Humanities Explainer Video

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 77 Summer 2014

Simulations and Games in the Civics Classroom

Christopher D. Moore

Georgia State University

Cheryl Anne Beshke

University of Georgia

Chara Haeussler Bohan

Georgia State University

In this study, the authors evaluate the use of an election simulation game in the middle and high

school social studies classroom. They consider how the game implementation reflected the

practical use of constructivist and constructionist pedagogical principles. A brief explanation of

the literature on the use of technology in social studies classrooms is provided and a practical

explanation of how teachers implemented the game is offered. The ability to connect practice to

theory afforded teachers important grounding and support for the use of technology in the social

studies classroom. Students benefitted from the process of engagement in a form of media that is

natural to digital natives. Challenges, with respect to the practical use of gaming in the social

studies classroom, also are explored.

Keywords: civics, simulations, games, constructivism, constructionism, technology,

practitioner research

Introduction

Over the past decade, educators have been pushed to integrate technology into the

kindergarten-12 curriculum. In a 2009 issue of Social Education, Editor Michael Simpson noted,

“Young people are fascinated by technology, and teachers who find ways to convert their

students’ favorite devices into vehicles of instruction can look for exciting results” (p. 108). In

2003, researchers Peter Doolittle and David Hicks found there was a direct link to the use of

technology in social studies education within a constructivist theoretical framework. “The

proposition that technology has a role to play in the fulfillment of social studies pedagogy is

undeniable” (p. 86). Yet, somewhere between the unrealized potential for technology and

students’ fascination with it, a sizeable disconnect persists. Technology has not been fully

integrated in the social studies classroom in truly meaningful ways (Lee & Friedman, 2009). In

the most recent Handbook on Research in Social Studies Education, Kathleen Swan and Mark

Hofer (2008) come to this simple but powerful conclusion, “ ... the federal government spent at

least $4 billion annually on kindergarten-12 school technology infrastructure. However, despite

these investments, educational technology has not produced the pedagogical revolution in the

kindergarten-12 classrooms” (p. 307).

Teachers who are able to harness technology and make it applicable, relevant, and

interesting to students just might find the “exciting results” that spark a digital revolution in the

classroom (Simpson, 2009, p. 108). Simulations offer one possibility for harnessing technology

to teach critical thinking skills in the social studies classroom. The National Council for the

Social Studies’ (NCSS) most recent position statement on the purpose of social studies

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 78 Summer 2014

specifically identifies simulations as a means to think critically about the subject matter:

“Through discussions, debates, the use of authentic documents, simulations, research, and other

occasions for critical thinking and decision making, students learn to apply value-based

reasoning when addressing problems and issues [italics for emphasis]” (National Council for the

Social Studies [NCSS], 2008, para. 20). Simulations have been used in the social sciences since

the early 1960s (Axelrod, 1997). They can be employed for many purposes such as:

entertainment, prediction, and performance, but simulations can also be utilized for education

and scientific discovery (Russell, 2013; Stephen, Feinberg, & Zack, 2013). Within the realm of

education, Robert Axelrod argues, “A simulation need not be rich enough to suggest a complete

real or imaginary world. The main use of simulation in education is to allow the users to learn...

principles for themselves” (p. 2). As the utilization of technology grows, and specifically, as

students become more technologically literate, educators can take advantage of online programs

and simulations. There are many simulations for social studies, such as colonization games for

American history, a stock market game for economics, or a game comparable to Cable in the

Classroom’s ® “eLECTIONS: Your Adventure in Politics” (hereafter known as eLECTIONS),

(2014) designed to help American government students understand political campaigns and the

Electoral College. See Web-Based Resources for the link to the game’s site.

Figure 1. Opening screen of eLECTIONS.

According to the 2010 curriculum standards set forth by NCSS in Standard 10, students should

be able to demonstrate understanding of the purpose of government and the rights and

responsibilities of citizens (NCSS, 2010). Higher order reasoning skills indicate students also

should identify examples of institutions and describe the interactions of people with institutions,

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 79 Summer 2014

recognize and practice selected forms of civic discussion and participation consistent with the

ideals of citizens in a democratic republic, and explain actions citizens can take to influence

public policy decisions.

