, monotheism, polytheism) to technological advancements (e.g. metallurgy, atomic theory), and 34 “wonders of the world” (specific institutions, structures, or events based on key historical events such as The Pyramids, Magellan’s Voyage, or the Cure for Cancer). The list goes on. There are 29 city improvements, 64 different military units (each with 5 variables), 13 types of terrain (each with 11 different possible ways of affecting game processes such as food bonuses, movement bonuses, etc.), and 22 types of natural resources (each of which might affect 3 game variables and many of which require discovering a technology). This means that the problem space includes 233 different game concepts, many of which have multiple levels and interact in complex ways. Even allowing for the fact that some of these terms were already familiar to students, this means that, in order to successfully play the game, students would have to confront (and arguably master) 233 concepts all of which interact as variables and affect game play. Though students demonstrated little more than a cursory (and at times problematic) understanding of some of these concepts, the sheer fact that each was able to negotiate some semi-successful path through the game’s problem space indicates that, at least in terms of what the concepts are good for, students did gain facility with some significant subset of the conceptual knowledge the game requires. Overwhelmingly, the most common student practice in each setting was asking a teacher or researcher about game concepts. In one twenty to thirty minute period in the Media summer case (case two), I was asked about: theology, steam power, free artistry, coastal fortresses, mutual protection pacts, wealth, the corporation, embargoes, 361 astronomy, refining, espionage, and cavalry, as well as if threatening other civilizations had an impact on diplomacy, and what happened when the game ran out of names for new cities. These questions ranged from simples queries about terms (e.g., What is the Colossus?) or geographical facts (e.g., Is there oil in Greenland?) to functional questions (e.g., What are the effects of democracy?) to procedural questions (e.g., How do I improve trade?) to questions about the game as a simulation (e.g., Does the game include World War I?). In the Media case (case one) in particular, the teachers and I were encouraged by the sheer volume of sincere questions that students posed – a stark contrast to their typical behavior in school. Very rarely, however, did students ask “why” questions about history (with a notable exception being Marvin, who brought his book to class to find out why the Roman Empire fell). More often, I would introduce historical narratives, such as the colonization of the Americas or the causes of World War I, as tools providing insights into their games. These situations allowed me to interject new understandings or information into the activity system. In combination with answering the volume of question the students posed, however, these activities placed great demands on my time. Finding ways to embed more of this information into students’ artifacts, environment, and activities – for example, rewriting the Civilopedia, creating job aids, or doing more formal question asking and answering activities — would be advantageous. Failure Fosters Conceptual Learning Much of this impetus for learning game concepts came through failure. Failure to generate trade, balance budgets, or perhaps most importantly, anticipate an opponent’s move forced many students to confront gaps or flaws in their current understandings. As 362 Tony explained, “Playing the game forces you to learn about the material. It actually forces you to learn about other civilizations in order to survive.”15 For Tony, this meant understanding who the Celts were, where they came from, what resources they were likely to have, and how he might exploit his natural resources in North America in order to compete. Students across both cases confronted similar challenges. Recall Andrea’s struggles to fend off the Greeks and subsequent exploration to find out who the Greeks were and where they originated, or Jason’s exploration of Greenland, or Ricky’s hunting Mongolian barbarians, or Dwayne’s sailing for Japan, or Bill’s exploring Africa for resources, or Kent asking Dwayne about Rome, or Marvin’s exploration of Europe to anticipate where other rival civilizations originated. Learning through game play occurred through a process of identifying problems, analyzing their causes, marshalling resources to bring to bear on the problem, implementing solutions, examining the consequences of those solutions, and then trying new strategies. One of the clearest patterns among students was a general movement away from simple, one variable solutions to problems (i.e. create entertainers to make citizens happy) that require more complex solutions that incorporated several variables. Learning occurred through cycles of problem identification, developing causal interpretations of events (such as what caused a student to lose a game), brainstorming possible solutions (possibly drawing from knowledge of history or geography), implementing solutions, examining results, and repeating. Solutions to these problems became more and more complex as students started perceiving domestic happiness issues as the result of more Bill made a similar comment: “When barbarians took over my cities I learned how to defend myself with archers and spearmen. (It made me more involved) because I knew how to rectify the situation, make my failures a success, learn from my mistakes 15 363 and more factors (available luxuries, entertainment, luxuries, religion, and economics). The more that students played the more that they saw these problems as resulting from several inter-related forces. Long-term success in the game demanded that students examine the causes of game events as determined by several game systems and devise solutions that leveraged the affordances of each game system. Restated, students realized that they could not get far addressing problems one at a time, but instead needed to design elegant solutions that addressed multiple needs. B y the end of the Media camp, students all agreed that a major understanding to emerge was that “you can’t separate geography from economics from politics.” As Chris said, Civilization III prompted these students to see how different systems fit together. There was a direct connection between students’ learning and participation in what I have called recursive play, that is, play where the student analyzes her game play, develops new strategies, and evaluates their effectiveness. Students who tried numerous strategies developed systemic level understandings more often than those students who simply played through their games uncritically, or who did not go back and try new strategies. Trying multiple strategies forced them to commit to hypotheses about the game system and then experience the consequence of decisions. Recursive play seemed to be a pre-condition to systemic-level game understandings, which then in turn, frequently led to connections between world history and their game play. Playing Prompt Questions about