Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Dow Day - Mobile Documentay - 2009

Ad

A Window to the Past: Using Augmented Reality Games to
Support Historical Inquiry1
                  James Mathews, Univer...

Ad

history as an interpretation of events instead of a set of facts or a singular “historical
truth” (Squire & Durga, in pres...

Ad

Gee, 2005). Gee (2007), using a socio-cultural view of learning, suggests that educational
designers have a lot to learn f...

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 23 Ad
1 of 23 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Advertisement

Dow Day - Mobile Documentay - 2009

  1. 1. A Window to the Past: Using Augmented Reality Games to Support Historical Inquiry1 James Mathews, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA Abstract Recent trends in history education emphasize the importance of engaging students in the process of doing rather than simply consuming history (Holt, 1990; Wineburg, 2001). One way to provide students with an opportunity to do history is by developing historical simulations that engage them in the historical inquiry process. While there is a long tradition of using simulations in schools, advancements in computer and communication technology (e.g., cell phones, GPS-navigation systems, video and computer games) provide unique opportunities for designing and enacting simulations. This study explores the potential of one such technology, Augmented Reality gaming, to engage students in historical inquiry by developing their ability to identify and analyze the competing historical perspectives surrounding a specific historical event. Recent trends in history education emphasize the importance of engaging students in the process of doing rather than simply consuming history. Proponents of this approach argue that instead of simply memorizing a series of names, dates, and places that support one singular historical “truth,” students should learn how to pose inquiry questions, select, interpret, and analyze evidence, solve authentic problems, and develop their own historical interpretations (Holt, 1990; Wineburg, 2001). A subset of the research surrounding this approach focuses on developing students’ historical empathy or perspective taking skills. Among other things, the research surrounding historical empathy seeks to: (1) conceptualize and define historical empathy (Barton & Levtstik, 2004; Davis, Yeager, & Foster, 2001); (2) develop methods for assessing students’ use of empathetic thinking (Kohlmeier, 2006; Jensen, 2008); (3) understand the multiple variables that hinder students’ ability to use empathy as part of the historical inquiry process (Barton & Levtstik, 2004; Davis, Yeager, & Foster, 2001); (4) examine the role that teachers play in developing students’ historical empathy (Grant, 2001); and (5) evaluate and improve the design of instructional interventions aimed at stimulating and developing students’ historical empathy (Portal, 1998; Foster; 2001). One strategy for developing students’ historical empathy is to engage them in historical simulations that allow them to investigate an historical event or time period from multiple perspectives. While there is a long tradition of using simulations for teaching, advancements in computer and communication technology (e.g., cell phones, GPS-navigation systems, video and computer games) provide unique opportunities for designing and enacting technology-mediated simulations (Squire & Jan, 2007; Klopfer, 2008). Within the domain of history, recent 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 1 Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association San Diego, CA April 2009
  2. 2. history as an interpretation of events instead of a set of facts or a singular “historical truth” (Squire & Durga, in press). The ongoing design-based research study described here explores the potential of a specific simulation, Dow Day, to engage students in the historical inquiry process and develop their ability to weigh competing historical perspectives surrounding a specific historical event. The game is embedded in a larger inquiry unit that seeks to stimulate students’ empathetic thinking and develop their ability to critically read and interpret historical evidence (Portal, 1987; Wineburg, 2001; Nokes, Dole, & Hacker, 2007). Dow Day is an Augmented Reality game designed to provide students an opportunity to experience a specific historical event from a first person perspective2. The game revolves around a series of anti-Dow Chemical Company protests that took place on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus in October 1967. The protests were intended to raise awareness about Dow Chemical’s production of napalm and stop the company from conducting student interviews on campus. In the game, players role-play as journalists who have been asked to investigate the root causes of the protests and report on why and how they turned violent (Squire, et al., 2007; Maraniss, 2002). The game itself is played at UW-Madison at the actual location where the Dow Chemical protests took place back in 1967. During the game the students use a GPS-based handheld computer to conduct virtual interviews, obtain and read primary documents, and view historical video clips and photos. At the end of the game they are required to write a newspaper article from the perspective of the newspaper they work for and select two photographs that will run with their story. The goal is that by completing the curriculum and game challenges students will develop a situated understanding of essential media literacy principles (e.g., photography as a construction of reality) and develop an experiential understanding of the problems and challenges that journalists face when attempting to investigate and report on events, especially during times of war (Squire, et al., 2007). In addition, the game and curriculum aim to develop students’ ability to use historical empathy in order to understand the multiple perspectives surrounding the events and explain the behaviors of the historical actors. Conceptual / Design Frameworks Augmented Reality Gaming / Game-Based Learning Game-based learning is a paradigm that emerged out of situated learning theory. As such, video games instantiate many contemporary theories of learning and literacy (Gee, 2004; New London Group, 1996) and provide models for instructional designers looking to develop game-based interventions for learning (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & 2 The Augmented Reality (AR) games referred to in this paper are place-based games played on a PDA or similar mobile device that uses a Global Positioning System (GPS) to create a virtual world layered on top of a real-world context. As players physically move through the real world environment they can track their location on a GPS-based map that appears on their screen. As they explore the physical environment or “game space” players can also meet and interview virtual people or “trigger” virtual data (e.g., water samples, photos, documents, and video clips) that is connected to specific GPS locations (Kloper, et al., 2003). The game play, which is based around authentic problems (e.g., toxic spills, urban renewal, non- point pollution), combines the data that players access on their PDA with their physical location in order to situate the narrative and the challenges in real-world places (Squire, et al., 2007; Holland, et al., 2003). 2
  3. 3. Gee, 2005). Gee (2007), using a socio-cultural view of learning, suggests that educational designers have a lot to learn from video games. In particular, designers can borrow models of instruction that guide, shape, and refine learners’ conceptual development within rich, deeply situated contexts. He argues that games enable learners to take on new identities and epistemic frames, confront prior understandings, work through problems in an embodied way, and introduce counter-examples or cases to produce moments of cognitive dissonance that lead to new understandings. These elements of learning combine to create situated experiences that become the basis for understanding. Similarly, Galarneau (2007) argues that games create transformative experiences that provide contexts, new frameworks, and experiences for understanding phenomena. Using game-based learning theory as a launching point, a major design goal of the Dow Day unit is to provide students with the opportunity to inhabit new identities and interact with the world and the traditional curricular content in new, and hopefully transformative ways (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee 2005). In order to cultivate this type of experience students role-play as journalists who have been called upon to participate in a “real-life” investigation (Gee, 2004; Shaffer, 2006). The game and associated curriculum attempt to situate students’ learning around authentic contexts, position them as active participants in the journalistic process, and allow them to perform tasks and use similar language and tools that professional journalists use to investigate “real-world” problems (Gee, 2004; Shaffer, 2006). As part of this process, the students read, analyze, and interpret documents (newspaper articles, photographs, charts, graphs, and videos), pose inquiry questions, and conduct independent research. The intent, especially considering the limited duration of the game, is not to assume that the roles will deeply map with the way journalists see and act in the world. Instead, the goal is to use role-playing and the central game challenge to provide a context, tasks, and an overall experience that will both engage students and encourage them to see the event from multiple perspectives, separate them from their own present- focused positionalities and interpretations (or at least make them aware of these), and encourage them to consider evidence they might otherwise be less likely to read and analyze (Barton & Levtsik, 2004; Davis, Yeager, & Foster, 2001). The design of Dow Day builds on previous research done on AR gaming (Klopfer & Squire, in press; Squire et al., in press; Squire & Jan, in press). It specifically builds on the work of Squire and Jan (2007) and Klopfer and Squire (in press), both of which investigate the potential of AR games to teach students how to conduct scientific investigations and formulate and defend arguments within specific professional domains. Klopfer and Squire (in press), for example, found that their AR game, Environmental Detectives, helped “students understand science as a social practice, as opposed to an isolated set of facts and procedures”. Squire and Jan (2007), argue that their place-based AR game, MadCity Mystery, develops students’ scientific literacy skills, especially scientific argumentation, because it “guides and supports students’ thinking while enabling them to engage in emotionally meaningful, cognitively complex tasks”. The design follows Squire and Jan’s (2007) model for incorporating computer and video game design principles into the design of AR games in order to increase student engagement and structure the learning that takes place. It goes beyond this previous work, however, by aligning the game more closely with broader curricular goals and situating the game within a ten-day gaming curriculum. Some of the key components of 3
  4. 4. the game design include: (1) a compelling task; (2) roles (social configurations); (3) embedded tools and resources; (4) context and place; and (5) an encompassing activity system (Squire & Jan, 2007). While their work relates to the study of environmental science, it provides a framework that can be used to design AR games around a wide- range of domains and learning goals. Historical Thinking / Historical Empathy One of the primary design goals of Dow Day is to actively engage students in the historical inquiry process by situating their inquiry within an authentic historical problem space. Brush and Saye (2008), argue that “problem-based learning activities provide learners with opportunities to move beyond the memorization of discrete facts in order to critically examine complex problems.” They acknowledge, however, that this “requires learners to remain engaged in the problem for an extensive period of time, and to weigh competing perspectives, or critically examine various points of view regarding the historical problem.” Dow Day attempts to generate this level of commitment by structuring the students’ inquiry around an historical event and problem space that both sparks and sustains their interest and provides a narrative arc that pulls individual acts of historical inquiry together into a coherent, meaningful, and productive process. Because the game and associated curriculum aims to develop students’ historical empathy, it relies heavily on the existing research surrounding this area of historical inquiry. It pays particular attention to research into the design of learning environments aimed at fostering empathetic thinking and research that explores strategies for assessing students’ ability to use empathetic thinking. Historical empathy has been defined in multiple ways. Foster (2001) suggests that one goal of historical empathy is “to understand people’s actions in the past, by actively developing an appreciation of the historical context”. However, he also stresses that historical empathy “does not involve imagination, identification, or sympathy”. Instead, he argues that it involves developing arguments that are grounded in evidence, but considered incomplete and tentative. Similarly, according to Jensen (2007), empathy does not involve understanding or judging historical figures based on contemporary ideals. As part of their definition, Lee and Ashby (2001) suggest that historical empathy involves making connections between circumstances, intentions, actions, and consequences. The design of Dow Day was informed by Foster and Yeager’s (1998) research surrounding historical empathy and uses their framework, which breaks historical empathy into the following four interrelated phases: 1. The introduction of an historical event that necessitates some analysis of the human action. In the game, students explore the actions of multiple historical actors. They are also encouraged to explore the complexities within groups of actors and within individual actors. An example of the former might be getting students to look beyond the protestors or police officers as a homogenous group and recognizing the variation within each group. An example of the latter includes exploring why the chancellor of the university, who was opposed to the Vietnam War, made the decision to call in city police officers to remove the protestors. 4
  5. 5. 2. Understanding of the historical context and chronology. The game attempts to help students understand the context and chronology by setting the game play in “real time”. That is, by playing the game from a first person perspective, students are able to develop a sense of the chronology of the events that took place. Students are also given additional materials (primary and secondary resources) before and after the game aimed at building their contextual or “enabling knowledge” (Rogers, as cited in Foster, 2001, p.172). 3. Analysis of a variety of historical evidence and interpretations. In following suggestions made by previous research around historical empathy (and using what was learned from earlier iterations of the game), students are provided with a range of historical resources (flyers, interviews, archival video, journals, etc.) representing different perspectives and interpretations of the events. Because the students had limited or no experience analyzing primary and secondary documents, they were given guide sheets to scaffold their analysis. 4. Construction of a narrative framework through which historical conclusions are reached. Students use three primary frameworks for reaching and communicating historical conclusions: (a) they write a newspaper article; (b) they participate in small group discussions where they share their interpretation(s) of the events and discuss why the events turned violent; and (c) they participate in a game re-design activity. The design of Dow Day also takes into account Portal’s (1987) and Foster’s (2001) suggestions for stimulating historical empathy as a means for historical understanding. Portal proposes a process for developing students’ empathy that includes: (1) an exploratory stage that allows students to project their own ideas and feelings into the historical situation; (2) moments or elements of paradox that provide cognitive dissonance, where students’ pre-existing “scheme of things does not account for the behaviour of the past”; (3) an appropriate set of primary and secondary resources relevant to the historical time period and the problem space at hand; (4) the presentation of a particular person or situation that extends beyond the merely typical to encompass the unique circumstances of the case; and (5) a two-sided narrative where the inadequately empathetic relationship between the historical participants leads to misunderstanding, conflict, and even to tragedy. In his synthesis of the chapters in the book, Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in Social Studies, Foster (2001), suggests some key things to consider when developing students’ empathic understanding in the classroom. Some of these include: structuring students’ inquiry around a paradoxical or puzzling situation; developing students’ conceptual background without swamping them; encouraging students to ask critical questions; structuring students’ analysis without over- 5