We describe how to implement the use of an election simulation game in the social

studies classroom. We also evaluate the practical implementation of constructivist and

constructionist pedagogical principles for helping students to demonstrate mastery of technology

in a middle school and high school setting. One author is a social studies teacher and one is a

media specialist who implemented the election simulation game in both public and private

middle and high schools in a large urban area in the southeastern United States. The third author

is a social studies education professor at a large urban university located in the southeastern

U.S.A.

Learning Theory

In order for teachers to best implement eLECTIONS in classrooms, it is useful to quickly

review the reasons why it is important to use simulations and games in the social studies

classroom. The chief reason to employ these tools can be found in the theory of social

constructivism. As Doolittle and Hicks (2003) defined the terminology, social constructivism is

a theory emphasizing social interaction as a primary source of knowledge. Social constructivism

relies on communication from participants in order to construct meaning. Learning is relative to

the learner. Like constructivism, constructionism, promoted by Seymour Papert (1991), also

relies on the use of context and language to determine what students learn. Constructionism is

predicated upon the idea that students learn when they are actually creating a product. “It then

adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously,” says Papert, “in a context where the

learner is consciously engaged in constructing….” (p. 2). As a pedagogical theory,

constructionism requires students to create or build something such as a project, a set of

software, or a model demonstrating this new knowledge. Students, furthermore, should be given

more freedom to learn in their personal way, not through rigidly defined methods. When

teachers are pressed to use technology, they often turn to slide show programs, such as Microsoft

PowerPoint ® . Yet, PowerPoint

® does not take advantage of the tools available to teachers,

simply conveying the information in an outdated pedagogical style, with a new, flashier

wrapping. This sentiment was echoed by Doolittle and Hicks:

If integrating technology means nothing more than enhancing the traditional delivery

system of social studies content, where laptops replace notebooks for taking notes, where

PowerPoint slides replace handwritten overheads, where e-textbooks replace hard copy

textbooks, then we will be no closer to a vision of transformative, powerful social studies

teaching and learning (p. 75).

Papert’s goal is to have students learning in a way in which technology is the vehicle through

which they create in order to learn. This goal is reiterated in much research about using

technology in the social studies classroom (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003; Lee & Freidman, 2009;

Russell, 2013; Swan & Hofer, 2008; Squire, 2005).

The Use of Technology in Social Studies

In recent years, a continuous push for implementing technology in the social studies

classroom has ensued. Simulations and games are an appropriate means of implementing

constructionist learning theory. Students and teachers, however, can experience a technology

information overload; thus, it is important to steer clear of using technology for technology’s

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 80 Summer 2014

sake. In a recent article by Adam Friedman and David Hicks, they discussed the state of

technology in the social studies (2006). After the two conversed about the glut of recent research

on technology in the social studies, they focused on technology integration and teacher

education. Their attitudes toward technology, however, were tempered. As the discussion

continued, Hicks stated:

For a while we were acting like kids in a candy shop. We were excited about the range of

technologies just in reach and how sweet they all looked; yet all they really did was give

us a quick rush and left us feeling a little bloated and overwhelmed. A result of this, I

think, is that the concept of marginal propensity to consume has taken hold with regard to

salivating over the potential of all the different types of digital technologies to reform the

social studies (2006, p. 248).

More research was needed, in regard to how professors were working with pre-service teachers

on incorporating technology, as well as how instructional design furthered learning, Hicks and

Friedman concluded. Not all the research points positively toward the ever-increasing influx of

(and demand for the use of) technology in the classroom. In a study on the problems integrating

technology in the kindergarten-12 classroom, Hofer and Swan (2006), noted there are obstacles

to promoting this incorporation, and “many authors advocate that teachers need to explore this

frontier without models of classroom success, examples of ‘tried and true’ curricula, and

evidence of increased student learning” (p. 86). This notion also is evident in history education

with the push toward the use of primary sources in history classes, where students are supposed

to apply the laws of historical thinking to documents, but teachers are not shown how to access

the documents nor are they shown how to use them online (Barton, 2011; Bohan & Davis, 1998;

VanSledright, 2002; Wineburg, 2001). This point is amplified by Greg Sherman and David