Geography and History Playing Civilization prompted students to ask questions about geography and history. Asking questions about game concepts was one of the most prevalent student practices across all three cases. Some of these questions were relatively simple and 364 straightforward, such as when a student asked about particular game concepts such as frigates, invention, astronomy, or leaders, or how to achieve certain goals (what technologies do I need to build galleys or submarines?). The range, complexity, and shear number of these questions impressed teachers as in the Media case, where students rarely asked questions and were usually goaded into participating in class. Students who could not have cared less about despotism or monarchy were asking about them with urgency. These concepts became tools for game play and the contexts of their use affected how students’ understandings of them developed. Shifting a concept such as astronomy from a basic discovery to a tool for game play situates the learner to consider the effects of the discovery on the evolution of civilizations rather than just its basic meaning. Not surprisingly, several students could discuss the consequences of these advancements on the development of their civilizations. Vicky discussed how shifting from a despotism to monarchy made her people happier and increased their productivity. Dramatically, a week later, Tony recalled exact figures of how his civilization and its economy expanded under democracy. As previously discussed, students recalled much less information about these specific advancements, although in reasoning through tasks in the post-interviews, students did use a number of concepts, as when Chris recalled that currency was a discovery that enabled him to make marketplaces, which helped his economy. Game play fostered a number of interesting questions about geography and history, as when Jason asked if there was oil in Greenland, Tony asked about what Madagascar was and who populated it, when Ricky asked about the barbarians, when Kent asked if the game had World War I, or Marvin asked what the borders of the Roman 365 Empire were during different portions of its history. In these instances, semiotic chains arose where students observed a property of the game system, related it to what they already knew or did not know, and then asked questions about how this would impact their games. These questions ranged from the factual (is there oil in Greenland?) to systemic (does the game have World War I?). They ranged from directly applicable to the game (what civilizations had horses?) to less directly related to game goals (who populated Madagascar and why?). The way that playing Civilization III engendered question-asking was perhaps the most pleasant pedagogical surprise of the unit; teachers and researchers alike agreed that the moment that this group of students were asking these kinds of questions, the unit was a success. World History as a Tool for Problem-Solving Knowing what natural and strategic resources were available was a common thread for most students, and world history served as a tool for anticipating what resources were likely to be valuable. For Marvin, failures were about his misunderstandings of history. He consulted his history texts, using them as a “cheat” for understanding the game, particularly for where natural resources were located and how civilizations grow and evolve. Other examples included Jason’s goal to take Alaska and his questioning if there was oil in Greenland due to its similar latitude. In the Media class (case one), the lack of horses in North America emerged as a taken-as-shared meaning late in the unit, and several students organized their game play around securing a supply of horses. The quest for resources turned many students to examining South America, a continent that few students knew much about. In response, several students spent days mapping South America and an interplay emerged between the joy of exploring a new 366 world and learning what resources might be available in South America. Tony reported that how geography and natural resources affected his civilization was the most important thing he learned in the unit, stating, “I always knew that certain locations helped certain people but with this (game) I have a better understanding of it.” Failures in problem-solving – most notably cities in disarray, barbarian attacks, poorly balanced economies, and ineffective uses of natural resources – caused students to restart their games periodically. Early in the game, these failures were routine and predictable but caused a lot of frustration. Students were not prepared for this kind of failure and frustrations ran very high. At this point, most students had not established any goals, did not understand the game controls, and frequently perceived their failures as the result of bad game design rather than as a consequence of their own actions. Consistent with classic attribution theory (Bandura 1976; Stipek, 1993; Weiner, 1986), many students perceived the causes of failure as outside of themselves and became quite bitter by failure. When a student such as Bill felt that failure was not the game being “unfair” but reacting to one of his decisions and he could think of a possible solution, he kept playing. Future implementations would profit from anticipating these problems and offering more tools such as learning aids to support students’ play. Later in the units, I began sharing gaming heuristics that most advanced civilization players discover the hard way (e.g. putting a temple in every city over population size four to avoid civil unrest), and, as I began to better understand the social dynamics of each context, I started encouraging students to help one another (e.g., asking Marvin to help Jordan since Marvin had a solid grasp of game basics). Fostering more reciprocal teaching is another possibility for scaffolding students’ work while also promoting reflection. 367 Later in the unit, causes of students’ failure became more complex and we used the game as a context for discussing variables contributing to a civilization’s growth or decline. Students readily recapped game events and developed theories about why their civilization collapsed, such as a poor defense or economy. At times they still called on me to help diagnose their game problems, which entailed analyzing the health of their civilization and frequently interpreting global geo-political dynamics. Helping students construct narratives – for example, when I explained what was happening when the Celts colonized North America, as happened in numerous games – became one of my primary functions. Devising strategies, such as generating trade or gaining technologies by finding trade routes to other civilizations, brought knowledge of geography or history as a tool for game play. Unfortunately, this approach puts much of the onus of problemsolving analysis and of interjecting history into the classroom on the teacher’s shoulders. Allowing opportunities for students to write their own narrative accounts of game events might be preferable. In the armed forces, trainers use “replay action recall” techniques whereby the player and the instructor review