2500 words essay on How does global capitalism shape a politics of video games and live-streaming due in 70 hrs

Let the Games Begin: Civic Playing on High-Tech Consoles

Marina Umaschi Bers Tufts University

The author presents an overview of an emerging field that looks at the impact of video games on civic engagement. Some video games have explicit civics-related content and engage players in simulations of civically related projects, but most others do not. However, research has shown that video game playing engages players in civically oriented experiences that previous research has found to promote civic outcomes in classroom-based programs. These include helping and guiding others; learning about problems in society; exploring social, moral, or ethical issues; organizing groups; and making decisions about how a community, city, or nation should be run.

Keywords: civic engagement, computer games, Internet, adolescence, young adulthood

Playing video games is a popular activity among young people, and it has the potential to promote social and civic engagement. The term video game actually encompasses a gamut of human– machine experience, including computer-based games, online games played on the Internet, and console games (such as Xbox 360, PlayStation, and Wii). Simply put, any game with a user interface and a monitor screen may be considered a video game. A report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project

(Lenhart et al., 2008), the first nationally representative study of youth video game play, examined data from a survey of 1,102 youth between the ages of 12 and 17 and found that 97% of American teens—99% of boys and 94% of girls—play some kind of video game, with most players dividing their time between at least five categories of games such as racing, puzzles, sports, action, adventures, role playing, or other games. Approximately 76% of these youth play games with others at least some of the time. As such, available data suggest that video game playing is pervasive and universal among youth and that game playing is often social. In the Pew study, at least 38% of teen boy gamers and 22% of teen girl gamers play some sort of video games daily; and boy gamers tend to report playing for a longer period of time than girls, with 34% of boys and 18% of girls playing for more than 2 hr a day. This trend seems to be shared by teens of all ages. Of all teens in the study who reported playing video games on a regular basis, 54% of them were younger teens (12–14 years) and 46% were older teens (15–17 years). Although recent trends point to a rise in computer-based games,

console games remain most popular. The Pew survey reported that 83%of the teens in the studyplayconsolegames, and73%of them play computer-based games. Handheld and mobile devices are becoming popular as video gaming platforms, with 60% of sur- veyed teens owning a handheld device, and 48% reporting having played a game on their cell phone. Certainly, these numbers overlap as some teens play video games on multiple platforms.

Game play on these platforms does not indicate ownership of these systems as many teens (65%) play video games in groups and with peers in the same room together. There were no differ- ences found regarding the type of platform teens play on with respect to socioeconomic status, gender, or age. One exception regarded cell phone games; 53% of girls reported having played games on cell phones in contrast to 43% of boys. African Amer- icans and low-income teens are more likely to play cell phone games. Again, not all teen players of cell phone games own cell phones, as approximately 21% of teens who play games on cell phones do not own a cell phone and thus are likely using a friend’s phone to play. Besides playing on multiple platforms, teens reported playing

many different genres of games. More than half of all teen gamers (52%) play between five to eight different genres of games. Game genres include racing, puzzle, sports, action, adventure, rhythm/ music, strategy, simulation, fighting, first-person shooter, role playing, MMOGs (i.e., massively multiplayer online games), vir- tual words, and others. Of these genres, racing games are the most popular (74%). Ethnic differences were found most significantly in choice of genre. African American teens are more likely to play racing games than White or Hispanic teens, and they are more likely to play sports and adventure games than White teens. Fight- ing games seem to be more popular among African American and Hispanic teens than White teens. But White and Hispanic teens are more likely toplay rhythmgames suchas Dance Revolution. In the category of MMOGs, White teens seem to have a stronger pref- erence than African American teens. Lower socioeconomic status teens are more likely than higher income teens to play racing games (80% vs. 70%), adventure games (72% vs. 63%), or sur- vival horror games (40% vs. 28%). Only a few years ago gaming was mostly viewed, in the best

case scenario, as a waste of time and most commonly as a risky activity that might lead to antisocial behavior, aggression, and violence (Grüsser, Thalemann, & Griffiths, 2007; Sherry, 2001) as well as reinforced gender stereotypes (National Institute on Media and the Family, 2008). More recently, a growing body of research is starting to focus on “serious games” that might have a positive impact on young people (Squire & the Games-to-Teach Research Team, 2003). For example, there is increasing interest and exper- tise in developing and evaluating computer games for promoting

