Every single pupil was born into a world where video games were simply a fact of life, and it’s in this environment and among these pupils that the serious potential of video games suddenly starts to seem less a novel possibility than a creeping inevitability – as much a fixture in our future lives as the mobile telephone or the computer screen (Chatfield, 2010, p. 199).

There are lofty expectations for the potential of video games to disrupt schooling in the near future. Video games are based on good learning principles and they can create deep learning experiences that significantly develop student understanding. They also teach vital skills that counteract the short-sightedness of high-stakes tests. As a subject, History stands much to gain from the use of video games as they encourage strategic thinking through decision-making, weighing evidence, and assessing consequences. However, the hype around the educational potential of video games does not match the reality of the classroom experiences. The complexity and depth of many video games results in them being difficult to institute in a traditional factory-model school setting. Video games are not the answer that they are often made out to be in the popular press, and disciples of games are likely to be disappointed. Momentous reform would be needed to the use of time and physical space in schools, and to the conventional roles of teachers and students.

A close appraisal of Muzzy Lane’s game Making History II: The War of the World, reveals the educational potential of video games for History, as well as the significant disconnect with mandated curriculum standards and high-stakes tests. In the end, the key lesson from examining the educational potential of video games for History relates to the design of learning experiences. Video games provide a strong case for providing learners with a diversity of experiences and some scope to make their own decisions about their learning.

Educational appeal of video games

There is an air of expectation that video games will become a dominant mode of pedagogy in classrooms in the near future. Video games have quickly become the world’s most valuable entertainment medium and gaming is becoming one of the central ways in which we seek to understand ourselves. Projections put profits from gaming at over $60 billion in the next five years (Chatfield, 2010 p. 27). Chatfield finds that media-hype about games being sexist, violent and socially isolating has largely been discredited. Forty percent of all US video game players are women, of the twenty bestselling console games of all time, only one involves any real-world violence, and the World of Warcraft’s interactive online community boasts over twelve million subscribers. Over 350 million people play video games worldwide and the South Korean government will invest $200 billion into its games industry over the next four years. While using video games to teach is not a new idea, teachers are increasingly willing to use video games in the classroom.

Video games teach vital skills like teamwork, decision-making and digital literacy, which are often overlooked in the age of high-stakes tests. Research (Van Eck, 2006) has consistently found that games promote learning and reduce teaching time across multiple disciplines and ages. Van Eck comments that, “a cursory review of the experimental research in the last five years shows well-documented positive effects of DGBL across multiple disciplines and learners”. Most teachers only dream of their students spending the amount of motivation, attention, passion, and critical thinking on their classes that some students do playing videogames. Research is also showing how gamers are different as employees and leaders in their attitudes towards the value of experience, their own capabilities, decision-making, risk, and achievement (Beck & Wade, 2004).

Video games are designed around good learning principles (Gee, 2003), and they provide a platform for active discovery learning in contrast to passive listening or reading. This is supported by findings from neuroscience which show that the brain is changed through active experimentation, not by teacher-centred pedagogy (Zull, 2004). Gaming teaches students to appreciate a subject such as a “’game’ that certain types of people “play’”, in contrast to the “content fetish” in schools which view subjects as bodies of facts to be taught and tested (Gee, 2005). Video games provide immediate feedback, as well as motivation and engagement than is often lacking in schooling.

Video games also support contemporary calls for teachers to spend less time explaining through instruction and more time in “experimental and error-welcoming modes of engagement” (McWilliam, 2007, p. 5). Exploration is how players learn in games and failure is expected, in marked contrast to “learning discrete chunks of information in schools” (Squire 2005). Video games allow students to become more comfortable with failure, as mistakes are a natural part of the learning process in the game, and good video games are designed to challenge players just enough to keep them engaged and pushing to reach the next level (Chandler, 2009).

Video games and teaching history

My previous paper for this course found that many school students find learning history boring and this lack of interest is confirmed by low levels of historical knowledge (Clark, 2009). Wineburg (2001) has criticized the “textbook mentality” (p. 79) which presumes that historical knowledge only needs to be known rather than understood and Seixas (2000) argues that what is being taught in schools is not history at all—but myth creation. Wilson (2001) believes that history has become impenetrable for students, and the dominance of teachers and textbooks has resulted in little intellectual engagement.