game play together. Through such practices, game play becomes data to be analyzed and the subject of deeper scrutiny. The log sheets implemented in the Media case (case one) were designed to capture students’ game play in order to then make it into the basis for reflection, but, in this context at least, they were ineffective for this purpose. Comparing Game Play to History Many students played Civilization III as an historical simulation and derived pleasure from comparing game play to history, developing powerful ideas about history in the process. For many students, Civilization III was an historical simulation and 368 playing the game in order to change the outcome of history or test their wits against other historical civilizations was a primary motivator. Marvin learned that war did not pay, partly through his own game play and partly through watching other games. He became very adamant about this lesson, listing it as one of the most important things he learned from the game. He argued this point with Joey, and when Joey lost his game and had his computer crash after declaring war, Marvin argued that the computer was teaching Joey a lesson. Many students across cases turned the game into a colonial simulation, investigating the forces contributing to cross-Atlantic colonization. Several students in the Media case read colonization in their games off of history, and in post-interviews discussed the role of technology or resources in shaping colonial history. Students playing as Egypt also saw colonial expansion as the answer to their problems with shrinking borders, failing economies, or insufficient natural resources. Although this Civilization III scenario was not designed to be a colonial simulation per se, many Media students appropriated it as such, beginning with their finally taking the game up on days 4 and 5 and continuing through their fascination with the arrival of the Celts, or, for the Egyptian players, by their efforts to discover sailing technologies and find a route to the Americas. Turning Civilization III into a colonial simulation affected the kinds of questions students asked, observations they made about their games the technologies they focused on, and the solutions they posited to problems. Students mostly read their game events off of pre-existing notions of colonization or geography, expanding and modifying their understandings of colonization in the process. 369 Students’ emergent understandings of factors behind colonization were an amalgamation of several factors. In post-interviews students said that colonization was the result of a combination several interacting factors (with each student having his own particular take) : population density, access to strategic resources (specifically horses), relations with other civilizations, and access to global trade networks. Dan also included culture in his model of colonization; Chris privileged geography more. Bill, who played as the Bantu learned that sub-Sahara Africa was full of luxuries (ivory, gems) but lacking farmland and removed from global trade by the Sahara desert. Interestingly, Bill’s proposed solution (mediated by Dwayne’s game) was to colonize the Americas, suggesting that he framed colonization as way to gain resources and participate in global trade. Tony derived particular pleasure in comparing his game to history. Tony spent the last few days of camp sailing about the world, examining how history played out in his world. Of particular interest to Tony was how isolated civilizations (i.e. Aborigines) developed and how barbarians (nomad populations) thrived in remote islands and went undiscovered into the 19th century. Tony deduced from these exercises that access to resources (farmable land and other natural resources) and geographical proximity to other civilizations was a critical factor in how a civilization developed. It is critical to note that this game practice emerged only after Tony had played for some 30 hours, and there were significant comparisons to be made between his game play and history. Unfortunately, Tony relied on relatively few resources (mostly me) in drawing these analogies to history. Other timelines, atlases, and almanacs may have been useful for comparing game data to history. 370 Understanding the Interplay of History, Geography, Politics, and Economics In the Media summer camp (case two), some of the most powerful learning moments occurred outside of the game itself, when students developed system-level understandings about the interplay of history, geography, politics, and economics. As students prepared their presentations, they attempted to classify lessons that they learned by discipline. Tony identified a problem with this activity, drawing connections between material conditions, economics, and politics. Reflecting on game play, particularly reflecting on what they learned through the game, drew students to system-level conclusions about the game and about history. Dwayne started the conversation by noting that geography affected his politics (via resources and trade), which Tony then connected to a civilization’s capacity for building an infrastructure. Tony first commented that economic, political, and geographic systems are all connected, and then posited a theory that money connects all of these systems. Other students add that geography affects diplomacy (natural borders), the growth of a civilization, and its capacity for waging war. Tony, perhaps inspired by my prodding to find a unifying theme in the game, argued that money (or material goods) is the consistent theme across these factors. Tony then made a critical, materialist reading of the game, arguing that the game is ultimately about the accumulation of wealth which is geographically driven. In class Tony observed that, “Well, money is the key… money is the root to everything. With money you can save yourself from war, and that also means that politics you can influence civilizations with money. (Money) ties everything together.” Tony came to this realization by noting that “With a lot of money, I can buy lot of luxuries” and “Luxuries buys you money and money buys you everything. The right location gives you luxuries 371 gives you income more income gives you technology which affects your politics. It all connects.” This kind of reading of the game is actually quite sophisticated, akin to developing a Marxist, feminist, or “great man” theory of history. Students latched on to Tony’ idea that Civilization III helped them see relations among system components. Kent, Dwayne, and Chris all joined in the conversation, discussing how aspects of one game system affected the rest. Even Kent, who struggled with much of the game could articulate this idea: Geography affects your diplomacy because it gets your more resources and affects how they treat you. Kent had mostly been on the losing end of this equation, but he still detected this pattern in the game system through his play and watching others. Over several hours of game play and game discussions, students in the camp developed sophisticated understandings of the game system and drew parallels between the game and world history. Importantly, there was little evidence to suggest that such system-level