  6. 6. scaffolding their thinking and learning; providing opportunities for them to write final narrative accounts that are rooted in evidence. Finally, the design of Dow Day considers the research surrounding ways to measure students’ ability to use historical empathy. Downey (1995) developed a framework for assessing students’ historical empathy that was further developed and utilized by Jensen (2008) and Kohlmeier (2006). The framework suggests that students who exhibit historical empathy should be able to: (1) recognize that the past is different from the present; (2) understand the context under which the historical events took place; (3) recognize that there are various perspectives from the past; and (4) use historical evidence when making arguments and/or writing their newspaper accounts. I also added a fifth component which looked at students’ ability to recognize how their own perspective shapes(-ed) the way they look at historical evidence and contexts. Research Design and Methods Research-based Design The conceptual frameworks discussed above were used to design the game/curriculum and develop strategies for assessing students’ historical empathy. This integrated conceptual framework was then operationalized and tested using a design- based research methodology. The research design process for Dow Day borrows from two design methodologies: design-based research (Barab & Squire, 2004; Brown, 1992; Collins, Joseph & Bielaczyc, 2004) and rapid-prototyping (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). While there is overlap between these two models, the main design principles fore- grounded were: (1) get local stakeholders (educational researchers, teachers, students, etc.) involved in the design process as “co-designers”; (2) use rapid prototyping in order to get early and ongoing feedback from stakeholders (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990); (3) test the design decisions, learning goals, and hypotheses in natural settings (i.e., schools, classrooms, and game or fieldtrip sites) across numerous iterative cycles with the aim of developing domain specific understandings; and (4) use each iterations to modify the design of the game/curriculum and the theoretical frameworks used to conceptualize the learning that took place (or didn’t take place). To date, the design of Dow Day includes three iterative design phases that looked at the interplay between the core game design principles (e.g., role, challenge, resources), student engagement, and students’ capacity to use historical empathy as part of the inquiry process. The first and second iterations are briefly presented here in order to contextualize the third iteration, which is the main focus of this article. Phase One – Proof of Concept: The main goal of this iteration was to get the mobile devices in the hands of students in order to see how they responded to both the technology itself, the user interface and the game content/challenges. One goal was to identify major flaws in the game interface and make broad assessments related to student engagement and historical reasoning. Changes were made at this point to make the game play more intuitive, integrate more video, and reduce the amount of text. 6
  7. 7. A key consideration was looking at game flow and tracking students’ interest levels as the game unfolded. Phase Two – Historical Thinking: This iteration looked more closely at whether Dow Day might prove useful as a context/learning environment for developing students’ historical inquiry skills. The focus here was to look at students’ general engagement, but also their willingness to “dig into” additional resources related to the event and/or historical time period (e.g., to what extent would they be interested in reading additional documents outside of the game?). This phase also began to explore the students’ ability to critically analyze primary documents, use historical empathy, and develop evidence-based arguments. The key results, which align with previous research surrounding students’ use of heuristics and historical empathy were: (1) students were interested in the central historical problem and motivated to complete the game tasks; (2) by completing the game activities students were able to recognize and explain different perspectives surrounding the events, albeit at generalized levels; (3) students exhibited limited understanding of how to critically use, read and interpret historical evidence in order to develop historical arguments; and (4) the students understanding of the historical context was not very deep, which made it difficult for them to use historical empathy. When used as a starting point for further questions, however, the game provided a context for challenging students to think about how their own perspective(s) shaped their inquiry and interpretations. It also provided a context for students to explore some of the underlying ethical and moral issues surrounding and the decisions that individuals and groups made. Phase Three – Curriculum Integration: Based on findings from the second iteration, the game was re-designed with the primary goal of encouraging students to think more critically about the complexities of the time period, the actors and their actions, and the consequences of these actions. The changes for phase three were based on findings from phase two, and on the research surrounding historical empathy and game-based learning. The key changes included: (1) embedding the game into a larger inquiry unit; (2) introducing additional contextual information related to the historical time period and the chronology of events; (3) providing students with additional resources/evidence representing a wider range of perspectives; (4) building in more opportunities for students to formally report out their findings and emergent thinking; (5) integrating instruction/scaffolding to support students’ ability to analyze historical documents; and (6) introducing additional contextual information related to the historical time period and the historical actors. Participants Dow Day was developed, piloted, and implemented across the three design iterations mentioned above, each involving a different group of high school students. 7
  8. 8. While I consulted with history teachers when developing the initial design, to date, I have served as the lead facilitator during each of the interventions. The changes made to the game and curriculum as a result of this current study, however, will be organized in a way that will allow teachers to use them in their own classrooms. At that point the research agenda and theoretical context will be expanding to look at ways that teachers take up the materials and make use of them to meet their own local needs, perspective, teaching style, etc. The third iteration started with ten eleventh and twelfth-grade students from a small alternative high school in a suburban school district. One of the students, however, switched to a new school during the study, so data gathered about her was not analyzed for this study. The nine students in the study included in the analysis include two African- American students (the only two females), one Hispanic student, and six Caucasian students. All of the students struggled in traditional school settings for a variety of reasons. This was the case in History, where seven of the students failed at least one semester of U.S. History. Only one student reported History as their favorite subject. Six of the students agreed or strongly agreed that it was important to study history in school, but only half of those thought that students should be required to pass a U.S. History course in order to graduate. The Game and Curriculum Intervention The game itself, which takes approximately 1.5 hours to play, is designed to be part of a larger inquiry-based unit. The broader curriculum contains additional resources (primary and secondary documents) that support and expand what the students learn in the game. For example, additional contextual information intended to deepen the students’ understanding of the historical context and chronology. The curriculum utilizes guide sheets to scaffold students’ analysis of the documents as evidence. The analysis guides provide a simple framework for helping students practice using sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization heuristics (Wineburg, 1991; Nokes, Dole, & Hacker, 2007). During the unit, students: (1) read and analyze documents (newspaper articles, photographs, charts, graphs, and video clips) that provide an initial contextual understanding of the historical time period from both a local and national perspective; (2) begin a journal of questions and thoughts that they will use throughout the unit; (3) travel to the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus in order to play the game at the actual location where various protest activities took place; (4) select and analyze additional historical documents representing a range of perspectives; (5) write a newspaper article based on the observations and interviews they conducted during the protests; and (6) participate in a game critique session and make suggestions for how the game and curriculum could be improved. Data Sources and Analysis Key data sources include the artifacts students created during the unit (e.g., photographs they took during the game/site visit, notes, and articles they wrote at the end of the unit), pre- and post-surveys, pre- and post-historical inquiry tasks (e.g., asking students to analyze an historical document), classroom and in-game discussions and student interviews. 8