Hicks (2000), who claimed “research continues to suggest that despite the perceived potential of

technology, many social studies teachers are currently reluctant or unable to utilize content

specific uses of technology in their professional practice” (p. 244). Another challenge is

students’ and teachers’ lack of familiarity with the technology, so learning a software program

can take up a great deal of class time. This problem is compounded by many packed state and

local curriculum guides leaving little room for in-depth projects and activities not related to

content standards (Hofer & Swan, 2006). Similar concerns emerged when Gayle Thieman

conducted a five-year study on pre-service teachers and their integration of technology in the

classroom; even if they did make technology skills a part of their pedagogical routine (which a

reported 85% did); she asserted, “There is little evidence that kindergarten-12 students used

technology to support critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making” (2008, p. 342).

Technology and Civics Education

At the time of the 2008 publication of The Handbook of Research in Social Studies

Education, Swan and Hofer found only one article on civics education and technology. Finding

relevant research on simulations and games also proved difficult for Young et al. (2012), who

noted: “No research of this type was identified in our review, suggesting the missing element

may be a more sophisticated approach to understanding learning and game play in the rich

contexts of home and school learning” (p. 84). The lone article found a study published by Tina

Heafner in 2004, which focused on the use of technology to motivate students to learn about the

campaign process. According to Heafner, the teacher selected for this case study had teaching

experience and a Master’s degree in social studies education. She incorporated traditional and

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 81 Summer 2014

constructivist pedagogical styles in her instruction. The students, still, were uninterested in

learning about campaigning and the election process, So, Heafner worked with this teacher to

create a computer-based project.

In Heafner's (2004) research, she found by having students interact with the technology,

they were already more interested in the work assigned to them: “All students reported

enjoyment in the task because technology made their work easier and more fun to complete” (p.

46). Furthermore, students enjoyed working on the project because it allowed them to do neater

work, add graphics, videos, and sound bites, and made the PowerPoint ®

look more

“professional” (p. 46). Students also were able to tap into a skill set they already possessed for

using the computer. Students were familiar with the Internet and other technological elements

used in their presentations. They were not bored, however, by being asked to use the computer

in a way that was remedial and disproportionate to their skills. Students were reported as able to

develop confidence in ability, enjoyment in learning and the opportunity to learn new social

studies information. Because of the creation of student work, the focus of the classroom shifted

from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered instruction as “…technology added value

to social studies instruction by increasing motivation and engaging students in the learning

process” (Swan & Hofer, 2008, p. 313).

Constructivism and Constructionism in Simulations and Games

When Papert (1991) was teaching Logo, a program he and his colleagues created at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), he found students learned better when they were

given free rein to explore and learn the software on its own as opposed to following pre-planned

instructions. His research led him to believe students’ interest and exploration of a subject,

through technology, in order to create an end product, was a highly effective mode of teaching.

The results of this learning can then be shared, with other students, to enhance learning.

In the social studies classroom, technology resources are available, but woefully

underused or theoretically developed (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003). While Doolittle and Hicks

concentrated on the use of technology in a social studies classroom from a primarily

constructivist platform, the authors “open the door to a constructionist approach with respect to

computer-based simulations… These six pedagogical strategies when adjusted for the

constructionist assertion that learning occurs through designing, building and making an object,

provide a theoretical argument for computer-assisted simulation games” (Feinberg, Schewe,

Moore, & Wood, 2012, p. 422). Simulations and especially video simulations may reach

students who do not enjoy or learn from more ‘traditional’ pedagogical approaches.

Implementation and Game Play

In the March 2012 article, “Our Princess is in Another Castle: A Review of Trends in

Serious Gaming for Education,” Young et al. (2012) recommended that research on video games

should not be generalized but instead focus on this question: “How does a particular video game

being used by a particular student in the context of a particular course curriculum affect the

learning process as well as the products of school (such as test grades, course selection, retention,

and interest)?”(p. 84). We used eLECTIONS as an introductory unit to learning about the

Electoral College, but it also can be used to discuss political parties or the election process. We

implemented this game with students in middle and high schools. One of the main reasons we

were drawn to this game was students’ involvement in creating their own candidates while

giving a realistic, yet simulated, view of a presidential campaign. Students were required to look

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 82 Summer 2014

up the basic platforms of both political parties and determine their stance on issues such as

immigration, affirmative action, education, military spending, the economy, and healthcare.