understandings emerged in the in-school Media context or in the YWCA case where students had less time to play the game, there was less informal game talk and comparison across games, and fewer reflection activities examining what they learned through the game. It took most students 20 to 30 hours to even begin to see game problems as systemic issues. Examining relations among game systems and how they related to world history emerged mostly through in class discussions, where students were charged with (and bought into) the task of presenting what they learned through playing the game. These cases suggest that looking across games to identify emergent themes in games (as in the discussion activities) and then comparing these to world 372 history (something we did not do that much of formally) are fruitful ways for using Civilization III to support learning world history in formal learning environments. “No Matter How History Plays Out it Plays by the Same Set of Rules” In the Media case, game play mediated how players thought about history in significant ways, as evidenced by Tony’ proposal of – and students’ acceptance of – the notion that “No matter how history plays out, it plays by the same set of rules.” Tony’ discovery of this idea was significant not just because it suggests that playing Civilization III remediated how he thought about world history, but because it was accepted as a taken-for-granted idea. When Tony proposed this claim as one of the most important things he had learned in the unit, students overwhelmingly agreed. No one thought that the claim was novel or surprising; they accepted it as natural that one might study history by defining an underlying set of rules and then exploring the patterns that might emerge as a result of them. While Steven Wolfram (2002) might agree with this assertion, most historians would not. As described in Chapter Two, history is a discipline characterized by narrative. Few, if any historians build models to test historical theories. Yet, there is some precedence. This non-linear approach to understanding world history is clearly evident in the work of Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel (1999), a work that seeks to explain history not just as narrative but as relationships among interacting systems – particularly, geographical and material systems and culture. When Diamond calculates the carrying capacity of land or speculates on the necessary conditions by which civilizations form and evolve, he is outlining the rule sets by which we might build historical simulations. Civilization III operationalizes many of these ideas (albeit at a courser grain). 373 Tony’ observation that “No matter how history plays out, it plays by the same set of rules” evokes Marshall McLuhan’s famous saying that “The medium is the message.” Playing Civilization III and participating in this unit remediated Tony’ understanding about what history is and how it could be expressed in fundamental ways, suggesting that there may be other valid ways of investigating history besides traditional, linear narrative accounts. This is not to suggest that students derived this principle entirely on their own; on two separate occasions we discussed models and simulations, focusing on the nature of games as rule-based systems that produce emergent behavior. Students in the Media case (case one and two) in particular seemed to have developed an understanding of the notion of non-linear systems16 through their game play. Perhaps surprisingly, none of the students perceived this non-linear model of history as potentially biased toward some variables over others. Detecting Biases in the Game Play (But Not in its Representation of History) Students were adept at detecting biases within the game system but less adept at detecting biases with in how the game represented history. In the Media case, we discussed the ways in which the game was biased and students readily picked up on a number of them, particularly the game’s bias toward technology and democracy. Most Civilization III players would agree that the current rule set is weighted toward these two concepts, although there is debate as to whether these are unrealistic biases or simply features of the game as a simulated system. To be sure, I prompted students to think about potential biases during the unit, both in individual and large group discussions. Tony suggested that the game was biased toward democracy and students readily agreed, Will Wright recalled that he was reading a lot of Jay Forrester’s work on non-linear systems as he created the simulation game Sim City and that one of his goals in designing the game was to expose a broader public to the idea of emergence and non-linear systems. 16 374 yet he recounted this bias in the post-interview and added that he thought the real bias was toward the rational, materialist behaviors of other civilizations whereby they would only trade for specific technologies. Some students noted the materialist orientation of the game, but did not necessarily consider it a bias. Late in the unit at the Media camp (case two), we discussed the ideas that students felt they learned in the unit and attempted to classify these ideas by topic (geography, history, politics). Tony noted that money was frequently contingent on geographical location (i.e. riches around the Nile and opportunities for trade) and that “money allows me to buy technology, so (geography can be categorized as affecting) politics. When you have a lot of money you can do whatever you want. When you’re rich you can buy off other countries.” So, we categorized access to luxuries as something they learned about politics. Later, Luis commented that they (politics and geography) are “all related to one another.” When asked to elaborate, he commented, “Well, money is the key… money is the root to everything. With money you can save yourself from war, and that also means that politics…with money, that ties everything together.” The game fostered in Tony (and other students, it seemed) a materialist orientation to history – that is, the idea that strategic and luxury resources, as well as access to material goods, drove history. In closing discussions, I tried to emphasize the geographical bias of the game, which most students did seem to grasp. In their final presentation at the Media summer camp (case two), students reworded this finding to be “geography and politics are more important than culture.” Like Dan, who held on to his belief that the Iroquois did not colonize Europe for cultural reasons, these students accepted that Civilization III was 375 biased toward a materialist reading of history. They framed the game as a simulation of the geo-political factors shaping the history of civilizations, learning from it what they could but rendering it useless for answering questions of culture or religion. Most certainly, this appropriation process was mediated by instructor practices, which consistently reinforced this idea. This kind of realization – that history could be depicted according to different underlying theories (i.e. feminist history, Marxist history, cultural history) – is a subtle and important kind of distinction rarely discussed in secondary