Video games have the potential to create historical experiences that can scaffold student learning to the historical inquiry process.

[R]ecent research suggests that game-based historical simulations have the potential to create rich problem spaces that provide opportunities for students to practice their historical empathy skills and develop their understanding of history as an interpretation of events instead of a set of facts or a singular ‘historical truth’ (Squire & Durga, in press).

Critical historical engagement is more important than the facts. Students tend to view history as a continuous, uncontested, predetermined story, where “a uniform ‘picture of the past'” (Shemilt, 2000, p. 85) is presented. Effective history teaching requires encouraging an understanding of multiple perspectives and students need to learn that the purpose might be different depending on who constructs the narrative (Holt, 1990, p. 5). Holt suggests that instead of handing over stories, history teaching should provide students with “the raw materials of history” (p. 10) and let the students decide what story should be told.

In a history classroom, the video game approach does not replace the standard classroom approach, it complements it. While written narrative provides one range of educational possibilities, video games provide a different range of possibilities. Instead of analysing written texts, the game-based approach enables learners to make decisions, weigh evidence, assess consequences, and take on a variety of roles. It is a different experience for each learner and brings them into the learning in a very personal way (E. Klopfer, personal communication, October 15, 2010).

However, if history is changed, is it still history? What if World War Two had turned out differently? Counterfactual history attempts to answer ‘what if’ questions. It seeks to explore history by re-imagining major historical events. Many historians are uneasy about counterfactual history and dismiss it as entertaining, but not meeting the standards of mainstream historical research. Evidence is a foundational historical concept and it is impossible to have evidence for claims that are, by definition, contrary to fact.

Harvard historian Niall Ferguson is a vocal advocate of historical counterfactuals with video games and he believes that they are the next big platform (Thompson, 2010). When he played Making History: The Calm & the Storm, Ferguson realized that the game forced him to rethink some of his long-held theories. His argument that World War II could have been prevented if Britain had confronted Germany over its invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 fell apart when he simulated it in Making History: The Calm & the Storm. The French defected, leaving the British expeditionary force isolated and easily crushed by Germany. Ferguson had not previously considered that the timing in 1938 would not have left sufficient time for Britain to construct a diplomatic case with France. The video game helped Ferguson think more clearly about history. He found the confusion of the gaming approach useful because he could experiment with the same scenario over and over, subtly altering one little thing at a time, until he understood it better than previously. “Ferguson discovered something that fans of war-strategy games have realized for years: Games are a superb vehicle for thinking deeply about complex systems” (Thompson, 2010).

Ferguson has since worked with Muzzy Lane, the game company that created Making History: The Calm & the Storm, as an advisor on the second edition of the game, Making History II: The War of the World. This game, the case study focus for this paper, allows players to explore counterfactual history by taking on the roles of European leaders before, during, and after World War Two. While the first game in Muzzy Lane’s series, Making History: The Calm & the Storm was billed as a history-based multiplayer simulation game, specifically designed for the educational market, a few years later, Making History II: The War of the World took the opposite path as it was designed for the consumer market, although it was also expected to be used in classrooms by some schools and universities.

Educational appeal of Making History

At first glance, Making History II: The War of the World appears to be a suitable and appropriate video game to introduce into the history classroom. Students would be engaged and motivated by the idea of playing a video game in school, their learning experiences would be highly personal and individualized, and they would develop their historical understanding, their ability to weigh evidence and assess consequences, and their empathy with a variety of historical decision-making roles. By requiring players to contend with social, political, economic, and military problems, Making History II: The War of the World develops complex strategic management and diplomatic skills. Players can choose to focus on developing the economy and building their military power or on seeking diplomatic solutions with emerging competitors. Players manage their country’s economy and trade; establish diplomatic alliances; build factories, farms, research centers, airstrips; and keep the home front content. Research improves the nation’s technology and economic decisions need to be made to decide between guns and butter.

Players need to constantly keep an eye on political unrest, national stability, production cycles, complex financial systems, the protection of vital supply lines, and their military strength. Nationality and ethnicity play a major role and, if cultures do not mesh, it becomes harder for the dominant force to remain in power. A government with different political views than most of its population is more likely to face a revolt, and provinces that have different religions or ethnicity are not as stable. Nations with similar government types tend to stick together and, the larger the empire, the greater the risk of a revolution or civil war.

