Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Spartan117, May 23, 2006.
why or why not...
is using civ as a learning device effective?...
i learnt about cho ku nu s (chinse repeating cross bows)
No. It is a game.
listen to the doctor, although it's a history game, it's definitly a game. you can use your computer for learning history if your civ has completed the internet.
Yes. Civiliopedia is easy to ignore, but for the child who spends a lot of time playing, eventually (s)he is going to check them out. At that point the child now knows more than (s)he knew.
And if you're like me, Civilization will be an inspiration toward other studies in History, which might culminate in a History degree. For myself, I honestly doubt whether I'd be a history student if I didn't play lots and lots of Colonization in elementary school.
I learnt that England built the Pyramids in a city called York which was next to a huge mountain
In all seriousness, I learnt a little about some of the leaders in the game that I wouldn't know otherwise
About elementary history it can be good but it's nothing else than a very good game.
Anyway this game has solicitated some of my interests in history i must admit like my sudden interest for mongol history
You certainly wouldn't want to use a game, even a great game like Civ, as your sole source of education regarding history. On the other hand, Civ is definately going to provide more of a historical education than a game like Halo 2.
Civilization in the Classroom
posted by Thunderfall at Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:36:39 CST | comments: 11
Inside Higher Ed has published an article titled "Not Just Childs Play" written by David Epstein, looking at the growing trend of using Civilization III in college history courses. The author interviewed five professors who have used the game in their classes. Below is an excerpt from the article:
Several of the professors who used video games reported waiting lists for their courses, and McMichael says that more men than women began flocking to his class once he began using Civ3. Creasman says that, if professors can find useful ways to incorporate some other wildly popular games into the classroom, like the first person adventure game Halo, which has a lot of shooting and no history, youd be the coolest professor in town. McMichael wasnt so sure. I found that for students, homework is homework, he says. They b*tched about [Civ3] as much as they do about reading.
One thing the article mentioned is the number of college courses that use Civ3 is not known, but the profesors interviewed guessed there are "at least dozens".
I wonder if any of our visitors are currently enrolled in a class that uses Civilization III... Reply in the comments if you are.
Thanks to Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed, for the info.
>> Read the article
just to make clear...
not as sole learning but assist in classroom environment...
If CIV sparks your interest, makes you curious about something, AND you go and do some research about it. Then the game is good for learning history.
I think the game itself doesn't teach history (unless you spend some time reading the Civilopedia's fine print, but I don't think many do). It can, however, certainly spark interest in the real people, nations, events, buildings, wonders, and so on that it contains and/or refers to.
The game has inspired me to do quite a bit of research on Wikipedia and other Internet resources. I don't have children, but as a former teacher, I would think that playing the game would spark similar curiosity in kids.
I don't think Civ should be used as a reference although I can see from my brother that he has picked up a lot of the history parts of Civ IV when I play with him. He has also started to Google things he wants to learn more about, and he asks if there's something he wants to know more about. So according to me, Civ can be a great source of inspiration for young people to get into learning history, which is considered somewhat of a dull subject.
It can be used as a tool for learning. As in the civilopedia. As mentioned, you may not be aware of Cho-ku-nus until you play civ. But the pedia gives you Firaxis's definition. A historian no doubt has a different viewpoint of what the Cho-ku-nus are dipicted as than what the pedia dictates. The civilopedia is no means a good definition for many things. It is generalized and opinionated by the writers. This is true for any type of evalution of them.
It is a guide to learn something about them in general. I didn't know much about the ironclads until Civ games showed them to me. Since learning about them I have learned alot more. Civ can open your eyes on some things in history as (I believe) everything in Civ is always something that has existed or does exist. So anything in the game you can look up real documentation on how it played a role in the real world. You can not read the civilopedia and instantly be considered well versed on any of the subjects in question. You will just be handed someone elses definition.
I am not sure that it would be an effective tool in a classroom environment, but I guess it all depends on how it is used.
As others have mentioned, I think it could help to pique the interest of some who would otherwise view history as dull and boring. I have no idea how you would be able to pull that off as a teacher, but then again I am not a teacher.
I dunno, but I did learn a bit from Colonization. Mainly because when I played the game (middle school) we were learning about "the age of exploration" so remembering everyone and certain aspects were much easier.
I hope Sid Meier does another Colonization.
Wow, if any profs at my uni had offered courses including Civ, I might have taken history. I certainly spent as much time playing Civ as I did writing my thesis. And by Civ, I mean Civ 1. I think Civ 1 was, by far, the most straightforwardly educational version of the series. It was very much like playing James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed" as a game.
Since then then games have become, IMHO, more and more "gamelike". By which I mean, they play much more like a game and less like an interactive history book.
To actually answer the question, I don't think Civ teaches you much history (although any is better than none) ,but it does teach a lot about civilization
Well, I take it he is a world history teacher. There are many ways I can see utilizing civ 4 like this. (sped up games) The problem I think most teachers have is relating the material to the student. A video game is a nice way for them to captivate their audience obviously. (waiting lists to get into said classes.) He has found a tool to get people wanting to take his course. Then he can teach them when they "arent looking" so to speak. I doubt he uses the realism to the game, or lack there of. But it would be good to demonstrate distinguished aspect to the civilizations when they existed in real life.
Basically, have the students play vs one another, each being a civ. Then as his lessons evolve he can have the students that play that civ participate in the lessons. (Greeks will participate in the teaching of the Greeks - they will also have to learn more about the Greeks rather than what is simply in the game) He will only put in the civs that are related to the material. More than likely the actual "civing" is done on "Friday/Weekends". Hence people "b*tch about the homework" Mon-Thur is teaching time. (Actual history class.)
I wish the pedia was as slick as Conquests was, I notice Civ4 copies the same entrys for many improvments. Why not I guess, but as a whole I find the pedia in Civ4 to be flawed so I don't bother with it unless I have to
On the other Hand Civ3 had such a smooth layout with links abound, it made for some great reads. The Conquest mod sectons is much like a history library in that theres many scenarios that include well devoloped Pedias relating to specific parts of historty. Example: opium wars, Early England, Roman History, Rise of Asia. And annui Dommi which focus is on ancient history.
Also a rare few of the mods (2or3) contain near 1000 complete entries made up of mostly units, the rest being imp\wonders\tech\govs that cover the entire span of history in glorious detail.
After playing one of these mods I came out a history major. The epic the Balancer Reloaded 2005 for Conquests is in a league of its own for epic reads. I still can't believe they could make 1000 entries Sure some could be repeated where it sees fit but most was all original and layed out in "Fireaxis prose"
Im still in awe of that accomplishment It was packed with accurate Historic trivia. The writters were well in there 30's and well up to the task I guess, cuz Its by far the largest most complete and most profesional written Civepedia that was ever written. I Sh#t you not. So yes You can learn a lot reading a pedia, depending on what versions you read......
Yes and no. Mostly yes.
Yes because the 'pedia contains a lot of good historic info. The game also features historical elements and is inspired by history. So, someone who's playing Civ could get more interested in history by the exposure to real historic information in the game.
No because the game is just a game and not a history simulator and the game mechanics themselves are generally not historically bound or accurate (which causes some forum posters to have seizures regularly). Because the game abstracts real concepts and has to quantify and limit what can realistically be represented, it is not a tool for re-enacting or truly representing history.
Separate names with a comma.