classes. That students understood the materialist, geographical nature of the game and were able to not only articulate it but debate it outright suggests that one powerful way of using Civilization III (as well as other simulation games) might be as an inroad to understanding differing theories of history. Indeed, this is how historian Patricia Seed at Rice University uses games in her course on colonial expansion in the Americas (2002, personal communication). Whereas some educators fear that students will fail to pick up the bias and “authorship” of simulations (e.g. Starr, 1994), these cases suggest that perhaps learning through games makes some of the assumptions and perspectives that go into building representations of events more transparent. On the other hand, students did not detect some more subtle biases, namely the management orientation of the game. All of the students interviewed in both cases realized that the powers they exercised in the game were unrealistic and that there was no direct historical analog for the figures they played in history. Students did not, however, see the management orientation of the game as problematic from a an intellectual standpoint. In fact, on their slide entitled “how is learning social studies through games 376 different than through other media,” students wrote, “Civilization 3 teaches you how to manage a civilization.” For these students, the management-orientation of Civilization III was a feature, not a bug, and therefore did not question how this emphasis in the game might bias those playing it in particular (perhaps erroneous) ways. This finding suggests that students are actually quite adept at detecting specific biases within the simulation, namely, because interacting with the game students bump up against simulation assumptions and biases all the time. There was hardly a student in these cases who could not discuss the conflict-driven nature of the game, or the way that geographical and materialist factors drove much of the action. Part of this may have been because I, as the instructor, emphasized these biases, but it is also possible that game players just become very good at understanding the biases of the game system. Perhaps it is no wonder that everyone who has ever written on the Sim City series notes that the game is biased toward public transportation. Participating in a game system bumps the player up against its emergent properties very quickly, and if players have any experience of those properties, they seem to be good at detecting what those biases are. What students in these cases were less good at was understanding how representing historical systems through a resource management game biases representations of history in particular ways. 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 377 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. Summary 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 378 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 379 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. Toward an Instructional Model of Digital Game-Based Learning 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). Days 1-3 appropriating Civilization III as a tool for learning world history. 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 380 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 381 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 382 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 383 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 384 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. Days 12-15: Recursive Play and Civilization III as a Simulation By days 12 through 15, a number of students began playing recursively as they experienced failure, generated hypotheses about the game systems, and tried new strategies. This cyclical practice of starting and restarting the game resembles the recursive learning process typical to learning through modeling or simulation and tends to produce learning about Civilization III as a system. A primary challenge in this study was how to support students in recursively reading their games off of history. In particular, finding ways to introduce historical information was a challenge in these settings where students showed little interest in reading texts, there was barely enough time in the period to get the class going on the game – let alone switching activities, and a paucity of resources useful for comparing games to history. Most often, the teacher introduced information in the form of just-in-time lectures. A primary (and unsolved, in this context) challenge is how to provide students access to data in forms that are easily accessible and designed to support students in reading their games off of history. 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 385 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. Days 16-18: Synthesizing Findings and Meaning Making within Communities of Inquiry 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 386 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 387 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 1-3 Game Play Facilitate appropriation of game Activities 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 388 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 389 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 nextgeneration 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 390 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. 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. Managing Multiple Modes of Engagement 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 391 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 392 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. 393 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 394 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.17 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 17 One example of such pairing is how explorers go out and find information, and then socializers disseminate it throughout the game playing community. Elsewhere, Eric Klopfer and I have begun mapping these kinds of dynamic relations in scientific role playing games (Klopfer & Squire, 2003). 395 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 396 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. 397 Knowledge as Tools, Interpreting Game Play, Civilization III has many unique properties as an instructional tool (See Chapter III). In regards to world history, the game allows players to investigate patterns of change across vast dimensions – from decades to thousand year time frames, from local geography to continent to “western” or “eastern” civilization to the entire globe, and from governments to global patterns of human activity. Critically, learning through Civilization III is a non-narrative based activity. Students learn concepts by playing with them and observing patterns that emerge from rule sets and initial conditions. The most intriguing aspect of learning through playing Civilization III may be the way it reframes what it means to study history. By portraying history as an emergent process arising from intersecting systems rather than post-hoc description presented through the conventions of narrative, Civilization III may change the way students think about history. Rather than construing history as the rote memorization of dates, names, and facts, history simulations provide students a window into the inter-relationships among phenomena that span several disciplines (e.g., geography, politics, history) at once yet combine into a pattern of complex causation. Game-based learning environments share a good deal in common with problembased 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 398 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 399 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 400 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 – 401 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. Simplifying games vs. honoring complexity 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. 