Customization personalizes the gaming experience and keeps players challenged. Players can play as any country during the World War Two era, from over 170 nations. A real strength of this scale is that with so many possibilities, there is lots of potential for re-playability and no two games will be the same. Time-wise there are three scenarios: 1933, 1936 and 1939. If a player does nothing to change the sequence of historic events, the AI will play the game in fairly realistic historical sequence. Players can test their strategy against AI or against multi-player networks.

Making History II: The War of the World gives players a very good sense of history and geography. Playing the game is like a detailed World War Two history and world geography lesson. The countries and units represent historical reality for the 1930s. Each character stands on a national flag and is dressed in historically accurate uniforms and colours. There is a built-in encyclopedia giving a brief blurb about each unit type and breaking down the vital statistics, along with detailed regional and national information. The colorful map covers the entire globe, accurate to the 1930s period, and the subtle orchestra tones of strings and snare drums provide a realistic military atmosphere.

This is a video game “about the possibilities and probabilities inherent in the world situation of the 1930s, when economies were in shambles and several conflicting ideologies competed for hearts and minds” (Thompson, 2010). The game possesses significant educational value with its clear representation of key historical experiences, such as General MacArthur’s military campaigns through the Pacific, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and Roosevelt’s Day of Infamy Speech. Players have many opportunities to change the course of history. Should Germany enter an alliance with Nationalist China against Japan? Should Germany risk a war with the United States in the 1930s by supporting Franco’s Spain? Will the British Empire collapse as its colonies break away and declare independence? Will French colonies cede from the mother country? Should Russia annex Romania?

Game reviewers describe Making History II: The War of the World as not “staggeringly intimidating” with a game user interface that is “simple, efficient, and intuitive” and “more than enough gameplay features to make up for a lack of visual polish” (Nack, 2010). “It’s fun, easy to play and has enough depth for even the most campaign-hardened strategy gamer” (Levandowski, 2010). There are, however, significant limits to the use of such video games within the classroom.

Limits to the educational use of video games

Placing educational content inside a game does not guarantee that it will succeed in achieving a fun, motivating experience; meet educational goals; or be a commercial success (Ulicsak & Wright, 2010). Just as students learn to play the game of school, there is a fine balance between learning what a game is designed to teach and learning the game itself. Ulicsak & Wright argue that, “teachers and developers need to work together to agree to not only topics and learning goals but metrics for assessment so that teachers are confident learning has occurred when a game has been used.”

Games are usually advocated as part of a blended learning process and therefore the role of the teacher is essential. According to Cuban (2001), introducing technology into the classroom without appropriate teacher training is a waste of money. Teachers need evidence of the effectiveness of video games, how to use them, and how to successfully integrate them into teaching practice. Teachers need sufficient sandpit time to develop their own confidence in using games and understand how games relate to curriculum goals. The most important consideration from a teacher’s perspective is how much the game will make their life easier (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007). The game must easily enhance their teaching. This involves more than just assuming games will motivate and engage learners. Some work has commenced on designating the best pedagogical roles for teachers when they use games within their classroom: instructor, guide, explorer or playmaker (Hanghøj & Magnussen, 2010).

Teachers need to know which subjects benefit most from games and what is available, especially given that very few teachers are gamers. There is currently insufficient support for teachers who wish to identify whether a video game would assist their teaching. Gaming principles could be modelled in teacher education programs and pre-service teachers taught how to teach using these principles. Egenfedlt-Nielson believes that for the educational use of video games to really mature, the quality has to become closer to that of commercial video games. This challenge requires a true alliance between teachers, researchers, policy-makers and developers to identify the best starting points for such endeavours.