Marina Umaschi Bers, Department of Child Development, Tufts Uni- versity. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marina

Umaschi Bers, Department of Child Development, Tufts University, 105 College Avenue, Medford, MA 02155. E-mail: [email protected]

Review of General Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 14, No. 2, 147–153 1089-2680/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019490

147

health outcomes (Kato, Cole, Bradlyn, & Pollock, 2008; Lieber- man, 2001) and educational experiences (Gee, 2007; Shaffer, 2007). Lately, researchers, policymakers, and educators have also started to pay attention to the impact that video games might have on civic engagement. That is the focus of this article.

Video Games and Community

The Pew Internet and American Life Project’s report found that 44% of youth play games that teach them about a problem in society, and 52% play games that cause them to think about moral and ethical issues (Lenhart, 2008). The report also suggests that youth who have these kinds of civic gaming experiences are more likely to be civically engaged in the offline world, and are also more likely to go online to get information about current events, to try to persuade others how to vote in an election, to become committed to civic participation, and to raise money for charity. Although public debate often frames video games as either good

or bad, research shows that the context in which the video games are played and the content of the video games matter more than the amount of play time. For example, researchers such as Williams (2006) suggest that the backdrop for the rise of social gaming is a decline in civic shared spaces for people to meet and converse face-to-face. Echoing Oldenburg’s (1997) account of how “third places”—which are neither home nor work, and cross-nationally might include social clubs, taverns, piazzas, pubs, and public squares—are vital for community formation and maintenance, researchers propose that gaming, in particular virtual multiplayer games, come to satisfy the human need for community and social interaction (Steinkuehler, 2006). However, the need for community and social interaction does

not always lead to civic participation and civic engagement. Al- though in recent years there has been a surge of work on the positive power of computer gaming, the focus on video games and civic engagement is quiet novel.

Youth and Civic Engagement

Recent youth participation in the 2008 U.S. electoral campaign has sparked new interest and debate regarding youth engagement with civic and political activities. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (2008), youth voter turnout was estimated between 52% and 53% ofall youth, an increaseofmore than10percentagepoints over the past decade. This is a new trend that brings good news as, until this election, youth were often described as lacking in civic participa- tion and involvement inpolitical life (Andolina, Jenkins,Keeter,& Zukin, 2002; Grantmaker Forum on Community and National Service, 2001; Keeter, Zukin, Andolina, & Jenkins, 2002; Mich- elsen, Zaff, & Hair, 2002). This recent change in youth engagement trends might be related

to the emergence of new forms of youth civic activities that are not necessarily recognized by the public. Levine (2007) cites political blogs, “boycott” movements, and transnational youth networks facilitated by new technologies as new venues and opportunities for youth to engage and lead. Yet, he contends that amid all these new activities, many young people still lack the skills and know- how to carry debates and dialogues beyond their social networks to participate in politics and address public problems.

Research indicates that young people are more likely to engage in localized, smaller scale activities, such as volunteering and community work (Andolina et al., 2002; Galston, 2001), as op- posed to longer term national-level activities. These findings come with research showing that adults are more likely to vote and be engaged in civic life if, as youth, they were involved in commu- nity-based organizations, extracurricular activities, and civic edu- cation programs in schools (Torney-Purta, 2001; Verba, Schloz- man, & Brady, 1995; Youniss, McClellan, & Yates, 1997). Many psychologists suggest that young people are at a devel-

opmental stage in which they start thinking about how they can relate as individuals to society and they begin to form their own sociopolitical orientations (Erikson, 1968; Yates & Youniss, 1999). If that is the case, how is this developmental need funneled into promoting civic engagement? Thus, researchers ask the fol- lowing questions: What are the ways that people under the age of 18 get engaged in civic behaviors, and what other opportunities besides electoral politics do they have to experience themselves as members of a polity? (Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002). Engaging with new technologies such as video games might