  9. 9. Students’ historical empathy was analyzed using the work of Jensen (2008), Downey (1995), and Kohlmeier (2006). As such, I looked at the students’ ability to do the following: (1) recognize that the past is different from the present; (2) understand the context under which the historical events took place; (3) recognize that there are various perspectives from the past; and (4) use historical evidence when making arguments and/or writing their newspaper accounts. I also added a fifth component which looked for students ability to recognize that their own perspective shapes(-ed) the way they look at historical evidence and contexts. I attempted to track these identifiers over the course of the unit in order to identify shifts in students’ ability to think more complexly about the events and demonstrate historical empathy, especially in relation to particular design elements. I followed a similar process in analyzing students’ engagement, but focused my analysis on students’ self-assessments, time off task, increases and decreases in participation and willingness to complete specific tasks, and the general thoroughness of their work. Dow Day: A Place-based Augmented Reality Game The intent of this section of the paper is to provide readers with a sense of how the game is played. Players start the game by receiving two primary documents. The first is an excerpt from a newspaper that lists all of the interviews scheduled on campus on the day the game takes place (October 18, 1967). Noticeably, Dow Chemical is only one of many companies conducting interviews on campus that day. Why have they been singled out? The second is a copy of the front page from the Daily Cardinal, a student paper that highlights some of the key players and perspectives surrounding the planned protests. The headlines of the paper read, “U Promises Crack-down On Dow Co. Obstructors,” “SRP Defeats Dow Protest Proposal” and “U Activists Disagree On Demonstrations” (The Daily Cardinal, 1967). Together, these documents are designed to provide a context for the protests, create some initial entry points into the simulated time period, frame the campus as a contested space, and introduce students to the idea that the anti-Dow protests and the university’s official response were publicly and privately debated, multi-faceted, and not inevitable. This last point is critical in that our pre-interviews showed that before playing the game most students (even those who had previously studied the Vietnam War in school) held solidly black-and-white views of the time period and anti-war protests in general. After reading these documents players are given a GPS-equipped PDA with the game already loaded and paused on the start-up screen. As soon as they tap the start button players are presented with a brief introductory video and a one-paragraph introductory text. The short video provides additional background on Dow Chemical and highlights some of the events leading up to October 18th, including archival footage of anti-Dow and pro-Dow protests that occurred on campus the day before. The video also includes short interview clips introducing some of the key characters that players meet later in the game including; the chief of the university police force, the chancellor, a Dow Chemical supporter, and students opposed to Dow’s presence on campus. From a narrative standpoint the goal is to draw players into the emotion surrounding the conflict, reconfirm the multiple perspectives surrounding the event, and build-up initial suspense. 9
  10. 10. Figure 1. Screen Capture: Introductory Figure 2. Screen Capture: Game map Text Upon exiting the introduction, a map of the campus appears on the player’s screen. Players are informed that they are represented by a red triangle and told that the people they are expected to interact with in the game are represented by yellow squares. Finally, they are told that the things characters tell them in the game and the game objects that appear on the map will provide clues for what steps or actions to take next. With that, the players are given the green light to begin exploring the game space. The first game character players see on their map is the editor of the newspaper they work for. By walking to the square representing the editor’s location in the physical world the players activate (or trigger) a virtual interview with him. The editor is a fictitious character who introduces the players to their overall game task (conducting interviews and writing an article in time for the evening paper) and gives them their first quest or micro-challenge. Both of these are delivered via a text-based dialog box. During their “conversation” with the editor he directs their attention across the street to where one of the Dow Chemical recruiters is walking on his way to an interview. The editor says: Hey wait! See that guy across the street in Library Mall? No, the one with the black overcoat. He is one of the Dow representatives. I ran into him yesterday, but he did not have time for an interview. He is talking to one of the reporters from the Daily Cardinal. Why don't you run over there and see if you can get any information out of him. When you're done don't forget to head up to the Chancellor's office. Hurry and we'll see you later. Good Luck. 10
  11. 11. Interestingly, it is not uncommon for players to look across the street in an attempt to see the recruiter, who of course, is not physically there. Instead, the recruiter is represented on the game map as a new (and previously invisible) yellow square. As players walk across the street to interview the recruiter, they see their own icon (the red triangle) moving across the map in the same direction they are walking. Once the player is within range of the recruiter (a pre-determined distance manually set by the game designer), the player hears a chime and the interview dialog box appears along with a picture of the recruiter. As before, after completing their interview the player’s screen returns to the map view and several new locations/characters appear. The game proceeds in this manner as players navigate the map based on the locations they want to visit and the people they want to interview. Players are not required to take notes during the game because all of the data (including photos, video, documents, and interviews) they gather or unlock during the game is stored on the handheld and easily retrievable. Players can also share content they gather in the game with other players by using the IR-beaming capabilities built into the devices. In addition to conducting virtual interviews the players can also gather virtual documents (flyers, press releases, etc.) via the handheld computer and physical documents that have been placed in physical locations around campus. The content in the game consists mainly of primary documents and archival video and photos. Interview text is built from original newspaper accounts, oral interviews, and official documents released by the university, student groups, police agencies, and the state legislature. The types of content players encounter in the game includes: 1) Game Map - The map helps establish a physical setting for the narrative and sets the spatial boundaries of the game. As a game tool, it also helps players navigate the physical game space (e.g., the map helps them identify key buildings mentioned in the interviews and game documents). 2) Game Text – Text appears in the game as: (a) Interview text (pre-scripted virtual interviews that players trigger during the game); (b) In-game directions (e.g., “enter the building and head down the hallway to your left”) that help guide students actions; and (c) Descriptions. Descriptive text is primarily inserted into the game as a narrative element when no video is available to communicate the same idea. It might include something like, “As you walk into the building you hear a loud commotion coming from the next hallway over.” It is also used (much in the same way the text was used in early text-based games) to encourage players to take certain actions without explicitly directing them to do so. In the example above, after reading the text, players head around the corner in order to find out what the commotion is all about. 3) Physical Environment and Spatial Layout - The physical world (e.g., buildings, university students, sidewalks, hallways, spatial layout of buildings, etc.) is important to the experience because it helps situate the story, provides continuity between the past and the present, and increases the level of authenticity. Walking in the physical world facilitates historical imagination by helping players imagine how the place might have looked in 1968. In combination, the physical world not 11