Limits to the educational use of Making History

While the depth of Making History II: The War of the World may be a strength for experienced game players, the downside is that it overwhelms newcomers and the complexity of the game will cause students to disengage. The majority of students who are not hard-core gamers would find Making History II: The War of the World confusing and chaotic. The complexity would most likely have the opposite effect to that sought by teachers, and result in strong disengagement. I did not find the user interface for Making History II: The War of the World at all intuitive or easy to use, and school-children who are not hardened gamers would also find the menu difficult to navigate. Given that I experienced little success in attempting to decipher the game by myself, it is likely that students will quickly lose any enthusiasm if they need hours of game-play before they understand the basic concepts of the game. As Squire (2005) notes, “Those unfamiliar with contemporary video games are shocked by their complexity and difficulty.” Simply the intricacy of the political, economic and strategic concepts alone means that Making History II: The War of the World is more difficult than anything students will have experienced in school.

It would be difficult to justify the amount of time needed to master Making History II: The War of the World given the heavy curriculum demands and the pressures of high-stakes examinations. Schools have to adhere to strict requirements for high stakes external examinations and in order to be seriously considered for classroom use, a video game like Making History II: The War of the World would need to address these requirements. Trying to use Making History II: The War of the World in the classroom will also clash with students’ perceptions of what they are traditionally meant to be doing in school and many students will want to know how using a video game will assist their preparation for examinations. Ulicsak & Wright, (2010) found that games that align to the curriculum have a wider take up than those that are pedagogically sound and engaging but have no clear relationship to curriculum.

In a fast-paced ever-changing industry, the way forward from Making History II: The War of the World is already apparent. Utilizing the key lessons they learned from deploying Making History in the classroom, Muzzy Lane Software is now working in collaboration with The Center for New American Media and Maryland Public Television to produce American Dynasties. This is an immersive digital video game specifically designed to teach social history to secondary schoolers. The games in American Dynasties portray important moments in US history and allow players to assume the roles of a diverse cast of characters. Each character represents someone from a different economic, racial or ethnic background living at the time. Unlike History II: The War of the World, American Dynasties is tightly aligned with secondary school state and national history standards, the producers claim that it is flexible enough to perform in a variety of educational environments, and it has been designed specifically to promote historical reasoning, cooperative learning, and teach the use and interpretation of primary sources (American Dynasties, 2010).

The likely impact and evolution

Prensky (2001) believes that we are on the verge of video games becoming much more realistic, experiential, and immersive. Games are becoming fully online, wireless, massively multiplayer, they are including better storytelling and characters, and they are higher quality and more engaging. However the successful take up of video games in schools will rely on much more than significant improvements in the quality of educational video games.

Gee (2005) points out one of the major impediments of translating videogame principles into classroom practices in the abstract of his article “Learning by design”:

This article asks how good video and computer game designers manage to get new players to learn long, complex and difficult games. The short answer is that designers of good games have hit on excellent methods for getting people to learn and to enjoy learning. The longer answer is more complex. Integral to this answer are the good principles of learning built into successful games. The author discusses 13 such principles under the headings of “Empowered Learners”, “Problem Solving” and “Understanding” and concludes that the main impediment to implementing these principles in formal education is cost. This, however, is not only (or even so much) monetary cost. It is, importantly, the cost of changing minds about how and where learning is done and of changing one of our most profoundly change-resistant institutions: the school.

Squire (2005) adds support to this argument when he states,

As challenging as it is to design a good educational game, it may be more challenging to design a good educational system for educational games to flourish in. Right now, even if you had the ideal game…it is not certain that such a game could even survive in today’s educational environment as our contemporary educational systems do not know how to sustain a curricular innovation built on the properties that make games compelling. In order to realize the potential of such gaming technologies in education, it will indeed be necessary for us to ‘change the game’ in more fundamental ways with regard to our current institutions of learning. (Squire, 2005)

Video games present a compelling model of a next generation learning environment and as more and more schools look to online learning, a tremendous opportunity presents itself for “rethinking the culture of our classrooms” (Squire, 2005). In the fast paced 21st century, social entrepreneurs, disruptive organizations and technologies will inevitably create new models for learning. However, in order to realize the educational potential of video games, it will be necessary to change the game of schooling. As Squire (2005) notes,

Educators hoping that digital games will be a ‘silver bullet’ because they are exciting and motivating will be disappointed. The real challenge is not so much in bringing games—or any technology—into our schools but rather changing the cultures of our schools to be organized around learning instead of the current form of social control.