402 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 403 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. It is important to be mindful of the amount of time required to become familiar with Civilization III in order to the game in classroom contexts (which means anticipating both intended and unintended emergent outcomes). Given that a single game can easily take twenty or thirty hours, building and play-testing custom scenarios is a significant investment of time for teachers. Teachers need not only play through the customized games, but be mindful that they will be played by other players -- which means anticipating different ways in which they will be played and debugging features that might confuse novice players. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of teachers are 404 starting to build custom modifications for Civilization III, but these cases show how teaching with Civilization III is really a hobby unto itself. Designing Game-Based Learning Environments Just-in-Time Resources If good games are difficult to learn and meaningful learning occurs through analyzing failure, then instructional designers need to be balance the tension between allowing students the freedom to think through game problems and providing tools that reduce frustration and failure. Part of this design challenge means ensuring that students have access to information to solve their problems. The design of this information is tricky; instructional designers need to walk a line between providing information that is useful in game play and that encourages students to think about the game as a simulation. From a semiotic perspective, these just-in-time resources need to illuminate the semiotic system of the game while also making connections to the world behind the simulation. In these cases, a classic example of this tension was how to mediate students’ struggle with managing civil unrest. Consider a few of the options available: I could explain how the game represented citizens’ happiness and describe the rules of the simulation; I could describe historical anecdotes of civil insurrection, and describe details of the social period in hopes that students would derive lessons for their own games; or I could share the one or two most obvious solutions and help students move on to explore more aspects of the game. In these cases, each strategy was appropriate at different times, and a primary instructor practice was managing how each of these just-in-time resources was deployed. As the primary tool for supporting students’ game play, I had considerable flexibility and 405 power in managing how students’ play was mediated by outside information; at the same time, this places a lot of burden on the teacher and requires a deep knowledge of the game, subject matter, and places where the two intersect. One obvious solution is to provide more tools and resources for players and instructors. In these cases, the Civilopedia and tutorials alone were insufficient tools for mediating game play for these students, both in terms of teaching them the game and in drawing connections to world history. The Civilopedia was of little help for students in recovering from failure states, and when something went wrong in the game, such as a city falling into disarray, the Civilopedia was of little help for debugging play and devising new strategies. The Civilopedia is written at about an eighth grade level, and the way that the Civilopedia is organized may have also impeded its appropriation. Because the information is arranged by topics (like an Encyclopedia), as opposed to by problem (like a F.A.Q), students did not immediately perceive it as useful to their ends. Once students were committed to learning the game and engaged in the unit, the Civilopedia became a valuable resource, even though it was written at a level more advanced than most could read. Dedicated gamers enjoyed just browsing the Civilopedia and reading about concepts. Perhaps not surprisingly, there was relatively little evidence of reading the Civilopedia in the Media case, where time was scarce, and much more in the camp cases where reading the Civilopedia was a nice break from game play. One way to ease the burden of the teacher would be to create learning aids for common problems. In these cases, these problems were, in order of problem encountered (1) How do I defend my cities against barbarians? (2) How do I avoid civil unrest? (3) How do I create new cities? (4). A list of common problems encountered while playing 406 this scenario are summarized in Table 8.1. Consistent with minimal instruction techniques (Carroll, 1998), providing answers to these four common problems would account for a majority of the problems and questions in the first few days and perhaps alleviate student and teacher stress. In the YWCA case, I introduced this kind of problem identification and problem solving exercise as class discussions, the results of which are captured in Table 8.1. Some strategies, such as “keeping two spearmen in every city” flowed quickly through the room (as when Marvin shared this information with Jamal) and appeared to only add to students enjoyment of the game and learning from the game. These cases suggest that managing students’ questions and failures may be particularly important early in the unit, as students orient to the game and adjust to the feelings of frustration and the failures common to game play. Table 8.1: Game Play Issues and Solutions Increasing happiness Temples Coliseums Entertainers Luxury items Connecting cities with roads How do you increase defense? Keep two defense in every city Explain attack / defense / movement Natural resources / and land bonuses. Incense Dye Furs Trading natural resources How do I build stuff faster? Build Mines Choose the terrain carefully (hills) 407 Ultimately, how to support students in learning games and managing success and failure may be less an issue of particular instructional resources and more one of learning culture. It is worth reiterating the contradiction between predominant approaches to curriculum and instruction where information is broken down to easily processed chunks of information and “failure” is to be avoided, and game-based learning environments, where problem spaces are complex, information must be gathered from disparate sources, and failure is the norm. Learning in game-based learning units