provide some of these civic experiences. This is a particularly appealing option given that in the past 30 years there is a growing trend for the withering away of civic education in schools. Civic classes in the United States have declined and, when offered, the curriculum is limited to knowledge instruction and provides few opportunities for students to communicate about politics and share personal opinions on their own terms (Bennett, 2008). For exam- ple, a massive International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement survey of 90,000 14-year-olds in 28 nations suggested that civic education programs limit themselves to imparting textbook knowledge without immersing students in experiencing civic life (Torney-Purta, Lehman, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001). Video games offer the opportunity to bring civic education back

to life by engaging young people in simulations of political pro- cesses and immersing them in experiences in which making civic- based decisions are highly rewarded. For example, researchers such as Squire and Barab (2004) have studied the positive learning impact of playing historical simulation games such as Civilization. In the next sections, examples of such video games and research- based programs are presented. However, as mentioned earlier, although video games might provide new opportunities for en- gagement, they might also obscure some of the intricacies of political decision making, which are hidden in the decisions made by game designers when conceiving game models that might be simple enough for simulations to work but do not take into con- sideration the complexities of political systems. In this sense, authoring kits that enable children to produce their own video games by modeling their own decision-making processes might yield better educational results in the long term, as research has shown that people learn better by making their own personally meaningful, computationally rich projects (Bers, 2006; Papert, 1980; Resnick, Bruckman, & Martin, 1996). Preliminary studies have shown the potential of computational

tools to engage young people in online civic life (Blumler & Coleman, 2001). Researchers such as Bers (2008a, 2008b), Earl and Schussman (2008), Montgomery (2008), Rheingold (2008), and Cassell (2002; Cassell, Huffaker, Tversky, & Ferriman, 2006) contend that the Internet can be a venue for helping young people

148 BERS

develop a sense of volunteerism and activism, for engaging in new forms of civic activities such as online petitioning and civic dialogues, and for promoting traditional types of civic activities such as voting. Several efforts have been put forth for understand- ing the potential of youth as e-citizens (Montgomery, Gottlieb- Robles, & Larson, 2004); however, the challenge remains in how to promote participation not only in the virtual world but also in the face-to-face world. Some research is starting to tap into this challenge. For example,

TakingITGlobal (Raynes-Goldie & Walker, 2008) is a popular online community that connects youth to find inspiration, access information, get involved, and take action in their local and global communities. TakingITGlobal, as other similar virtual communi- ties, puts effort intousingvirtualworlds tomakeadifference in the face-to-face world. Along the same line, programs such as Student Voices explore the potential of the Internet for connecting young voters to the electoral process by providing access to Web-based information about candidates and politics (Woodard & Schmitt, 2002). The Internet provides a new way for youth to create communi-

ties that extend beyond geographic boundaries, to engage in civic and volunteering activities across local communities and national frontiers, to learn about political life, and to experience the chal- lengesof democratic participation (Bers, 2001, 2008a, 2008b;Bers & Chau, 2006). Video games tap into this potential by providing opportunities for young people to contribute to “participatory cultures” with low barriers to artistic expression and civic engage- ment (Jenkins, 2009).

Video Games and Civic Engagement

In this article, video games are defined as software, supported by any type of computer, console, mobile, or virtual platform, that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feed- back on any display device by manipulating an input device, such as a game controller, joystick, keyboard, or mouse. Video games usually involve theuseofdifferentmedia suchas animations, three dimensionality, sound, and so forth. Different taxonomies of games take into consideration things

such as quantity of players, technological infrastructure, goals, and structure of the game. Traditionally, games are defined as goal- directed and competitive activities conducted within a framework of agreed rules. This ample definition makes room for different subgroupings of games, which might include

1. Ludic games, in which players win by taking action and developing strategies;

2. Narrative games, in which players solve conflicts by choosing different paths of action; and

3. Simulations, in which players set themselves to observe emerging behavior patterns to understand how a partic- ular system functions in different circumstances.

Serious Games

Whereas most video games are primarily designed for entertain- ment, a new kind of game is starting to emerge, serious games.