Conclusion

Realistically, the complexity of video games makes it hard to see a place for them in contemporary schools, where depth of understanding is overwhelmed by breadth of content coverage, and students are often used to narrow, easy success. A heavily standardized school system designed to provide shallow content coverage would need to shift to a flexible school system based on deep individual learning experiences. Nevertheless, this does not prevent us imagining a convergence of educational researchers, game producers and teachers, driven by the purchase power of every 15-year old in the nation pestering parents and teachers for access to a state-of-the-art video game that teaches the entire history curriculum.

Teachers are expressing increasing interest in the educational benefits of video games and they are searching for professional development in how to use video games effectively in the classroom. While video games are now commonly accepted as having educational potential, research is needed into how this might translate into classroom practice. In this regard John Dewey’s work was remarkably prescient:

A primary responsibility of educators is that they not only be aware of the general principle of the shaping of actual experience by environing conditions, but that they also recognize in the concrete what surroundings are conducive to having experiences that lead to growth. Above all, they should know how to utilize the surroundings, physical and social, that exist so as to extract from them all that they have to contribute to building up experiences that are worthwhile (Dewey, 1997, p. 40).

Video games, such as Muzzy Lane’s Making History II: The War of the World, bring Dewey’s ideas about learning design into sharp focus in the 21st century. Powerful learning environments are created with discovery and experiential learning principles. The key to student learning lies in having a diversity of experiences and some autonomy, and the key to good teaching lies creating the conditions for students to discover and explore the curriculum on their own.

References

American Dynasties. (2010). Muzzy Lane. Retrieved November 27, 2010 from http://www.muzzylane.com/ad/game.html
Beck, J.C. & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: how the gamer generation is reshaping business forever. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chandler (2009, January 4). More and more, the schools got game. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010301556.html
Chatfield, T. (2010). Fun inc.: why games are the 21st century’s most serious business. London: Virgin Books.
Clark, A. (2009). Teaching the nation’s story: Comparing public debates and classroom perspectives on history education in Australia and Canada. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 745-762.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Free Press.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third generation educational use of computer games. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 263-281.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrace MacMillan.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85 (2), 33-37. Retrieved November 6, 2010 from http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/documents/Good_Learning.pdf
Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Hanghøj, T., & Magnussen, R. (2010). The role of the teacher in facilitating educational games: Outlining a game pedagogy. Retrieved November 6, 2010 from www.designsforlearning.nu/conference/extended/webb/pdf/DFL_hanghoj_magnussen.pdf
Levandowski, L. (2010). Making History II: The War of the World – PC Game Review. Retrieved November 7, 2010 from http://www.armchairgeneral.com/making-history-ii-the-war-of-the-world-pc-game-review.htm
McWilliam, E. (2007, January 8-10). Unlearning How to Teach. Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www.creativityconference07.org/display_abstract.php?id=40
Nack, S. (2010, September 3). Hands On: Making History II – PAX 2010. Retrieved from http://www.gamingnexus.com/FullNews/Hands-On-Making-History-II—PAX-2010/Item19449.aspx
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. St Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! die kinder! Or, does postmodern history have a place in the schools? In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg, (Eds.), Knowing, teaching & learning history: National and international perspectives. New York: New York University Press.
Shemilt, D. (2000). The Caliph’s coin: The currency of narrative frameworks in History teaching. In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning History: National and international perspectives, (pp. 83-101). New York: New York University Press.
Squire, K . (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom?. Innovate. 1 (6). Retrieved November 2, 2010 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=82
Squire, K., & Durga, S. (in press). Productive gaming: The case for historiographic game play. To appear in R. Ferdig (Ed.), The handbook of educational gaming. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Thompson, C. (2007, May 21). Why a famous counterfactual historian loves making history with games. Wired. Retrieved November 7, 2010 from http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/commentary/games/2007/05/gamefrontiers_0521
Ulicsak, M. & Wright, M. (2010). Games in education: Serious games. Bristol, Futurelab. Retrieved November 27, 2010 from http://media.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Serious-Games_Review.pdf
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: it’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause Review. 41 (2), 16–30. Retrieved November 6, 2010 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0620.pdf
Wilson, S.M. (2001). Research on History teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (pp. 527-544). Washington, D.C.: Educational Research Association.
Wineburg, S. (2001) Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Zull, J.E. (2004). The art of changing the brain. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 68-72.