Game-Based Learning in Political Science

The university classroom is generally seen as an environment for adults. Students learn to become professionals. Many students have already spent years in a professional environment and are returning to increase skills. Therefore, the concept of introducing gaming into the classroom may seem immature to faculty.
 Despite this perception, there are those who disagree. Woessner, author of the article Teaching with SimCity: Using Sophisticated Gaming Simulations to Teach Concepts in Introductory American Government, made the following claim...

  Although the use of SimCity-based simulations will not revolutionize political science and civics education, the selective incorporation of these sophisticated civic simulations has the potential to generate enthusiasm among otherwise disinterested students. As a tool for teaching high school civics or introductory American government, in-class exercises based on SimCity may help the next generation to understand why, in politics, there are no easy answers.

Personally, I don't like playing video games and I haven't done it for years. Therefore, before completing this assignment, I would have probably joined the ranks of those who view game based learning as a hopeless cause. Heeter, author of the article, Impacts of forced serious game play on vulnerable subgroups, completed a study that demonstrates that I am not alone.  

The most important threat to a serious game having its intended impact is when players dislike the game and would not play it on their own if not assigned to do so. Resistant players were less committed (play for less time), experienced less positive affect, less focused attention, and more negative affect than eager players who would play even if they did not have to. Resistant players performed worse and played in such a way that they experienced less challenge during the game. Serious games are likely to be least effective for players who dislike a game and most effective for those who like the game. Declaring that serious games are less effective for players who dislike the game on the surface seems to imply that serious games simply need to be great games, and they will have the desired impacts. The problem with that solution is that liking a game is highly idiosyncratic. Every one of our games in the study had eager players and resistant people who would never play the game intentionally. Even if a game were a great example of its genre, the appeal of such a game would certainly not be universal. Different people like different games. Even the most wonderfully designed serious game will fail to appeal to some players. This also points to the need for more future work on understanding the relevant individual differences between game players, particularly for formal learning environments."

Despite these negative findings, there may be a small relative advantage for providing games as an alternative assignment for those students who may otherwise feel more disengaged. Heeter also stated that "Based on our findings, one could also appreciate the inverse interpretation: serious games are a good way to reach gamers, and serious games are a potentially great way to reach players who really enjoy the game" Furthermore, Heeter did list suggestions for improvement by stating that "Serious game designers should consider how their game will be received by non-gamers as well as avid gamers and females as well as males."


Woessner, M. (2015). Teaching with SimCity: Using Sophisticated Gaming Simulations to Teach Concepts in Introductory American Government. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(02), 358-363.

Heeter, C., Lee, Y. H., Magerko, B., & Medler, B. (2011). Impacts of forced serious game play on vulnerable subgroups.