means resetting expectations so that problem spaces are way too large to be fully understood, information must be gleaned from multiple sources (particularly other games), and failure is accepted, even valued. Learning, as it predominantly occurs in game playing communities is driven by goals (which are often going unmet due to failure) and is iterative, multi-modal, and ongoing. In most schooling environments, learning is about mastering a pre-determined body of knowledge for the purposes of gaining “exchange value,” that is, learning is in order to earn a degree, credential, or to gain increased access of some type. These cases showed the difficulty of porting a gaming culture of learning (which also happens to be closer to how learning occurs outside of schools) into schools. Games are complex artifacts, and learning through them looks very different than learning in most school settings. Instructor practices in game-based learning environments. In each case contradictions emerged between activity systems, namely, playing (or learning to play) Civilization III for enjoyment vs. using Civilization III to learn social studies. These tensions rendered many of my curriculum ideas impractical. Given the 408 steep learning curve, maximizing students’ interactions with Civilization III was necessary. This left relatively little time for in class research or discussion. Further, once students did become engaged in the game, the seductiveness of playing Civilization III as an object of activity superceded other activities I introduced. More successful were activities where students used their games as data to ask questions, reflected on their game play experiences, and were able to share their game experiences. This last point – that students took great pride in their games and saw value in using them as a point of exploration -- suggests ways that the game can be used to spark discussion and debate. Mediating game play by introducing conceptual tools. Students found most prepackaged lectures irrelevant. Comments that were not made in direct response to students questions and game goals generally failed to become tools for understanding their play. My lectures were most effective when they introduced information that helped students play their games, such as drawing a map on the board to clarify the starting points of civilizations, discussing strategies for playing in North America or comparing the growth of civilizations across continents. Identifying where students lack knowledge necessary to play the game and then organizing activities that employ knowledge of history or geography to inform game play seems to be the most effective role of the instructor in these environments. Tony agreed with this assertion himself, saying, “While you play the game the teacher can tell you about things that happened in real life. Then, you use it to take advantage in the game.” Learning was most powerful when students repackaged these “real life” things into conceptual tools for game play, such as when students used knowledge of geography to plan voyages or locate luxuries, or when students used examples from history to interpret events in their games. 409 In both cases, most offline activities such as discussion of readings or discussions of history also failed to enter the activity system, although activities such as the classroom vote on civilizations suggests how offline activities might feed into game play more elegantly. The classroom vote on civilizations encouraged students to articulate and discuss their beliefs and knowledge about civilizations to enhance game play. One can imagine other similar assignments; one the second day of the unit for example, students might locate their civilizations on a map, research the history of their civilization and report what luxuries were important during that period. Game play for these students was a creative act, one which they enjoyed reflecting on and documenting for others, as when students took special pride in comparing their games to history or identifying places where the game was unrealistic. These activities leveraged students deep knowledge of the particulars of their game, including a systemic awareness of how and why events unfolded and channeled them toward making connections with academic content. This study is but a beginning in understanding how offline activities can supplement game play, but it suggests that activities that leverage students’ investment in their games is a good starting point in designing curriculum. More creative offline activities that involve students doing outside research, consulting maps, or critiquing games in order to directly impact game play seem to be the most effective means for encouraging reflection in action while also respecting the power of games as seductive objects and avoiding contradictions between academic learning practices and game play practices. Of course, other studies of other games in other academic contexts might find that students have more of an interest in academic study, a higher tolerance for engaging in activities that do not immediately impact their games, or 410 greater ability to build connections between academic understandings in school. These students’ disinterest – even despise for the formal study of history and anti-authoritarian postures -- color these cases and raise caution about -generalizing from these findings. Nevertheless, integrating curricular activities directly with gaming has certain elegance. Supporting reflection within naturally – occurring game communities. A second strategy for teachers is to leverage the game communities that games seem to naturally spawn. Across both cases students showed a desire to observe other games, learn from their friends, share stories, and engage in friendly competitions. From an educator’s perspective, some of the most intriguing and productive talk arose naturally from game play, as when students sought justification for imperialist practices, satirically adopted the language of cultural imperialism, or made connections between their games and the Cold War. Teachers might benefit by supporting and encouraging these kinds of discussions and more explicitly building connections between students’ talk and historical events. Such instructional strategies may be difficult for some teachers as they are completely emergent from game play, making them impossible to plan for. 18 The emergent nature of game play is also part of what makes gaming and simulation so interesting for both students and teachers, and as instructional designers, we need to be careful not to over prescribe and overplan activities so as to kill the emergent learning that is part of the power of this approach. Students’ interest in other games may be used as a way for broadening students’ exposure to different aspects of the game. Just as Chris and Tony began watching games to anticipate challenges they face in their own game, other students might be paired in 18 I recognize that after teaching several units with similar populations of students, patterns of play will most likely emerge, reducing some of the variability of this instructional approach. 