Serious games are software applications developed with game design principles for a primary purpose other than pure entertain- ment. For example, in2004, anetworkofnonprofitdirectors, game developers, artists, and academics committed to social change through gaming formed the Games for Change (G4C) movement, a branch of serious games focused on social issues and social change. Since then, G4C organizes a yearly event dedicated to showcasing video games for social change—games about poverty, global conflict, climate change—and for bringing together “so- cially responsible game makers.” Research on civic engagement has not yet produced sufficient

studies to find out whether serious games, and most specifically games for change, have more of an impact on civic engagement than entertainment games. However, in the future, as the game industry evolves and more games are developed to engage youth with civic content and processes, studies of this kind will be of great interest. However, before embarking on such an endeavor, it is necessary to articulate fully what is meant by the overarching construct of civic engagement.

Civic Engagement

Some conceive of civic engagement as simply being a good neighbor, obeying rules, and participating in the community, and others think of it as engagement with political processes, such as voting. In this article, the construct of civic engagement goes beyond a focus solely on the procedural aspects of democracy to one that embraces the many facets of a deliberative democracy. One commonly used definition of civic engagement that is given by the American Psychological Association (2009) is the follow- ing: “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern.” Civic engagement can take many forms, from individual voluntarism to organizational in- volvement to electoral participation. It can include efforts to di- rectly address an issue, work with others in a community to solve a problem, or interact with the institutions of representative de- mocracy. Civic engagement encompasses a range of specific ac- tivities, such as working in a soup kitchen, serving on a neighbor- hood association, writing a letter to an elected official, or voting. A civically engaged citizen has the ability, agency, and opportu- nity toparticipate inoneormanyof these activitieswhile engaging in “civic conversation” (Putnam, 2000); to develop civic knowl- edge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors; and to participate in commu- nity service, activism, and advocacy. I organize the umbrella construct of civic engagement in four

dimensions of civic experiences that game players might encoun- ter: civic knowledge, civic conversations, civic attitudes, and civic behaviors. This typology is similar to the kinds of youth civic engagement identified by Flanagan and Faison (2001). In the next sections, I describe each dimension and give examples of video gaming experiences.

Civic knowledge. Civic knowledge refers to the set of content and processes that people must know to become informed citizens, such as understanding how the government and the political sys- tem work as well as their own rights and responsibilities. Although there is disagreement about the level of civic knowledge that people should have to be effective citizens (Carpini & Keeter, 1996), there is shared agreement that information is power, thus, leading to the inclusion of diverse forms of civics education in

149SPECIAL ISSUE: VIDEO GAMES AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

public schools. Video games provide another venue for gaining civic knowledge. For example, games such as the 1987’s On the Campaign Trail, developed at Kent State University’s political campaign management program, engages students in decision making regarding the campaigns for United States Senate elections between 1970 and 1986. Other games allow players to familiarize themselves with the

processes involved indemocratic societies, suchas thegovernment simulationgame Democracy, first developedbyPositechGames in 2005, with a sequel released in December 2007. The player be- comes the president or prime minister of a democratic government and introduces or alters policies in seven areas (tax, economy, welfare, foreign policy, transport, law and order, and public ser- vices), as well as solves situations affecting factors such as crime, air quality, protests, and homelessness. Democracy 2 extends the game by introducing an encyclopedia, which provides background reading, statistical data, and other information for making in- formed policy choices (Positech Games, 2009). Other games, such as Power Politics, President Forever,

2008 � Primaries, and Doonesbury Election, focus on domestic United States political campaigns. The players steer a candidate through an election cycle, developing policies and tailoring media appearances. Some of these games use real-time feedback to show how campaign strategies affect polling numbers. Other games such as Civilization, first developed in 1991 and

now converted into a series with several sequels such as Civiliza- tion II, Civilization III, Civilization IV, and Civilization Revolu- tion, present players with the goal to “. . . build an empire to stand the test of time.” The game begins in 4000 BC, and the players attempt to expand and develop their empires through the ages to modern and future times by taking the role of rulers of a civiliza- tion and competing with already existing civilizations. For exam- ple, players need to explore far lands, judge when to engage in war or diplomacy, make decisions regarding when and where to build new cities, and decide which scientific and engineering advances should be made to transform the cities to their maximum potential (Edwards, 2007). Later versions of this game allow for head-to- head play with other players. Although games of this kind provide opportunities to situate

players in a simulation role to make informed decisions, it is important to keep in mind that they are still simulations of civic processes with underlying rules preset by game designers. Thus, one of the challenges of using these games for promoting civic knowledge is to contextualize the rules of the games and the simulation parameters. For example, when games are played in social studies or government classes, the teacher’s role involves providing the sociocultural and political context so that students can critically understand the differences and similarities with real- life civic processes.