  12. 12. only helps immerse players in the simulation, it also merges the simulated world into the physical world and vice versa. (Holland, Squire, & Jenkins, 2003). 4) Real-World Text – This is part of the physical environment mentioned above, but specifically refers to signage and other text posted around campus (e.g., names on buildings, signs above office doors, etc.) that help players navigate the space. This can provide additional content for understanding the nature of the protests and adds to the authenticity of the game. Players also have the opportunity to encounter four historical markers erected by the university that relate the specific time period or concepts that appear in the game (e.g., there is a historical marker related to anti-war protests on campus along the game route that many students read that marks the death of a student that resulted from a bombing that took place on the campus during the Vietnam War). 5) Photos, Video and Audio – The game takes advantage of multimedia capacities of the handheld computers to represent the content across modes. There are photos for each character the players interview and there are videos at a majority of the locations that show players the events as they unfold in front of them. The video is primarily archival footage that was shot in the same location where it appears in the game. So, as players stand in the same hallway the protestors occupied in attempt to disrupt the interviews, they watch footage of the hallway as it looked when it was filled with protestors. Similarly, students stand at the front doors of the same building when police arrive in riot gear and watch as the protestors are forcibly removed. 6) Virtual Documents – These are documents delivered on the handheld computer. They are usually handed to the player by a particular character in the game. For example, if players decide to interview one particular protestor early on in the game he hands them a flyer containing information about the protests. Like all of the documents in the game, the flyer is a reproduction of an original document from the time period. 7) Physical Documents – These are similar to the virtual documents, but they are left for the players to encounter in the physical world. There are two times in the game where students read actual hard copies of documents. One is a press release from the chancellor of the university that players obtain in front of the chancellor’s office when they attempt to interview him. The second is a map they get when entering the building where the protests took place. 8) Informal Interactions with Non-Players – Occasionally, players will interact with people who are not playing the game. These interactions include, people asking questions about what the players are doing, players asking non-players for directions to a particular campus building, students getting caught in hallways or sidewalks just as classes are let out, and people discussing the content of the game with students. This last example, while rare, can be especially rewarding because it provides students with a first-person perspective on the events. In one case, a 12
  13. 13. group of students playing Dow Day came across two university students setting up an anti-Iraq war display on campus. This impromptu meeting helped the students raise questions about anti-Iraq War protests on campus and encouraged them to make connections between current and historical events on campus. As mentioned earlier, the players do not access the game content as if they were simply taking a walking tour of the area. Instead, they access content as a reporter charged with investigating the events as they unfold in real time. It is this combination of media-rich, location-based content intertwined with the game structure that shapes players’ experiences. Henry Jenkins (2003) uses the term “memorable moments” to describe the logic by which games operate. Jenkins argues that aesthetically, games are less about telling formal stories, and more about setting up interactions that result in memorable moments for the player. The design attempts to facilitate these types of experiences by using multimedia and place to link players with the past. For example, allowing players to watch video footage of demonstrations that occurred in the same location where they are standing, helps elicit emotional reactions from them. These moments increase players’ role identity, make the game challenges and overall narrative seem more authentic, and promote a sense of being there. (Squire, et al., 2007). Findings and Discussion By analyzing each of the students’ work across the unit, I was able to identify some individual and collective patterns related to their engagement, ability to analyze historical documents, and capacity to use historical empathy. I begin here by pulling together some of the key themes that emerged. I then turn to individual cases as a way to exemplify and contextualize my broad findings and introduce some additional themes that impacted individual students’ capacity to use historical empathy. Student Engagement Consistent with earlier iterations of the game, all nine of the students exhibited and self-reported a high level of engagement when playing the game. Students mentioned that the game was more “active”, “fun”, “interesting”, and “interactive” than the way they usually studied history in school. A consistent theme was that students mentioned the game-like qualities of the experience, including the role-based design, narrative structure, and game-like challenges as being important to their experience. One student said, “[playing the game] was a really good way to learn about the protests because it was very engaging. I really enjoyed how it tried to pull you into the game as a person with a specific role in the game. Getting to feel like you were really part of the event by having a role in the game.” He added that, “it was a good way to learn because it lets you be active in a game world and it’s not boring. You could explore it in the way you wanted to”. Another student said that he “liked it better than reading out of a textbook or sitting and listening to someone explain it. I was interacting with it, like I was a part of it.” Still another student said that she liked “how it follows the story. It makes you want to go to the next person to learn more about what it is and how they handle it.” This does not mean that the students considered Dow Day to be in the same 13
  14. 14. league as commercial video games. Still, they described Dow Day as being game-like and in some instances, discussed it using gaming terminology. In addition, for some of the students, the game-like qualities of the experience amplified their interest. This might suggest that taking on a role, completing quests or challenges, interacting with non- playing characters (NPCs), and navigating a game space is a model and experience that makes sense and resonates with some learners. It should be noted that eight of the nine students considered themselves gamers with extensive experience playing video games. The most common criticism of the game was that it included too much reading. As part of their re-design plan three of the students suggested including more videos and providing audio that read the text out loud. A couple of students also suggested that the game interface should be changed, so that students could not skip through the readings so easily. These suggestions, along with the students’ comments on surveys and during interviews suggest that the students did not consistently read the game content during the game. It is important to note, however, that all of the students returned to the game text and videos in order to write their article. In this way, the initial game experience provided a general context for the inquiry, introduced the students to the multiple perspectives surrounding the events, and helped them generate micro-inquiry questions (via their journaling and informal discussions). It also sparked their curiosity and engaged them on an emotional level. The increased motivational capital created opportunities for developing students’ historical empathy because it encouraged them to read and analyze a wider range of primary and secondary resources, which in turn exposed them to more perspectives and encouraged them to see the complexity within similar perspectives. This follows Brush and Saye’s (2008) argument that problem-based learning “requires learners to remain engaged in the problem for an extensive period of time, and to weigh competing perspectives, or critically examine various points of view regarding the historical problem.” Reading more was important because students encountered more perspectives and detailed information about the context were more likely to develop nuanced views of the events. They were also more likely to encounter and more points that that facilitated cognitive dissonance. Both of these are related to Roger’s (as cited in Foster, 2001, p.172) notion of “enabling knowledge”. One design choice that worked to maintain students’ engagement and scaffold their analysis and empathetic thinking was dividing the game into multiple parts. Each of the parts was supplemented with a debriefing session (question and answer session / discussion), journaling, and structured document analysis. This break allowed students an opportunity to return to some of the material in order to dig in a bit more deeply. It also provided an opportunity to analyze the historical evidence they gathered in the game. This strategy seems to have worked on two levels: (1) it provided an opportunity to check students’ understanding before they got too far along in the inquiry process, and (2) it spread their interest in the game over a longer period of time. For example, a couple of students commented that this approach kept them interested because they were eager to interview more people in order to see how the events unfolded. This strategy speaks to one of the challenges of game and curriculum design - creating a flow that keeps students emotionally engaged while also challenging them to think more deeply about the content and use the skills (i.e, historical empathy and document analysis) that the game is built around. This also relates to Foster’s (2001) 14