The game facilitated students’ understanding of their own political leanings and allowed

them to select the key issues for their platforms. Students did not have to agree with every

ideological component of their chosen political party but could choose a stance on every key

issue. This political investigation greatly benefited students in their game play by fostering

pragmatic as well as disciplinary knowledge of civics. Game play preparation can be adjusted,

depending on the time, age level, and technological abilities of the students.

Figure 2. Students may choose to concentrate on five major issues for their platform.

Each of Doolittle and Hicks’ (2003) six pedagogical tools incorporating a constructivist

approach to technology can be applied to various aspects of the eLECTIONS game. Cable in the

Classroom ®

provides plenty of options for game play. The game setup demonstrates Doolittle

and Hicks’ first principle: “The construction of knowledge and the making of meaning are

individually and socially active processes” (p.10). Competitors are allowed to play against a

computer, or they can compete against a classmate. If finding enough computers for students is a

concern, students can double-up at one computer or, the teacher can facilitate the game on one

computer through a projector, thus allowing the mock Presidential candidates to be run by teams

of students. If students work as a team, the possibility for collaborative and critical engagement

in discussions increases dramatically. According to Katherine Powell and Cody Kalina (2009),

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 83 Summer 2014

“Cooperative learning is part of creating a social constructivist classroom. Students should not

only work with teachers one-on-one, but they should also work with other students. Students

have a lot to offer one another” (p. 244). As the students, playing the role of campaign

managers, make decisions about travel, campaign spending, and responses to events, the game

provides feedback in the form of money and electoral votes gained or lost. Students begin to

understand how choices made during the course of an election campaign affect the outcome.

The game begins as the players choose a slate of five “authentic, real-world” issues, such as:

education, health-care, immigration, and defense, fulfilling Doolittle and Hicks’ third

principle, “The construction of knowledge is fostered by authentic and real-world

environments” (p. 11).

In creating their campaign, students might select topics relevant within their homes and

communities, or prominent in the media. They can choose issues for which they have prior

knowledge or an especial interest, which demonstrates the fourth principle described by Doolittle

and Hicks (2003): “The construction of knowledge takes place within the framework of the

learner’s prior knowledge and experience” (p. 11). In the next step of the game, students decide

the candidate’s standing on each of the chosen issues, refining both the connection to an

authentic, real-world environment and their particular prior knowledge and experience. Once

students have determined the candidate’s standing, a map appears on the screen indicating each

state’s position on political and social issues. These concerns include topics such as healthcare,

education, immigration, and taxes.

Other candidates in the game also have positions on these issues, either assigned by the

computer or by other game players. The game, thus, contains all of the complexities of a real

campaign. Every decision a player makes affects the other candidates as well as his or her own

fundraising and electoral votes. This complex interaction of decisions and outcomes is a perfect

example of Doolittle and Hicks’ (2003) second principle. “The construction of knowledge

involves social mediation within cultural contexts” (p. 11). Students involved in an eLECTION

game must act and react to events and decisions that are not always predictable or under their

control, thus the interaction creates a unique opportunity for constructing knowledge. “The

individual, engaged in socially mediated activity, is transformed or constructed through this

socially mediated activity, just as the social institution is transformed or constructed by the

participation of the individual” (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003, p. 11). The game proceeds as a dial

spins to determine the number of spaces to move on the virtual game board. Players land on

spaces that determine particular scenarios and must choose how to respond.

The fifth principle Doolittle and Hicks (2006) described is also apparent while playing

eLECTIONS, “The construction of knowledge is integrated more deeply by engaging in multiple

perspectives and representations of content, skills, and social realms” (p. 12). With each spin of

the dial, players are exposed to the other candidates’ slate of issues and positions. A teacher

might also assign a group of students to create a candidate with values and positions different

from their own in order to develop a deeper understanding of the electoral process. Playing

eLECTIONS does just what Eric Klopfer, Scot Osterweil and Katie Salen (2009) recommend:

“An educational game should put players in touch with what is fundamentally engaging about

the subject, should help them build a scaffolding of core concepts, and should motivate them to

go deeper” (p. 32).

