Hey everyone--yep that's me. I've been active with some other historians who teach trying to implement gaming into learning. This writer contacted me by phone after my name was mentioned in a conference about learning. Firaxis, the Civ group, has been VERY active in getting their game into learning. They deserve props for that. But. . .
Jayavarman said:
Ugh. The article talks too much about Civ3 rather than EU2!
It certainly does, but as implied, Firaxis has driven that. I told the writer that I didn't play Civ and then told him about EU2. He was very intrigued and I spent about 30 minutes extolling the virtues of the game. Of course, we got pushed to the back. Still, we got in there which was nice and unexpected.
jwolf said:
As I recall from Carlec's posts several months ago he had his students playing in many sessions over several weeks. One 3-hour session wouldn't be nearly enough. I'll try to find his thread but it may take a while ...
That's right jwolf. Here is the link to the thread [thread=168797]Education and Paradox[/thread]; I didn't start it, but I started talking about my idea to use it. Several wonderful posters here helped think through things. Towards the end, I have posted a copy of the full article that I wrote about it.
I have been selected to speak at The Society for Applied Learning Technology's Conference in Orlando in February. I'm just an alternate presenter which is fine, but the cool part is that the article will be published in their proceedings. That might be available via online at some point, so if it is, I'll let you guys know. That's not for my props, but for any of you educators/historians who might want ammunition to use with your Dean or students.
I did the same experiement this year with a new group of students. We added an extra day (8 in total; 1.25 hours). Again it was a huge success. The students had fun (always a fear; not everyone is a gamer and this game is not some fluff like Civ or Halo or, well you know); they learned history, obviously more for their nation than others; and they had their critical thinking engaged. One group really bombed as a nation, but they discovered some key issues like actually thinking before declaring war. One group learned about being the warmongers and not focusing on their infrastructure.
Of course, there are full limitations due to the time. If we knew we were playing EU2 for just 100 years or so (new players, played on normal or above normal), then we might have a different strategy than the long term focus of watching BB, inflation, and so forth.
There still are problems using the game, besides what I just mentioned. Some students didn't really care so engaged less. This class overall was weaker academically than the first group, so that had an impact. As a school, we lost 2 days compared to last semester, so my lecture period were even more rushed, thus impacting my ability to make the connection between game and history.
Still, I think the game is a wonderful tool for students to get a better understanding of being a ruler during the period, of seeing the impact of things like loans or religion, of dealing with stuff like native americans. I mean, classic example there---every class on American history I have, I have to deal with 90% of the class thinking the exploring nations (our forefathers--Dutch, French, English, Spanish) were all ogres for how they treated the Native Americans. So, in this Western Civ class, I had one sweet girl who had already professed this feeling. Yet, her nation was England and towards the end, she had found the New World and discovered the Iriquois. First question from her---so how do I take these guys out? Sure enough, she went to war and eliminated them from the game. I asked her about it later and she admitted to feeling conflicted but also seeing better WHY the exploring nations pushed forward as they did, at the expense of the natives. That simply cannot be presented via a lecture; the students just won't get it at the same level as this student did.