  15. 15. suggestion that interventions should scaffold and guide students’ inquiry without drowning them in information or limiting their ability to explore the problem space. In this case, the game seems to have worked as an introductory experience that motivated the students, albeit to different extents and for different reasons, to stay interested in doing the difficult work of analyzing the documents that were the centerpiece of the post- game curriculum. Historical Thinking / Historical Empathy Overall, but to varying degrees, each of the students demonstrated some growth in their capacity to analyze historical documents and use empathic thinking to make sense of the historical content, actors, actions, and consequences. Consistent with previous studies related to historical empathy, however, this depended on multiple variables, including: the students’ past experiences and practice using historical heuristics to analyze historical documents; their personal positions, perspectives and interests; and their preconceptions and preexisting knowledge related to the time period under study (Davis, Yeager, & Foster, 2001). All of the students demonstrated an ability to identify various perspectives surrounding the events. This was demonstrated in their discussions, journals, document analyses, and final newspaper article. In addition, the students’ understanding of these perspectives was strengthened as they came into contact with additional resources, especially those that presented conflicting perspectives. For example, at the start of the unit, most of the students talked about the participants as four distinct groups: students, university officials, police, and Dow Chemical Co./Dow recruiters. By the end of the unit each of the students demonstrated an awareness that these groups could be divided into further sub-perspectives. For example, all of the students recognized that there was disagreement within the student body as to whether or not to hold the protests. They also recognized that there was disagreement amongst the protestors as to whether or not to use more aggressive techniques to stop the interviews. Students were also increasingly able to use critical reading skills in order to analyze historical documents and accounts related to the events and showed increased capacity to look for bias or point of view across and within documents. For example, on a very basic level, all of the students made comments or wrote things that demonstrated their awareness that a particular perspective someone held might impact the way they perceived and subsequently reported on the events. Students also made attempts to corroborate accounts and evidence across documents and used this technique to develop a more nuanced view of the historical context and chronology. They also became more capable of using evidence and counter-evidence to support their own arguments. This increased capacity to use sourcing and corroboration heuristics was primarily a result of the structured reading guides provided as part of the curriculum. It was also heightened for those students who had more pieces of evidence available to them as a result of reading and analyzing more historical documents. None of these developments were dramatic or consistently exhibited or applied. In addition, the students failed to make gains in some other key areas associated with historical empathy. For example, there was little development in the students’ ability to see the past as different from the present or recognize (at least without prompting) that their own perspective and position impacted the way they interpreted the historical 15
  16. 16. events. All of the students also relied heavily on processing the events from a position rooted in the present (Barton & Levtstik, 2004). Generally speaking, the students also made little growth in their understanding of history as an interpretive act or explicitly recognized that their conclusions were tenuous. While they recognized that different historical actors could have different perspectives, they were less cognizant of the notion that different historians could interpret the events differently. Even the students who consistently referred to textbooks as biased or interpretative texts, inconsistently applied an interpretivist epistemology to the tasks and problem at hand. Students were also not explicitly aware of their own acts of interpretation. Most ironically perhaps, the students did not recognize the game itself (at least not while playing it), as an historical interpretation with its own inherent biases. The task of writing a newspaper article was one strategy that helped separate students from their own perspective and build evidence-based claims. The students were more likely to rely on evidence and explore the events from multiple perspectives. This came primarily as a result of students’ perception that the newspaper article had to be “neutral”. One danger of this approach is that it can potentially guide students towards a belief that newspapers and journalists are bearers of an “official” and non-interpretive (i.e., “just the facts”) truth. I sought to address this by: (1) asking the students to produce mock-ups of stories from multiple perspectives; (2) exposing them to multiple interpretations of the events from different news sources, and (3) holding whole group discussions about journalistic interpretation and bias. While this was not related to my initial research questions, one theme that emerged during the study was students’ interest in discussing and reflecting on the ethical and moral positions at play. Initially these evolved from students’ own perspectives and experiences. As the unit progressed and students analyzed more historical resources, their ability to identify and extract the ethical issues at play increased. Their understanding of these issues, however, mostly remained universalized or de-contextualized from the specific historical context. Still, by the end of the unit most of the students saw the ethical and moral issues in more complex ways. Individual Cases The following student profiles are designed to exemplify and contextualize some of the broader points made in the previous sections. The cases also highlight differences in the way that students approached the historical problem and suggest some key design elements that might be missing from the game/curriculum. Student One: Kristin Before the unit, Kristin stated that she found studying history in school boring and not relevant to her life. She also listed History as her least favorite subject, in part because her teachers traditionally relied on textbooks to teach. Kristin considered herself a good reader and said that she read a lot outside of school, but was not interested in reading books or watching television shows about history. She also did not play video games outside of school. The most interesting aspect of the curriculum for Kristin was watching archival video clips. She reported that the game content and game experience engaged her and said that she liked role-playing as a journalist. She also said that the game was easier to read and understand than a textbook and felt that she collected and 16
  17. 17. remembered a lot more information than if she had studied the content from a textbook. Kristin completed all of the game tasks and the associated activities, but she reported slightly lower interest in the game than other students. While she completed the article, Kristin found it difficult to do so. She attributed part of this to not knowing how to write a newspaper article and not feeling completely engaged in the activity. When given the chance to write an opinion piece, however, Kristin found it easier to write the article. In the end, she wrote an article that presented an interpretation of the events based on some of the evidence she gathered, especially evidence gleaned from the virtual interviews and video clips. She ended the article by stating her own opinion. While her work was more thorough than any of the other students, by the end of the unit Kristin was saturated with the experience, and ready to move onto something else. In order track Kristin’s thinking during the unit I looked at her journal, her document analysis sheets, and her final article. I also interviewed her at several points and observed her conversations with classmates. Below are the notes that Kristin recorded in her journal. Notes From Part One: I don’t understand why they are protesting. Where does this happen? UW-Madison. Who are the people getting interviewed? What is Dow exactly offering? Jobs? Students don’t want Dow on campus. Why? Notes Form Part Two: Protesting Dow. Who wants to come for job interviews? Dow makes stuff that kills people in wars. People want them to come. My opinion is that they should be allowed to come. It’s as much their right to be there as all of the other companies. If people don’t want them there they should just not interview and maybe inform people with posters and flyers about what Dow is and why they don’t like them. Obviously, if that many people protest no one would be interviewing for the job, so why make such a big deal about it? • It says that it is in fact students who are starting problems when they don’t let people walk through the halls even when they are reminded the rules. • No one talks about how Dow does other things besides napalm and how there are other interviews for the government • A UW student leader said sit-ins would stop if Dow left, but that’s not happening. All of the students know they might be arrested. I still think it’s their fault that things got violent. • After seeing the violent videos I believe everyone is at fault. The police shouldn’t have been beating people so terribly just because they wouldn’t move, but the people should have listened to the authority members and walked out. But, because people were so violent people were violent back to protect themselves. • A police officer, very biased, said police tried defending themselves. The only way to know is to see a video of when police entered. Who was violent first? In an interview after the game Kristin explained her interpretation for why the protests turned violent: 17