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 84 Summer 2014

Figure 3. Electoral college map of the U.S.A.

Playing eLECTIONS provides a powerful learning experience for students. Rather than

learning about civics through a traditional lecture format or reading a text and answering

questions, students construct meaning through the process of making autonomous decisions and

reacting to and reflecting upon the feedback provided in the game. This aspect of eLECTIONS

demonstrates Doolittle and Hicks’ (2003) sixth principle, “[t]he construction of knowledge is

fostered by students becoming self-regulated, self-mediated, and self-aware” (p. 12). Playing

repeatedly increases a student’s knowledge and leads to more sophisticated decision-making

through the support of game feedback. The teacher is not a lecturer or a dispenser of knowledge

but rather a facilitator, who can ask guiding questions as students strategize moves or help

students recognize and correct misconceptions. eLECTIONS provides teachers and students the

opportunity to use technology in a way that may transform the teaching and learning process.

Participating in the simulation fosters personal, social, and engaging experiences exemplifying a

constructivist approach to learning. Students develop a sense of ownership for their candidate,

becoming invested in the outcome as they learn about the political parties, the Electoral College,

and key issues in presidential elections.

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 85 Summer 2014

Figure 4. An example of a circumstance on the campaign trail and students’ choices to solve the

problem.

Assessment

After the election, students have the opportunity to see the results of their actions through

an itemized list detailing the states in which they campaigned on each turn and the choices they

made along the way. A more telling evaluation of what students learned in the process can be

gained by having discussions in class. Questions, such as the ones below, can begin to help

facilitate discussion:

 How did you choose your party affiliation and key issues? What stance did you take on these issues? Why did you take those particular stances?

 In what states did you campaign the most? How did you determine where to campaign? What problems did you encounter while choosing your campaign trail?

 What were some of the challenges you faced along the way? How did you determine what moves you should make?

 If you played this game again, what would you do differently? Why would you make those changes?

 What did you learn by playing eLECTIONS that you did not know before? Of course, discussion is not the only way to assess learning for eLECTIONS. The English

Language Arts Common Core standards place strong emphasis on writing and social studies

content can support these standards by providing opportunities for students to expound upon

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 86 Summer 2014

their learning in class. An essay or critique of the game allows students to demonstrate mastery

of content and continue to hone their writing skills across the curriculum.

Conclusion

Using eLECTIONS in the social studies classroom allows teachers to meet students

where their interests are present. Today’s students play video games; send text messages; surf

the Internet; and frequent social networking sites. They are, in Prensky’s terminology, “digital

natives” (2001, para. 5). Presenting these students with an opportunity to learn using technology

engages them. The authentic, real-world environment of eLECTIONS provides a scenario where

critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills can lead to the construction of

meaning. Integrating technology into the curriculum using an online game or simulation like

eLECTIONS does not require valuable time to be spent in learning unfamiliar or complicated

software as the process of playing the game or simulation is intuitive and fun. Most importantly,

working through the game is time well spent for students. No longer is the teacher feeding

students’ knowledge required by the NCSS standards; the students acquire the knowledge

themselves, at their own pace and in their own way.

References

Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences. In R. Conte, R.

Hegselmann & P. Terna (Eds.), Simulating Social Phenomena. Berlin: Springer. pp. 21–

40.

Barton, K. C. (2011). Wars and rumors of war: Making sense of history education in the United

States. In T. Taylor & R. Guyver (Eds.) History wars in the classroom: Global

perspectives. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bohan, C. H., & Davis, Jr. O. L. (1998). Historical constructions: How social studies student

teachers’ historical thinking is reflected in their writing of history. Theory and Research

in Social Education, 26(2), 173–197.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the

research process. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education New York: Simon & Schuster.

Doolittle, P. E. & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of

technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72–104.

Drake, F. D., & Nelson, L. R. (2005). Engagement in teaching history: Theory and practices for

middle and secondary teachers. New Jersey: Pearson.

Feinberg, J. R., Schewe, A., Moore, C. D., & Wood, K. (2012). Puttering, tinkering, building,

and making: A constructionist approach to online instructional simulation games. In

Hartshorne, R., Heafner, T. & Petty, T. (Eds). Teacher Education Programs and Online

Learning Tools: Innovations in Teacher Preparation. IGI Global; New York, NY.