Civic conversations. Civic conversations are defined as the ability to initiate or participate in a respectful exchange of ideas about civic life, by taking into consideration the moral dimension and articulating a personal vision or set of values around civic life (Bers & Chau, 2006). Video games that involve multiple players interacting around issues involving civic processes are very likely to engage players in civic conversations. For example, games such as SimCity, a city-building simulation game first released in 1989, allow for multiple players in some of its releases and platforms. Thus, players engage in conversations about how to add buildings,

adjust tax rates, build the city’s transportation systems and other infrastructure, and at the same time, provide responses to natural disasters such floods and tornadoes. Other games such as Europa Universalis offer similar kinds of experiences for players (Paradox Interactive, 2009), allowing them to build nations through the management of diplomacy, economics, and military strategy. Civic conversations through video games are facilitated by the

rapid development of platforms that involve synchronous and asynchronous multiple players. Some of these games are Web- based and do not include sophisticated 3-D graphics. For example, forum-based role-playing games of government and nation simu- lations, such as Superpower, put the players in the role of leaders of real-world nations (see http://itake.se/spcoldwar/). Players in- teract online in a dynamic forum and shape the world through actions passed through the administrators.

Civic attitudes. Civic attitudes are defined as the predisposi- tion to engage in reflection and informed judgment about civic issues and to move beyond one’s individual point of view and self-interest in order to commit to the well-being of some larger group. Perspective-taking or the ability to appreciate someone else’s point of view is an essential component for developing civic attitudes (Selman, 1980). Government or political simulation games engage players in considering geopolitical situations and the creation of domestic political policies. One of the earliest titles in this genre is Balance of Power, published in 1985, which engages players in considering policy decisions, rather than war- fare, to shape outcomes at the height of the Cold War. Other video games such as Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator and Crisis in the Kremlin also encourage players to assume civic attitudes conducive to peace. Games such as Superpower and its sequel, Superpower 2, put the player in the seat of a state leader whose goal is to produce economic stability and prosperity. The game mainly evolves around decisions on foreign policies, and players are given real-life treaties so that they can understand their influ- ences on different countries. Although most of these games share similar characteristics with

some of the games mentioned earlier when referring to civic knowledge, in particular with government simulation games that put players in the role of decision makers by teaching them about civic processes, a profound difference is that games in this cate- gory ask players to assume multiple perspectives to understand a conflict.

Civic behaviors. Civic behaviors support and further the self, family, community, andcivil societybypromoting thecommongood and the formationof institutions and systemsof social justice, equity, and democracy. Community service, activism, and advocacy can be examples of civic behavior. Currently, there are several Inter- net-based projects that encourage civic behaviors, such as online petitioning, grassroots community organizations, social network- ing, and fundraising sites. For example, programs such as DOTCOM (2009) engage Armenian, American, and Azerbaijani youth in creating socially conscious media that will affect com- munities across the United States and the Caucasus. The program is sponsored by the U.S. Department of State and supported by a global network of youth media organizations. Other times, tech- nology enables large and sustained political networks, as in the formation of Indymedia, a global political information network that began during the Seattle protests against the World Trade