  18. 18. I think that the protestors have a right to express how they feel and speak their mind, but I think that they over did it a lot and went too far with it. But, I think that the police were too violent and they didn’t really need to get that far. So, it’s hard to say who started it in the first place. When the police first went in there some people were saying that the police started getting violent first and then the police were saying that the kids were violent first. So, it is really hard to say. My opinion at first was that the students were doing the right thing, but after more information my opinion changed and I kind of thought that the protesting wasn’t that necessary. I feel like Dow has a right to be there, so they can’t really stop that from happening. Given her underdeveloped understanding of the time period and the specific dynamics and circumstances on the UW-Madison campus it seems unreasonable that Kristin would have developed a more nuanced interpretation of why the events turned violent. However, she is beginning to ask questions about people’s motivations, point of view, and actions. In addition, while drawing conclusions, Kristin recognizes these as tentative and suggests that she needs more information in order to make a final assessment of the situation. She also brings in evidence from the game text to support her reasoning. For example, she quotes one of the student leaders and uses the video footage as evidence. However, the only time that Kristin raises questions regarding someone’s interpretation of the events is when she writes that the police officer was “very biased”. Kristin seems to value eyewitness accounts over other evidence when developing arguments. She also holds a relativist epistemology that suggests that history consists of people’s opinions of what happened. After the game, Kristin along with the other students were asked to choose additional resources that interested them or got them closer to understanding why the events turned violent. They were given access to ten documents (e.g., photos, newspaper accounts, maps, flyers, official reports, meeting notes, video interviews, diaries, etc.) each representing various perspectives, but were only required to select four. This approach was aimed at increasing students’ choice and challenging them to prioritize evidence and resources that would best help them develop some conclusions (Foster, 2001). The first document that Kristin chose was a flyer put out by a group of students attempting to organize a university-wide strike in response to the violence used against the demonstrators. Kristin started her analysis by stating that the flyer is from the Committee for Student Rights and suggests that they are in favor of going on strike. She then suggested that the document was biased because “they don’t see the point of view from Dow or from the people who work at the university.” She also noted that while it does not have a date on it, it was written after the protests. She also wrote that the committee was “upset about how things turned violent and they want to do something about it.” Kristin also used corroboration by linking back to statements made by characters in the game: “There were interviews that agree with this document saying that the police were violent but then there was an interview with a police officer that showed how students were starting the violence and the police were only defending themselves.” Kristin ended her analysis by making a comment regarding the language used in the flyer. 18
  19. 19. She wrote, “the language tells me that this is a student who really wants people to believe that the students weren’t violent at all during the protesting. Was this person there? Are they leaving parts out or were students really not violent? Kristin used these same techniques across the other documents that she analyzed in the steps leading up to her final article. Kristin’s analysis, which was scaffolded by a historical analysis sheet, demonstrates her capacity to make connections between what she learned in the game, her emergent questions, her opinions, and new information. It also shows that she used the documents to further her understanding of the context and piece together the chronology of the events. Kristin rarely (and never without prompting) demonstrated an ability to recognize that the past was different from the present. Instead, she focused her analysis on more universal concepts such as authority and freedom of speech without trying to understand how these values were shaped by the historical context. Kristin’s own perspective never overshadowed her ability to entertain new evidence. This was not the case for all of the students. Student Two – Aaron: Aaron was a student with previous experience using document-based inquiry. Of all the students, he also held the most nuanced view of history and could fluidly conceptualize and discuss history as an interpretation of events. Aaron considered himself a strong reader and said that he liked to read in and outside of school. He was, however, a reluctant writer at school, especially when it came to expository texts. The central problem space interested Aaron and he was motivated to play the game and found it interesting. While Aaron was more reluctant than Kristin to engage in the out of game reading activities, he actively participated in small group discussions. During discussions and reading exercises Aaron used his previous experience analyzing historical documents to develop his interpretations, even when unprompted. Aaron consistently expressed an anti-authority streak that made him at times both critical and dogmatic. His anti-authority position manifested itself in his views towards school, teachers, the government, and the police. His general distrust of authority made Aaron critical of many secondary resources and “official histories”. However, it also made him less critical when the available evidence contradicted his own position or worldview. Similarly, Aaron’s capacity for historical empathy was also reduced by his emotional connection to and sympathy for the students. Still, Aaron was capable of rethinking his position and argument, albeit reluctantly, when confronted with new evidence. For example, Aaron broadened his interpretation of the police actions to allow for some complexities. He eventually made a distinction between the university police force and the city police force. He also moved away from analyzing the violence as an isolated event and began to broaden his interpretation to include the broader context and the events leading up to the violence. This led him to claim that there were some good faith efforts made by the university to solve the conflict in non-violent ways. It also made him consider that the chancellor did not act rashly when he made the decision to call in the city police. When asked whether his own perspectives impacted his analysis and interpretation, Aaron quickly acknowledged that it had. While Aaron demonstrated the capacity to separate himself from his own perspectives when analyzing individual pieces of historical evidence, he was not consistently able or particularly motivated to do so, 19