Friedman, A. M., & Hicks, D. (2006). The state of the field: Technology, social studies, and

teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2),

246–258.

Hays, P. A. (2004). Case study research. Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in

education and the social sciences. Eds. deMarrais, K. & Lapan, S.D. Mahway, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 87 Summer 2014

Heafner, T. (2004). Using technology to motivate students to learn social studies. Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1), 42–53.

Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Introduction. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.),

Constructionism in practice (pp. 1–8). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward. Cambridge,

MA: Education Arcade.

Lee, J. K. & Friedman, A. M. (2009). Research on technology in social studies education.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Lipscomb, G. B., Guenther, L. M., & McLeod, P. (2007). Sounds good to me: using digital audio

in the social studies classroom. Social Education, 71(3), 120–124.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies:

A framework for teaching, learning and assessment. National council for the social

studies. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp.

1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for

an effective classroom. Education. 130(2), 241–250.

Russell III, W. B. (2013). Digital social studies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Sherman, G., & Hicks, D. (2000). Using a historic site to develop virtual reality-enchanced web-

based instructional material: Learning to use technology as a partner in the classroom.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 1(2), 244–

257.

Simpson, M. (2009). Editor’s notebook. Social Education, 73(3).

Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom?

Innovate, 1(6).

Stephens, J. M., Feinberg, J. R., & Zack, J. (2013). Those who do: Social studies teachers’ use

of role play and simulations and the making of 21st century citizens. The status of the

social studies. In J. Passe, P. Fitchett, & N. Patterson (Eds.). Information Age Publishing,

Charlotte, NC.

Swan, K.O. & Hoffer, M. (2008). Technology and social studies. Handbook of research in social

studies education. Eds. Levstik, L.A. & Tyson, C.A. New York: Routledge.

Thieman, G. Y. (2008). Using technology as a tool for learning and developing 21st century

citizenship skills: An examination of the NETS and technology use by preservice

teachers with their K-12 students. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 8(4), 342–366.

VanSledright, B. (2002). In search of America’s past: Learning to read history in elementary

school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of

teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., Tran, M., &

Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious

gaming for education. Review of Educational Research. 82(1), 61–89.

Social Studies Research and Practice

www.socstrp.org

Volume 9 Number 2 88 Summer 2014

Web-Based References

Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences. Published in

Rosario Conte, Rainer Hegselmann and Pietro Terna(eds.), Simulating Social Phenomena

(Berlin: Springer, 1997), pp. 21–40. Retrieved from

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/old/pub/papers/AdvancingArtofSim.pdf.

Cable in the Classroom. (2014). eLECTIONS: Your adventure in politics. [Online game].

Retrieved from https://games.ciconline.org/elections/

Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2006). Standards, firewalls, and general classroom mayhem:

Implementing student-centered technology projects in the elementary classroom. Social

Studies Research and Practice [Online serial], 1(1). Retrieved from

http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/1.1.13.pdf

National Council for the Social Studies. (2008). A vision of powerful teaching and learning in

the social studies: Building social understanding and civic efficacy. National Council for

the Social Studies. Retrieved from http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/powerful.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved from

http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/resources/Digital_Natives_Digital_Immigr

ants.pdf.

Schwartz, D. (1999). Ghost in the machine: Seymour Papert on how computers fundamentally

change the way kids learn. Retrieved from

http://www.papert.org/articles/GhostInTheMachine.html.

https://games.ciconline.org/elections/.

Authors’ Bios

Christopher D. Moore is a doctoral student at Georgia State University. His primary research

focus is simulations and games in the social studies classroom. He also teaches high school

social studies in the metropolitan Atlanta area.

Cheryl Anne Beshke earned her educational specialist degree in Language and Literacy

Education at the University of Georgia. She works as a media specialist and also teaches

language arts in an elementary school in the Atlanta area.

Chara Haeussler Bohan is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at Georgia State

University. She is the author and editor of several books and more than 60 research articles in

history and social studies education. Email: [email protected].

Copyright of Social Studies Research & Practice is the property of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.