150 BERS

Organization in 1999 for protesters to communicate among them- selves and produce their own news coverage (Bennett, 2008). Organizations such as Global Kids created the Online Leader-

ship Program that uses multiplayer virtual environments and sim- ulation video gaming platforms to facilitate civic engagement in afterschool or informal learning experiences (Global Kids, 2006). No popular video games yet tap into the potential of linking

game playing with real-life civic behaviors and community par- ticipation.Yet, in thevirtualworld, both realmsof experiencehave been successfully integrated. For example, there have been reports of political protests in game environments. The popular multi- player game World of Warcraft was disrupted by demonstrations over vaguely defined class issues facing the warriors, resulting in protesters being banned from the game (Bennett, 2008) and “tax revolts” occurred in Second Life (Benkler, 2006). Research suggests that there is evidence of young people adapt-

ing online behaviors from social movements when pressuring entertainment corporations regarding management and distribution of online products (Earl & Schussman, 2008). And work has examined the link between Internet behavior and voluntary group membership, suggesting that certain forms of Internet use may sustain and encourage community participation (Glavin, 2007). In the future, as the gaming industry evolves and serious games take on a more prevalent role in society, it will be likely that new games that promote face-to-face civic behaviors will emerge. The multifaceted framework of civic engagement provides

grounds for developing a rich understanding of the role that video games could play and for developing interventions and programs that provide educational opportunities beyond the traditional path- ways of community service or volunteering activities.

In Which Ways Do Video Games Promote Civic Engagement?

Recent research has found that playing video games, even if they are not specially designed with the purpose of promoting social change, might have a positive impact on civic engagement. For example, the recent survey conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that more than four in 10 youth say that video games have taught them about a societal problem (Lenhart et al., 2008), and that game-playing youth were found to be more likely to search for information about current events online, advocate for political candidates, and raise money for charity. Even more, Kahne, Middaugh, and Evans (2008) found that “the stereotype of the antisocial game” was not reflected in the data from their study as “youth who play games frequently are just as civically and politically active as those who play games infre- quently” (p. 27). Although some research has looked at the potentially isolating

effect of playingvideogames, thePewreport shows thatmore than seven in10youth, ages12 to17, playvideogameswithothers, and more than seven in 10 youth say they have helped others while playing video games. Thus, playing video games provides oppor- tunities for socializing, an important element of civic engagement. Kahne et al. (2008) examined civic gaming experiences in relation to civics outcomes and found that the quantity of game play is not strongly related to civic and political engagement, but that some aspects of the social context of game play are related to civic outcomes, specifically playing games with others.

Research has established that several aspects of video game play parallel the kinds of civic learning opportunities found to promote civic engagement in other settings. For example, research has found that video games that engage youth in simulations of civic and political action, consideration of controversial issues, and participation in groups of shared interests, all activities that are done in school settings as part of civics education programs, are effective in encouraging civic participation (Kahne et al., 2008). Whereas some games have content that is directly relevant to civics, such as SimCity and Civilization that engage players in simulations of civic processes, other video games lack explicit relevant civic content but still might promote habits of mind that are critical for civic life. For example, multiplayer games involv- ingvirtualworlds suchas World of Warcraft and Everquest engage players in governance, team building, leadership, and organiza- tional processes. There are also examples of research-based projects that use

specifically developed virtual worlds to purposefully provide civic engagement opportunities for students. For example, Quest Atlan- tis embeds civic learning opportunities in the quest for students to find solutions to the problems faced by the fictional world Atlantis (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005). Zora provides an authoring toolkit for students to create, inhabit, and regulate their own virtual cities while engaging in discussions of moral values and finding personally relevant role models that can inform their decisions. The Zora virtual world provides a safe “social laboratory” for youth to experiment with some of the skills and attitudes needed to become good citizens (Bers, 2008a; Bers, 2008b).

Zora has been used in the Active Citizenship Through Technol- ogy (ACT) freshman-orientation program at Tufts University to encourage incoming students to explore the civic responsibility of a college campus and the relationship to its neighbors (Bers, 2008a; Bers, 2008b; Chau, Mathur, & Bers, 2006). ACT engages students in civic dialogue early in their academic experience and fosters a long-term peer-support network. It leverages youth’s interest in Internet technologies to engage them in civic discus- sions and activities. In this 3-day preorientation program, partici- pants use the Zora 3-D virtual environment to design and inhabit a virtual campus of the future to express concerns and ideas about community issues that interest them. ACT provides program par- ticipants a space for civic discussion, simulated electoral activities and deliberations, collaborative construction of virtual exhibits, and an imagined ideal campus to express their ideas. In addition, students participate in face-to-face activities to promote civic skills and learn about their college community. The ACT program was conducted over 2 years. During their

freshman year, students reported a higher likelihood than nonpar- ticipating freshmen to increase engagement in activities that ex- press their political and social viewpoints in face-to-face settings. Results suggested that regardless of participants’ level of comfort with technology and their degree of engagement in civic life, students of various backgrounds benefited from the program. Find- ings indicated that participants showed an increased level of civic engagement regarding political voice by the end of the academic year, and that the program had a significant impact on their attitudes about political and civic issues. In contrast, our results (Bers & Chau, 2010) indicated that ACT participants did not differ significantly in their development of civic and electoral indicators