  20. 20. when constructing larger narrative arguments. Student Three – Peter: Peter was another student who held strong anti-authoritarian views. In contrast to Aaron, however, he was a “reluctant reader” in and outside of school. He also had no previous practice doing document-based inquiry and exhibited a much narrower view of history as an interpretive act. While Peter could raise questions about historical documents when provided a guide sheet, he was not able to translate this to a larger concept of history itself as an act of interpretation. Like Aaron, Peter was very emotionally engaged in the historical events under study and drew quick interpretations of the events from his “anti-police” position. Peter made progress during the unit in terms of his ability to use heuristics, but it was much harder for him in comparison to other students to move from his own position and initial interpretation of the events. For example, Peter demonstrated that he could analyze a source for its “bias” or positionality, but was more likely to do so when it supported his personal perspective or line of reasoning. Peter also struggled to see the past as different from the present and relied heavily on generalized beliefs about police behavior. He used his own past experiences with the police in order to explain the actions of the police during the Dow Day protests. He also projected himself into the situation and explained how he would have responded to the police (i.e., by fighting back). In doing so, however, he did not acknowledge the historical context and failed to realize his own bias. At other times during the unit, however, Peter was able to concede that the events were more complex than he had originally thought. In addition, Peter became increasingly capable of analyzing historical resources. While it was easy for Peter to identify multiple perspectives surrounding the events from a broad level, it was more difficult for him to identify nuances within these perspectives. He was also reluctant to use evidence to develop his interpretations of the events, and as mentioned, his pre-existing perspective diminished his ability to use empathic thinking. When he was challenged about inconsistencies in his thinking, however, via small group discussions, Peter’s interpretation became increasingly evidence-based and more complex. For example, Peter chose an eyewitness account (a hand written letter that was written by a student who had observed the protests) as one of his supplementary readings. In analyzing the document Peter was confronted by some new evidence suggesting that there were students who might have initiated the violence at the protest. This led Peter to modify his interpretation. It also encouraged him to look for additional evidence that supported his existing narrative. In the end, while Peter was able to concede that there were some students who might have been partly responsible for the violence or that the violence came as a shock to the university officials, he never moved far from his original interpretation. Peter’s motivation to project his identity, his authentic interest in the rights of the protestors, and his anti-authoritarian views encouraged him to stay engaged in the inquiry process. This line of thought aligns closely with Barton and Levstik’s (2004) notions of “caring about”, “caring that”, and “caring for”. Peter’s “caring” sustained his interest, led him to look for additional evidence to support his positions, and motivated him to engage in debate with other students. 20
  21. 21. Educational and Design Significance As mobile technologies become increasingly ubiquitous there will be more interest in using them in formal and informal learning contexts. Research in Augmented Reality (AR) gaming can prove important in this area because it emphasizes the use of mobile devices for more than simple content delivery. In particular, Dow Day provides a starting point for further discussions about the use of mobile devices and AR games for outdoor and place-based learning. Finally, Dow Day provides a model for how an AR game might be integrated into a larger curriculum. As with other curriculum-centered interventions, Dow Day (or other AR games for that matter) should not be viewed as a lay down curriculum. While Dow Day provides a rich context for developing students’ empathetic thinking, the role that teachers play in the learning process cannot be overemphasized. Teachers need to help students make sense of the content and be prepared to challenge their students’ thinking at key moments. As such, more work needs to be done, not only on developing more effective AR games, but also on researching how teachers pick up and use these games in their classrooms. In line with this, future research should also inform the design of professional development that addresses teachers’ needs specific to the use of AR games (e.g., technological, pedagogical, and content needs). In the end, while AR games can be used to simulate complex problem spaces and enliven case studies, teachers remain core to the successful integration of these games into the curriculum. One way that teachers might use AR games in their classroom is to engage students in empathetic thinking around important, but controversial social, environmental, and political issues. Being able to examine controversial issues from multiple perspectives and learning how to negotiate and design solutions to complex social problems is necessary for participation in a pluralistic society (Barton and Levstik, 2004). Future AR games could be developed around controversial issues that students care deeply about. In turn, these might be used to encourage students to reflect on their own positionality and perspective, help them better understand the issue from multiple perspectives, and challenge them to design negotiated solutions. Sources Ashby, R. & Lee, P. (1987). Children’s concepts of empathy and understanding in history. In C. Portal (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 62-88). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis, Inc. Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1). Barton, K. & Levtstik, L. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2): 141-178. 21
  22. 22. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 2(1), 21-56. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42. Davis, O.L., Yeager, E.A., & Foster, S.J. (Eds.). (2001). Historical empathy and perspective taking in social studies. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Downey, M.T. (1995). Perspective taking and historical thinking: Doing history in a fifth-grade classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Foster, S., & Yeager, E. (1998). The role of historical empathy in the development of historical understanding. The International Journal of Social Education, 13, 1-7. Foster, S. (2001). Historical empathy in theory and practice: Some final thoughts. In O. Davis, E. Yeager, & S. Foster. (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in social studies (pp.167-181). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Galarneau, L. (2007). Productive play: Participation and learning in digital game environments. Advanced Technology for Learning, 4(4). Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Second edition: Revised and updated edition. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Grant, S. (2001). It’s just the facts, or is it? The relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ understanding of history. Theory and Research in Social Education. 29(1), 65-108. Holland, W., Jenkins, H., Squire, K. (2003). Theory by design. In B. Perron and M. Wolf (Eds.), Video Game Theory (pp. 25-46). Routledge, New York. Jenkins, H. (2003). Game design as narrative architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin and P. Harrigan (Eds.), First Person: New media as story, Performance, and Game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Jensen, J. (2008). Developing historical empathy through debate: An action research study. Social Studies Research and Practice. 3(1), 55-67. Klopfer, E., K. Squire & H. Jenkins (2003). Augmented reality simulations on PDAs. Paper presented at the national American Education Research Association (AERA) conference, Chicago, 2003. Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Klopfer, E. & Squire, K. (in press). Environmental Detectives: The Development of an Augmented Reality Platform for Environmental Simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development (to appear). Kohlmeier, J. (2006). “Couldn’t she just leave?”: The relationship between consistently using class discussions and the development of historical empathy in a 9th grade world history course. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25, 113-136. Maraniss, D. (2002). They marched into sunlight: War and peace, Vietnam and America, 22
  23. 23. October 1967. New York: Simon & Schuster. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Nokes, J., Dole, J., Hacker, D. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492-504. Portal, C. (1987). Empathy as an objective for history teaching. In Portal, C. (Ed.), The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 89-99). Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis, Inc. Shaffer, D., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 105-111. Shaffer, D.W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5-29. Squire, K., Jan, M., Mathews, J., Wagler, M., Martin, J., DeVane, B., & Holden, C. (2007). Wherever you go, there you are: Place-based augmented reality games for learning. In Shelton, B. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The Educational Design and Use of Simulation Computer Games (pp. 265-296). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Squire, K., DeVane, B., & Durga, S. (2008). Designing centers of expertise for academic learning through video games. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 240-251 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. Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44. Wineburg, S. (2001) Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University. 23

×