411 order to create similar conversations and knowledge. Pairing up students to compare games leverages both their interest in sharing games and the social power of gaming in the service of analysis and reflection. These activities also encourage students to discern patterns across games, which is one more inroad toward helping them reflect on their games as simulations as well as engaging experiences. Placing students in roles where they are helping each other understand their games and examining multiple results from simulations mimics both the ways that researchers examine simulations and the ways that gamers learn from one another. Further study of game play communities may result in other useful strategies for facilitating learning in both gaming and non-gaming experiences. Final Thoughts As games enter their way into schools, undoubtedly there will be even more fear and fascination with how they remediate students’ thinking. Mention using games for learning among people – both educators and the lay public -- and the kinds of answers one hears are striking. Common questions include: Are games good for all learners? How do we really know they are learning from games? Aren’t games biased? or Do we really want kids learning from games instead of books (or people)? These questions reveal more about the uncertainty and uneasiness that many people have with games than anything particular to the medium; one can easily imagine similar questions being asked of books; in fact, most of them were. The fact is that games are not good for all learners, we do not know exactly what people learn from playing games, games are in fact biased, and no one really expects that games will replace other media. Rather, the interesting questions are in 412 understanding how learners orient to games, who they seem to work for and in what situations, how learners come to understand their bias, and how games relate to other media in instruction. In this dissertation, I have gathered data pertaining to these questions and offered some preliminary answers. Most striking among these answers is that in these cases games (and simulations) seem to be a very disruptive medium. Students who had failed history found ways of constructing and enacting identities with games. Games recruited some learners while repelling others. Static textual resources became tools for action and concepts were tools for solving problems. Power relations were negotiated as gaming practices emerged through relations among students’ goals, the games’ affordances, and the broader social context. These patterns are not entirely new and not entirely the province of games; researchers examining project-based, modeling, and other constructivist learning environments have made similar observations. One way to get at these issues is to invite students into this inquiry alongside research communities. Encouraging students to consider how they learned through games and how this differed from other forms of learning produced interesting conversations. Students like Tony identified that games “forced” him to learn history, and that history became a tool for game play. Students themselves had sophisticated ways of reading games, as most students detected many sources of bias in the game, clearly understood ways in which the game was unrealistic, and had intuitions regarding kinds of problems the game as a simulation was good for answering and which ones it brought little to bear on. Talking with these students about their experiences also helped point the way for how discussions, timelines, and other resources could be brought into play. Students have very 413 sophisticated ways of interacting with and understanding games as a medium, and teachers and researchers alike can learn a lot from the skills they have developed growing up with gaming. At the same time, students also seemed blind to some of the ways in which learning through Civilization III was different than through other media. When Tony said, “No matter how history plays out in this game, it’s all based on the same rules – kind of like in real life,” no one in the class (other than me) blinked. The idea that the world may be governed by a few simple set of rules may be taking hold in science (i.e. Wolfram, 2002), but it is hardly well accepted, particularly in history. Whether it is growing up interacting with rule-based systems, an uncritical accepting of Tony comment, or experiences in this unit that caused such a comment to be so easily agreed upon, it is important to note this kind of understanding emerged from a game-based learning environment. If such an understanding is more than an anomaly, then perhaps Marshall McLuhan is right and the medium itself is the message here. Meeting these students and learning from their game play suggests the importance of talking with students about how media fits into their lives. In the beginning of the twenty-first century, educators face a number of importance choices, one of which is how do we want schools to relate to media. Will we shut the doors and lock out emerging media, preserving the school as a pantheon for the technologies of generations gone-by, or do we want to embrace students’ worlds and enlist the media that speak to them, cocreating learning environments that engage their experiences and identities? Do we expect students to appropriate only the worlds of orality and print (and possibly film and television, media over a hundred years old), when increasingly they encounter worlds 414 such as Civilization III in their lives outside of school? Do we expect students to be satisfied with only the experiences of listening to lectures and reading books, and on the odd occasion doing projects or discussing ideas, when outside of school, they can negotiate meanings in communities they help define, lead civilizations and build whole virtual worlds? These questions are not so much about games per se, but more about how schools relate to society. In the past few years, our response to these issues has been (for the most part) to take students who see history as boring and school as irrelevant to their lives as simply “unmotivated” to learn 19 and/or to increase accountability of those teachers charged with the unenviable task of marching a classroom of thirty such students through a seemingly never-ending list of externally-mandated standards. Like most of the educational research community, I am not convinced we have a found solution to the issues facing schools right now. This study proposed games as one possible solution to the problem of engaging students in learning world history, and explored what happened when Civilization III was brought into a few formal learning environments. Ultimately, this question of how to engage students was not answered by technology or media per se, but through listening to students, understanding their experiences, and honoring their identities in constructing curriculum. Civilization III, once appropriated by students for the purposes of learning, exhibit unique affordances as an instructional tool, but the social context surrounding the game proved to be as important as the game itself in engaging students and promoting learning. 19 Or perhaps as having disorders (i.e. Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder). 415