151SPECIAL ISSUE: VIDEO GAMES AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

throughout the year when compared with control participants. This may be due to the specific focus on civic discussions and deliber- ations in Zora activities, whereas a lesser effort was put into the ACT curriculum regarding electoral and volunteering activities in real life throughout the year.

Conclusions

Today’s youth are fascinated by new technologies and are avid video game players. Although a new trend in video game design focuses on developing serious games for social change, there is still a large market of video games that favor violence and anti- social behavior. However, studies have shown that, even in the case of youth playing with general purpose entertainment video games that involve them in a range of experiences from strategy games to first-person shooter games, there appears to be some positive relationships between video game playing and civic en- gagement. However, it is crucial to understand the social context of video game play in order to understand the potential of the gaming experience with respect to civic engagement, as well as the design aspects of the game itself as displaying features that might encourage civic engagement. Thus, there is a need to further advance a research agenda that

addresses questions such as the following: Which games are better than others? In which sociocultural contexts should they be played to have an impact on civic engagement? What kinds of civic interactions should games invite from players? What are the psy- chosocial characteristics of young players, in particular, their atti- tudes, predispositions, and previous knowledge about civics, that can be hindered or fostered by playing games? What is the role of parents, teachers, and other adults when children are playing computer games in terms of supporting long-lasting civic engage- ment? How do we purposefully design programs that leverage youth interest in technology and foster new ways of civic engage- ment and participation? How does one successfully integrate these technologies into existing educational programs so they can be scalable and sustainable? What kinds of games are most effective in encouraging youth interest and discussions of governance pro- cesses, rule making, community involvement, and other civic issues? The potential of video games goes beyond the four walls of the

classroom, thus making civics education more widely available, particularly during these times when there is a decrease of civics curricula in schools.Videogamescangobeyondprovidingknowl- edge and information, as they afford opportunities for learners to engage in civic discourse and action, supporting students to con- struct experiential knowledge through which they can become effective citizens.

References

American Psychological Association. (2009). Civic engagement. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/Ed./slce/civicengagement.html

Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., Keeter, S., & Zukin, C. (2002). Searching for the meaning of youth civic engagement: Notes from the field. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 189–195.

Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 86–107.

Benkler, J. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production trans- forms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning: Civic life online. Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bers, M. (2001). Identity construction environments: Developing personal and moral values through the design of a virtual city. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 365–415.

Bers, M. (2006). The role of new technologies to foster positive youth development. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 200–219.

Bers, M. (2008a). Civic identities, online technologies: From designing civic curriculum to supporting civic experiences. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning: Civic life online. Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 139–160). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bers, M. (2008b). Virtual worlds as digital playgrounds. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(5), 80–81.

Bers, M., & Chau, C. (2006). Fostering civic engagement by building a virtual city. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 748– 770.

Bers, M., & Chau, C. (2010). The virtual campus of the future: Stimulating and simulating civic actions in a virtual world. Journal of computing in Higher Education, 22(1), 1–23.

Blumler, J. G., & Coleman, S. (2001). Realising democracy online: A civic commons in cyberspace. London: Institute for Public Policy Research/ Citizens Online.

Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cassell, J. (2002). “We have these rules inside”: The effects of exer- cising voice in a children’s online forum. In S. Calvert, R. Cocking, & A. Jordan (Eds.), Children in the digital age (pp. 123–144). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Cassell, J., Huffaker, D., Tversky, D., & Ferriman, K. (2006). The lan- guage of online leadership: Gender and youth engagement on the Inter- net. Developmental Psychology, 42, 436–449.

Chau, C., Mathur, A., & Bers, M. (2006). Active Citizenship Through Technology: Collaboration, connection, and civic participation. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 904–905). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. (2008). Civic and political health of the nation survey. New York: Author.

DOTCOM. (2009). Inspiring change through social media. Retrieved from http://dotcom.ph-int.org/

Earl, J., & Schussman, A. (2008). Contesting cultural control: Youth culture and online petitioning. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learn- ing: Civic life online. Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 71–95). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Edwards, B. (2007, July 18). The history of Civilization. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1523/the_history_of_civilization .php

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth & crisis. New York: Norton. Flanagan, C. A., & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development: Implica- tions of research for social policy and programs. Social Policy Re- ports, 15, 3–14.

Galston, W. A. (2001). Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues, and diversity in the liberal state. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publish- ing.

152 BERS

Glavin, P. (2007, August). Catalyzing civic engagement online: Examining the link between Internet behavior and voluntary group membership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York.

Global Kids. (2006). Online leadership program. Retrieved from http:// www.globalkids.org/?id�5

Grantmaker Forum on Community and National Service. (2001). From inspiration to participation. A review of perspectives on youth civic engagement. Denver, CO: Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement.

Grüsser, S.M.,Thalemann,R.,&Griffiths,M. (2007).Excessive computer game playing: Evidence for addiction and aggression? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 290–292.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Evans, C. (2008). The civic potential of video games. Chicago: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Kato, P., Cole, S., Bradlyn, A., & Pollock, B. (2008). A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 122, 305–317.

Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engage- ment.

Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., MacGill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Levine, P. (2007). The future of democracy: Developing the next genera- tion of American citizens. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.

Lieberman, D. (2001). Management of chronic pediatric diseases with interactive health games: Theory and research findings. Journal of Ambulatory Care and Management, 24, 26–38.

Michelsen, E., Zaff, J., & Hair, E. C. (2002). Civic engagement programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Montgomery, K. (2008). Youth and digital democracy: Intersections of practice, policy, and the marketplace. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning: Civic life online. Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 25–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Montgomery, K., Gottlieb-Robles, B., & Larson, G. (2004). Youth as e-citizens: Engaging the digital generation. Washington, DC: Center for Social Media, School of Communication, American University.

National Institute on Media and the Family. (2008). Fact sheet: Effects of video game playing on children. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Oldenburg, R. (1997). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, commu- nity centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Marlowe.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Paradox Interactive. (2009). Europa Universalis III. Retrieved from http:// www.europauniversalis3.com/

Positech Games. (2009). Democracy 2. Retrieved from http://positech .co.uk/democracy2/educational.html

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster. Raynes-Goldie, K., & Walker, L. (2008). Our space: Online civic engage- ment tools for youth. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine

T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning: Civic life online. Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 161–188). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Resnick, M., Bruckman, A., & Martin, F. (1996). Pianos not stereos: Creating computational construction kits. Interactions, 3, 40–50.

Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learn- ing: Civic life online. Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.

Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship development. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 264–272.

Sherry, J. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 27, 409–431.

Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004, June). Replaying history: Engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer sim- ulation games. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Learning Sciences, Santa Monica, CA.

Squire, K., & the Games-to-Teach Research Team. (2003). Design princi- ples of next-generation gaming for education. Educational Technology, 43(5), 17–23.

Steinkuehler, C. (2006). The new third place: Massively multiplayer online gaming in American youth culture. Tidskrift Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 3, 17–32.

Torney-Purta, J., Lehman, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizen- ship and civic education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, D. (2006). Why game studies now? Gamers don’t bowl alone. Games and Culture, 1, 13–16.

Woodard, E. H., IV, & Schmitt, K. L. (2002). Political socialization in the digital age: The “Student Voices” program. In S. L. Calvert, A. B. Jordan, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Children in the digital age: Influences of electronic media on development (pp. 83–99). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1999). Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on community service and activism in youth. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Youniss, J., McClellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620–631.

Received December 28, 2009 Revision received December 28, 2009

Accepted January 16, 2010 �

153SPECIAL ISSUE: VIDEO GAMES AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT