Home » theory
Category Archives: theory
Is digital archaeology part of the digital humanities?
This isn’t to get into another who’s in/who’s out conversation. Rather, I was thinking about the ways archaeologists use computing in archaeology, and to what ends. The Computer Applications in Archaeology Conference has been publishing proceedings since 1973, or longer than I’ve been on this earth. Archaeologists have been running simulations, doing spatial analysis, clustering, imaging, geophysicing, 3d modeling, neutron activation analyzing, x-tent modeling , etc, for what seems like ages.
Surely, then, digital archaeologists are digital humanists too? Trevor Owens has a recent post that sheds useful light on the matter. Trevor draws attention to the purpose behind one’s use of computational power – generative discovery versus justification of an hypothesis. For Trevor, if we are using computational power to deform our texts, we are trying to see things in a new light, new juxtapositions, to spark new insight. Ramsay talks about this too in Reading Machines (2011: 33), discussing the work of Jerome McGann and Lisa Samuels. “Reading a poem backward is like viewing the face of a watch sideways – a way of unleashing the potentialities that altered perspectives may reveal”. This kind of reading of data (especially, but not necessarily, through digital manipulation), does not happen very much at all in archaeology. If ‘deformance’ is a key sign of the digital humanities, then digital archaeologists are not digital humanists. Trevor’s point isn’t to signal who’s in or who’s out, but rather to draw attention to the fact that:
When we separate out the the context of discovery and exploration from the context of justification we end up clarifying the terms of our conversation. There is a huge difference between “here is an interesting way of thinking about this” and “This evidence supports this claim.”
This, I think, is important in the wider conversation concerning how we evaluate digital scholarship. We’ve used computers in archaeology for decades to try to justify or otherwise connect our leaps of logic and faith, spanning the gap between our data and the stories we’d like to tell. A digital archaeology that sat within the digital humanities would worry less about that, and concentrate more on discovery and generation, of ‘interesting way[s] of thinking about this’.
In a paper on Roman social networks and the hinterland of the city of Rome, I once argued (long before I’d ever heard the term digital humanities) that we should stop using GIS displaying North at the top of the map, that this was hindering our ability to see patterns in our data. I turned the map sideways – and it sent a murmur through the conference room as east-west patterns, previously not apparent, became evident. This, I suppose, is an example of deformation. Hey! I’m a digital humanist! But other digital work that I’ve been doing does not fall under this rubric of ‘deformation’.
My Travellersim simulation for instance uses agent based modeling to generate territories, and predict likely interaction spheres, from distributions of survey data. In essence, I’m not exploring but trying to argue that the model accounts for patterns in the data. This is more in line with what digital archaeology often does.
Bill Caraher, I suspect, has been reading many of the same things I have been lately, and has been thinking along similar lines. In a post on archaeological glitch art Bill has been changing file extensions to fiddle about in the insides of images of archaeological maps, then looking at them again as images:
“The idea of these last three images is to combine computer code and human codes to transform our computer mediate image of archaeological reality in unpredictable ways. The process is remarkably similar to analyzing the site via the GIS where we take the “natural” landscape and transform it into a series of symbols, lines, and text. By manipulating the code that produces these images in both random and patterned ways, we manipulate the meaning of the image and the way in which these images communicate information to the viewer. We problematize the process and manifestation of mediating between the experienced landscape and its representation as archaeological data.”
In the same way, Trevor uses augmented reality smartphone translation apps set to translate Spanish text into English, but pointed at non Spanish texts. It’s a bit like Mark Sample’s Hacking the Accident, where he uses an automatic dictionary substitution scheme (n+7, a favorite of the Oulipo group) to throw up interesting juxtapositions. A deformative digital archaeology could follow these examples. Accordingly, here’s my latest experiment along these lines.
Let’s say we’re interested in the evolution of amphorae types in the Greco-Roman world. Let’s go to the Netlogo models library, and instead of building the ‘perfect’ archaeological model, let’s select one of their evolutionary models – Wilensky’s ‘Mimicry‘ model, which is about the evolution of Monarch and Viceroy butterflies swapping in ‘amphora’ for ‘moth’ everywhere in the code and supporting documentation, and ‘Greeks’ for ‘birds’.
In the original model code, we are told:
“Batesian mimicry is an evolutionary relationship in which a harmless species (the mimic) has evolved so that it looks very similar to a completely different species that isn’t harmless (the model). A classic example of Batesian mimicry is the similar appearance of monarch butterfly and viceroy moths. Monarchs and viceroys are unrelated species that are both colored similarly — bright orange with black patterns. Their colorations are so similar, in fact, that the two species are virtually indistinguishable from one another.
The classic explanation for this phenomenon is that monarchs taste desireable. Because monarchs eat milkweed, a plant full of toxins, they become essentially inedible to butterflies. Researchers have documented butterflies vomiting within minutes of eating monarch butterflies. The birds then remember the experience and avoid brightly colored orange butterfly/moth species. Viceroys, although perfectly edible, avoid predation if they are colored bright orange because birds can’t tell the difference.
This is what you get:
We have two types of amphorae here, which we are calling the ‘monarch’ type (type 1) and the ‘viceroy’ type (type 2).
This model simulates the evolution of monarchs and viceroys from distinguishable, differently colored types to indistinguishable mimics and models. At the simulation’s beginning there are 450 type 1s and type 2s distributed randomly across the world. The type 1s are all colored red, while the type 2s are all colored blue. They are also distinguishable (to the human observer only) by their shape: the letter “x” represents type 1s while the letter “o” represents type 2s. Seventy-five Greeks are also randomly distributed across the world.
When the model runs, the Greeks and amphorae move randomly across the world. When a Greek encounters a amphora it rejects the amphora, unless it has a memory that the amphora’s color is “desireable.” If a Greek consumes a monarch, it acquires a memory of the amphora’s color as desirable.
As amphorae are consumed, they are regenerated. Each turn, every amphora must pass two “tests” in order to reproduce. The first test is based on how many amphorae of that species already exist in the world. The carrying capacity of the world for each species is 225. The chances of regenerating are smaller the closer to 225 each population gets. The second test is simply a random test to keep regeneration in check (set to a 4% chance in this model). When a amphora does regenerate it either creates an offspring identical to itself or it creates a mutant. Mutant offspring are the same species but have a random color between blue and red, but ending in five (e.g. color equals 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95, 105). Both monarchs and Viceroys have equal opportunities to regenerate mutants.
Greeks can remember up to MEMORY-SIZE desireable colors at a time. The default value is three. If a Greek has memories of three desireable colors and it encounters a monarch with a new desireable color, the Greek “forgets” its oldest memory and replaces it with the new one. Greeks also forget desireable colors after a certain amount of time.
And when we run the simulation? Well, we’ve decided that one kind of amphora is desireable, another kind is undesireable. The undesireable ones respond to (human) consumer pressure and change their color; over time they evolve to the same color. Obviously, we’re talking as if the amphorae themselves have agency. But why not? (and see Godsen, ‘What do objects want?’) That’s one interesting side effect of this deformation.
As I haven’t changed the code, so much as the labels, the original creator’s conclusions still seem apt:
Initially, the Greeks don’t have any memory, so both type 1 and type 2 are consumed equally. However, soon the Greeks “learn” that red is a desireable color and this protects most of the type 1s. As a result, the type 1 population makes a comeback toward carrying capacity while the type 2 population continues to decline. Notice also that as reproduction begins to replace consumed amphorae, some of the replacements are mutants and therefore randomly colored.
As the simulation progresses, Greeks continue to consume mostly amphorae that aren’t red. Occasionally, of course, a Greek “forgets” that red is desireable, but a forgetful Greek is immediately reminded when it consumes another red type 1. For the unlucky type 1 that did the reminding, being red was no advantage, but every other red amphora is safe from that Greek for a while longer. Type 1 (non-red) mutants are therefore apt to be consumed. Notice that throughout the simulation the average color of type 1 continues to be very close to its original value of 15. A few mutant type 1s are always being born with random colors, but they never become dominant, as they and their offspring have a slim chance for survival.
Meanwhile, as the simulation continues, type 2s continue to be consumed, but as enough time passes, the chances are good that some type 2s will give birth to red mutants. These amphorae and their offspring are likely to survive longer because they resemble the red type 1s. With a mutation rate of 5%, it is likely that their offspring will be red too. Soon most of the type 2 population is red. With its protected coloration, the type 2 population will return to carrying capacity.
The swapping of words makes for some interesting juxtapositions. ‘Protects’, from ‘consumption’? This kind of playful swapping is where the true potential of agent based modeling might lie, in its deformative capacity to make us look at our materials differently. Trying to simulate the past through ever more complicated models is a fool’s errand. A digital archaeology that sat in the digital humanities would use our computational power to force us to look at the materials differently, to think about them playfully, and to explore what these sometimes jarring deformations could mean.
Godsen, Chris. 2005. ‘What do objects want?’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12.3 DOI: 10.1007/s10816-005-6928-x
Ramsay, Stephen. 2011. Reading Machines. Towards An Algorithmic Criticism. U of Illinois Press.
Wilensky, U. (1997). NetLogo Mimicry model. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/Mimicry. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
I punched that title into Google to see what would come up. Thought I’d share the more interesting results (in no particular order):
Jonathan Kinkley (art historian), 1240 N. Wood Street, #2, Chicago, IL 60622, U.S.A. E-mail: email@example.com.
Cognitive research has revealed learning techniques more effective than those utilized by the traditional art history lecture survey course. Informed by these insights, the author and fellow graduate researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago designed a “serious” computer game demo, Art Thief, as a potential model for a learning tool that incorporates content from art history. The game design implements constructed learning, simulated cooperation and problem solving in a first-person, immersive, goal-oriented mystery set within a virtual art museum.
- A lecture on Militarism in video games
- Study of Game Scheme for Elementary Historical Education
- Playing History with Games
- A Stonewall Riot Video Game?
- Playful History?
- Digitalizing [sic] Historical Consciousness
- Historical Simulations in the Classroom
- From Slideshare, a ‘Literature Review on the use of video games in humanities education”:
I just realized. I’ve been intermittently blogging now for three years, as of this December past. In that time, I think I’ve remained more or less true to the ‘mission’ of Electric Archaeology – to try out new techs, recount experiments, disseminate my research, in new media for archaeology and history. There have been times when I could post thoughtful, in-depth pieces; and times when I’ve merely passed on the interesting things that have turned up in my inbox. As of this morning according to WordPress, Electric Archaeology has had over 85,000 views, spread across 394 posts. There have been 329 comments made. I have 62 categories – clearly I need some rationalization there.
I sometimes toy with the idea of moving Electric Archaeology to my own space, so I can put some better analytics on it, but for whatever reason, that just doesn’t happen…
The all time most viewed posts on Electric Archaeology (the most recent posts of course are at the bottom, having had less chance to be viewed):
What does ‘digital archaeology’ or ‘digital humanities’ or ‘digital history’ actually mean?
Bill Caraher is giving it a stab; sounds like it’ll be a fascinating talk. I hope there’s a video:
[...]In particular, I am thinking about articulating the notion of digital workflow and its implications in my own archaeological research.By digital workflow, I mean the use of digital technologies across the entire range of archaeological procedures from pre-season planning, data collection in the field, and the dissemination of our results across multiple platforms for diverse audiences. I like to imagine that our deep dependence on digital data and applications shaped not only how we approached historical and archaeological problems but also how we understood the results of our research and imagined the process of scholarly critique as well as pedagogical . This is, in part, a response to the view of digital technology as merely a tool that scholars and teachers deploy in the ongoing search for truth rather than an “active” participant in the process of determining what truths are significant, knowable, and even imaginable within a particular academic discourse.
from my inbox:
CALL FOR PAPERS
We would like to let you know about an interdisciplinary and international
workshop on spatial analysis of past built spaces that will take place in
Berlin on the 1st and 2nd of April 2010 (please see details below). Our
two-day workshop aims to promote discussion between a range of researchers in the disciplines of history/archaeology, urbanism, architecture, and computer science who have an interest in the spatial analysis of the built environment, and especially of historic and prehistoric spaces.
A number of very interesting speakers will be participating, and we would
be happy to consider a few more paper abstracts from colleagues willing to
share their views on a topic relevant to the aims of the workshop. Some of
the discussants and speakers will be:
Prof. Bill Hillier (keynote speaker-The Bartlett School of Architecture,
University College London)
Dr David Wheatley (University of Southampton)
Dr Graeme Earl (University of Southampton)
Hannah Stoeger (University of Leiden)
Prof. John Bintliff (University of Leiden)
Dr. Akkelies van Nes (Delft university of Technology)
Piraye Haciguzeller (Université catholique de Louvain)
Dr Quentin Letesson (Université catholique de Louvain)
Ulrich Thaler (German Archaeological Institute Athens)
Dr. Eleftheria Paliou (Topoi Excellence Cluster)
If you are interested in participating please send us your abstracts
(30min for presentation +questions) at firstname.lastname@example.org by the
20th of January 2010.
All the best,
Interdisciplinary and international workshop on spatial analysis in past
The Area A-III (Archaeoinformatics) of Topoi Excellence Cluster, is
organising a two-day workshop on “Spatial analysis of past built spaces”.
The workshop is scheduled for the 1st and 2nd of April 2010, at the Topoi
building, Free University, Berlin. The two-day workshop aims to promote
discussion among a range of researchers in the disciplines of, history/archaeology, urbanism, architecture, and computer science who have an interest in the formal spatial analysis of past built environments. A
summary of the workshop can be found below. More information about the
Topoi Excellence Cluster can be found at: www.topoi.org
The workshop is funded by the Topoi Excellence Cluster and there are no
Summary of the workshop:
Within archaeology, computer-based spatial analysis (for example,
GIS-based analysis) has been widely applied to the investigation of
historic and prehistoric space, both domestic and ritual. Typically,
however, the focus has been on larger spatial scales (‘landscapes’) rather
than urban spaces and buildings. More recently, a range of formal spatial
analytical methods have begun to be developed for the study of human
engagement, experience and socialisation within the built environment.
Many, although not all, of these emanate from the fields of architectural
and urban studies. Methodologies whose origins lie in Hillier and Hanson’s
Space Syntax, and in formal methods developed in the field of urban
studies (using, for example, axial and visibility graph analysis,
http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/research/vga/) are now gaining in popularity among researchers of historic and prehistoric urban environments; concepts such as visibility, movement, and accessibility within urban spaces have been given increasingly more weight in contemporary studies of built spaces
dated in a variety of periods, such as the Aegean Bronze Age, Iron Age,
Roman period, Byzantine and Medieval Eras. The application of these new
methods within the realms of history and archaeology therefore appears
promising. Archaeological and historical research would clearly have a lot
to gain from theoretical and methodological frameworks that aim to
investigate human-environment relationships and social aspects of built
space. Equally, archaeological and historical approaches may have a
distinct contribution to make to contemporary architectural theory and
urban design concepts. An interdisciplinary meeting that brings together a
variety of researchers including archaeologists, architects, urban
planners and computer scientists to discuss common areas of interest
could, therefore, encourage new directions of research in the study of
Presentations and discussion will take place mainly at the first day of
the workshop. The program will be arranged so that around two-thirds of
time will be dedicated to pre-prepared material, and one third for open
discussion. The invited participants will be asked to make a presentation
on spatial analysis methods that are applicable in past built
environments, such as access analysis, visibility graph analysis, isovist
analysis, agent-based models of pedestrian movement, 3D visibility
approaches. These topics raise questions which would benefit greatly from
a collaborative framework of specialists. These include:
How can spatial analysis facilitate a better understanding of human
engagement, experience and socialization in prehistoric and historic
Can methodologies developed for the investigation of contemporary
environments be successfully applied in historical and archaeological
datasets? What are the limitations? Which research directions have greater
potential to prove fruitful in future research on historic and prehistoric
What, if anything, can archaeological and historical perspectives
contribute to research into contemporary architectural and urban studies?
Are there any human behavioral processes in the built environment that are
common to modern, historic and prehistoric people?
The second day will be partly dedicated to a series of ‘show and tell’
demonstrations of software and analytical methods. An open forum will be
organised, with both presentation and computational facilities available
to those that are interested in participating to this event. Researchers
will be able to demonstrate software, data sets or tools, to run ‘hands
on’ demonstrations and discussions about spatial analysis in built spaces.
Steven Railsback and Volker Grimm are preparing a textbook in Agent Based Modeling that looks like it will become a standard text for all who are interested in the potential of the method. Interestingly, they have been providing draft chapters of the book for feedback.
The book has five parts.
Part I provides a quick introduction to modeling and agent-based modeling, and a “crash course” in programming ABMs in NetLogo. The goal of this part is to teach students enough of the basics so they can move on to the second part, which makes extensive use of simple but complete example models. We introduce a standard format for describing (and, therefore, thinking about and designing) ABMs, which is used throughout the book. As soon as students learn the basics of programming in NetLogo, we also introduce methods for testing software: testing our programs is an essential scientific skill that needs to become a habit from the start.
Part II includes nine chapters that (a) introduce a basic concept of agent-based modeling and ways that the concept is often implemented, and (b) reinforce and expand NetLogo programming skills related to the concept. For example, the chapter on Observation starts with a short discussion of why the way we observe an ABM is important and the different kinds of results we need to observe, then discusses how to use NetLogo’s extensive graphical and file output tools to make the observations we need. Part II makes extensive use of example models and exercises to illustrate and develop modeling and programming skills.
Part III covers “pattern-oriented modeling”, a modeling strategy that we believe to be especially important for agent-based modeling. We explore how to use characteristic patterns of the real system we model in designing an ABM and in developing theory for how the system’s dynamics emerge from agent characteristics and behaviors. Pattern-oriented modeling helps us deal with some of the most difficult issues in agent-based modeling, such as knowing when a model is “as simple as possible, but no simpler”.
Part IV looks at what we do with a model after it is written and programmed: analyze it to understand the model and to solve the problem we designed it for. We introduce methods for typical kinds of analyses (sensitivity and robustness; calibration); and for drawing inference about the system we modeled.
Part V is our look forward, with suggestions and guidance for scientists wanting to continue building their experience and capabilities. We discuss alternatives to NetLogo that may become desirable for models that are larger, more complex, or less-suited to NetLogo’s basic design.
As I look at the sample chapters (via the download page) I see not just how to create models, but also how to analyze them, with example spreadsheets, Bayesian approaches… looks fantastic. I wish I’d had this when I was starting out. Hang, I’m still hazy on Bayes’ theorem and how to make it work for me. Some light holiday reading…
Combine this book with Gilbert and Troitzsch’s Simulation for the Social Scientist and you’ll have everything you need to get cracking!
I’ve just gotten my hands on an (e-)inspection version of Nicola Whitton’s Learning with Digital Games: A Practical Guide to Engaging Students in Higher Education.
From the introduction,
Two recent UK studies provide evidence that students may not be as comfortable with technology for learning and new ways of working as is commonly assumed. In a study of student expectations of higher education, IPSOS MORI(2007) found that while the group of potential students who took part in their study had grown up with technology they did not value the use of technology for its own sake, but instead put a high value on face-to-face teaching and traditional teacher-student interaction. A recent study by CIBER (2008) also provides evidence that the assumption that young people who are brought up in the information age are more web-literate than older people is false. Although young people show an apparent ease with computers, they rely heavily on search engines and lack critical and analytic skills. In fact, the study claims, character traits that are often associated with young web users, such as lack of tolerance of delay in search and navigation, are actually true of all age groups of web users.
This followed a section dealing & dismissing with ‘digital natives’, that old saw. I like it already! I would love dearly to give you the page number for that reference, but the e-inspection software does not allow me to copy text, so I typed it all out – then my browser reloaded, and the page was reset to 1.
Would you accept that excuse from a student? Of course not…
Anyway, this looks like a tremendously useful book. Whitton targets her approach explicitly at higher education, from a constructivist point of view. I should’ve ordered a paper copy. You should too!
From the publisher’s blurb:
Written for Higher Education teaching and learning professionals, Learning with Digital Games provides an accessible, straightforward introduction to the field of computer game-based learning. Up to date with current trends and the changing learning needs of today’s students, this text offers friendly guidance, and is unique in its focus on post-school education and its pragmatic view of the use of computer games with adults.
Learning with Digital Games enables readers to quickly grasp practical and technological concepts, using examples that can easily be applied to their own teaching. The book assumes no prior technical knowledge but guides the reader step-by-step through the theoretical, practical and technical considerations of using digital games for learning. Activities throughout guide the reader through the process of designing a game for their own practice, and the book also offers:
A toolkit of guidelines, templates and checklists.
Concrete examples of different types of game-based learning using six case studies.
Examples of games that show active and experiential learning
Practical examples of educational game design and development.
This professional guide upholds the sound reputation of the Open and Flexible Learning series, is grounded in theory and closely links examples from practice. Higher Education academics, e-learning practitioners, developers and training professionals at all technical skill levels and experience will find this text is the perfect resource for explaining “how to” integrate computer games into their teaching practice.
A companion website is available and provides up-to-date technological information, additional resources and further examples.
I have had my own experiences with game-based learning in my classes so I’m looking forward to reading Whitton’s recommendations for design and implementation, to juxtapose with my own experience.
An interesting project hosted by Southampton in the UK and English Heritage – see the full website here. They’re hosting what looks to be a fascinating wee conference in October:
Visualisation In Context:
An Interplay of Practice and Theory
22 – 23 October 2009
Hosted by the University of Southampton
The 2009 VIA Workshop is designed to probe the intersections between theory (which might traditionally be represented in terms of critique – linear and written) and practice (which might increasingly be expressed in terms of production – non-linear and visual) within the field of archaeology as well as other disciplines from the humanities and the sciences.
Check out the VIA showcase:
|Online Research Showcase|
|Centred on the visualisation of data in both archaeology and the wider fields of the social sciences, arts, and science and technology studies. Like the bibliography, these summaries aim to link practitioners across disciplines, highlight innovative visual projects, and offer a platform for future planning and discussion of best practices around archaeological visual method and theory.|
|Archaeology and Community Museology: Ancient Egyptian Daily Life Scenes in Museums|
University of Southampton
|Choreographic Morphologies: Interdisciplinary Crossovers in the Use of Digital Visualisation Methods in Dance and Archaeology|
|Helen Bailey, Stuart Dunn, James Hewison, Martin Turner
King’s College London
University of Bedfordshire
University of Manchester
|Fractured Media: Challenging the Dimensions of Archaeology’s Typical Visual Modes of Engagement|
University of Southampton
|Framing Machu Picchu: Science, Photography and the Making of Patrimony|
University of Florida
|Imag(in)ing the Other at Dura-Europos|
Birkbeck College, University of London
|Institutionalising Images: Early Visualisation Networks in Aegean Archaeology|
University of Sheffield
|Interactive Panoramas and 3D Modelling Based on Panoramas|
|Karol Kwiatek, Martin Woolner, Simon Standing, Jes Martens
University of Plymouth, Institute of Creative and Cultural Industries
University of Oslo, Norway, Museum of Cultural History
|OKAPI Island in Second Life|
|Ruth Tringham, Noah Wittman, Colleen Morgan
University of California, Berkeley
|Pervasive Gaming, Education, and Cultural Heritage: Emplaced Interpretive Games at the Presidio of San Francisco|
|Ruth Tringham, Colleen Morgan
University of California, Berkeley
The Presidio Archaeology Lab
|Reflexive Representations: The Partibility of Archaeology|
|Andrew Cochrane, Ian Russell
University College Dublin
|Representing Prehistory: The Biographies of the Robenhausen Lake Dwelling Collections at the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (2008-2009)|
University of Cambridge
|SahulTime: Rethinking Archaeological Representation in the Digital Age|
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
|Strategies of Visualisation in German Archaeology, 19th-20th C|
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Humboldt University, Berlin
|The Archaeological Eye: Visualisation and the Disciplinary Foundations of British Archaeology|
University of Southampton
|The Gateway to Sarup|
|Niels H. Andersen, Maria Isenbecker, Camilla Bjarnø, Jan Solheim
Moesgård Museum, DenmarkSamsøgades Skole, Denmark
Supported by the Danish Ministry of Culture and the Danish Ministry of Education
|The Remediated Places Project|
|Ruth Tringham, Michael Ashley, Steve Mills, Eric Blind, Jason Quinlan, Colleen Morgan
University of California, Berkeley
From the Upside Learning Blog
- It is All Fun and Games…And Then Students Learn- Kapp Notes, July 30, 2008
- Building Better Learning Games- Learning Visions, April 9, 2009
- Marc Prensky – Digital Game-Based Learning
- Gadgets, games and gizmos for learning- Clive on Learning, January 29, 2008
- How to Delight and Instruct in the 21st Century
- What Makes a Learning Game?
- Serious Games Blog
- mLearn08: MiLK: students building mobile learning games in higher education by Debra Polson- Ignatia Webs, November 12, 2008
- Marc Prensky – Twitch Speed, June 17, 2009
- Using computer games in education- ThirdForce Blog, January 30, 2009
- Digital games and learning gains (PDF), June 17, 2009
- Learning in Immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning
- Army War College – digital game resources
- Immerse Yourself in Another Language- Kapp Notes, June 3, 2008
- Resources: Games and Gaming in Education- Don’t Waste Your Time
- Which name is better – Serious Games or Educational Simulations or…?- The Learning Circuits Blog, October 13, 2007
- Interactive learning with game-based design principles
- More Educational Games- Kapp Notes, August 7, 2008
- Examples from TWITCHSPEED.COM Digital Game-Based Learning, June 17, 2009
- The Art of Making Video Games- Kapp Notes, June 10, 2008
- Linking Commercial Games with Defense
- Colleges Play Games- Kapp Notes, May 27, 2008
- Casual Games get Serious, June 17, 2009
- Aspects of Game- Based Learning
- Walk a Mile in My Shoes: Games Let You Do That- Kapp Notes, July 30, 2007
- Digital Game Based Learning
- Good Video Games and Good Learning
- Digital Games: A Motivational Perspective
- The use of computer and video games for learning
- For a Better World: Digital Game and the Social Change Sector
- Games for Change – Toolkit
- Lego Games
- Additional Resources for Digital Game-Based Learning
- Why Are Video Games Good For Learning?
- Teaching Educational Games Resources
- using the technology of today, in the classroom today
- Simulation Games – A Learning Tool
- Video games and the future of learning
- moving learning games forward
- 36 Learning Games to Change the World
- Game Development Research
- BBC School Games
- Yes You CAN Create E-learning Games- Bozarthzone , June 22, 2007
- Apple Learning Games
- And You Thought Mechanical Engineering was Boring- Kapp Notes, August 14, 2008
- Adopting Digital Game-based Learning: Why and How- Upside Learning Blog, March 26, 2009
- ZaidLearn: 75 Free EduGames to Spice Up Your Course!, December 11, 2008
- A Theory of Fun- Clive on Learning, August 16, 2007
- Games e-Learners Play, April 29, 2009
- The treatment matrix- Clive on Learning, August 5, 2008
- PDF: Serious games: online games for learning (PDF), June 17, 2009
- Where games, sims and 3D worlds meet- Clive on Learning, June 24, 2007
- The Top 5 Platforms for Creating Educational Video Games « Educational Games Research, June 17, 2009
- Caspian’s ILS taxonomy- Clive on Learning, November 17, 2008
- 24 Questions about computer games and education- The Learning Circuits Blog, August 8, 2005
- Casual and Serious Digital Games for Learning – Some Considerations- Upside Learning Blog, April 17, 2009
- Clark Aldrich’s Style Guide for Serious Games and Simulations: costs for simulation, December 11, 2008
- Gadgets, Games and Gizmos: Learning Algebra in a Game- Kapp Notes, November 19, 2006
- Latest Issue of The Escapist Focuses on War Games and Gaming, September 23, 2008
- Games and the Gamer Generation: Keynote- Kapp Notes, August 10, 2007
- Games and Learner Assessment- Kapp Notes, May 30, 2008
- World Bank: Serious Games and Urban Planning, October 30, 2006
- Top 10 Educational Games of the 1980s- Kapp Notes, September 20, 2008
- Game Studies 0102: Cultural framing of computer/video games. By Kurt Squire, June 17, 2009
- It’s Monday, Are You Stressed? Relax with a Unique Video Game- Kapp Notes, October 29, 2007
- Confessions of an Aca/Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins: From Serious Games to Serious Gaming (Part Four): Labyrinth, November 14, 2007
- Save Planet Helios from ecological devastation!-3D Game by IBM- Kapp Notes, August 29, 2008
- Serious Games: Slideshow of examples from an event at Harvard Business School, December 13, 2007
- Email Games, June 17, 2009
- Trends with Games, December 23, 2008
- Learning Circuits – ASTD’s Online Magazine Covering E-Learning
- Learning in Video Games
- Hong Kong Digital Game Based Learning Association
- Gadgets, Games and Gizmos: MMORPG in ICT Education- Kapp Notes, January 16, 2007
- GDC’s Serious Games Summit- Upside Learning Blog, April 3, 2009
- Rapid authoring for immersive games and sims- Clive on Learning, January 26, 2009
- Gadgets, Games and Gizmos: ESL in SL- Kapp Notes, February 13, 2007
- What is a Game? The Art of Computer Game Design, June 17, 2009
- TCC09: Digital Learning Environments: Context Sensitive and Imaginative Classes in Second Life, April 14, 2009
- Why Most Off the Shelf Commerical Games Will Not Work in Education? And What Is The Alternative?, June 17, 2009
- Textra Games, June 17, 2009
- Shootorials: Kongregate Teaches You How To Make Your Own Games, October 22, 2008
- Predictions for 2009, December 30, 2008
- Simulations – Are They Games (PDF), June 17, 2009
- Serious Games Enhancing The Rehabilitation Environment, June 17, 2009
- Training Games, June 12, 2007
- Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked, June 17, 2009
- Computer Games and the Military: Two Views, June 17, 2009
- Serious Games, June 17, 2009
- Social Sites, Design, Informal Learning, & Brain Games, May 4, 2009
- Groupboard, May 7, 2008
- Why Do People Play Games? – The Art of Computer Game Design, June 17, 2009
- Video games are good for you!, February 13, 2009
- Army is to Spend $50 Million in Edutainment for Troops, November 25, 2008
- Playing with Our Heads – Why Video Games are Making our Kids Smarter-and more obedient, June 17, 2009
- Federal Consortium on Virtual Worlds, November 19, 2007
- Examples of Games Based Learning, June 17, 2009
- Interesting Web Sites for Game-Based Training, e-Learning and Education:, June 17, 2009
- Fourteen Forms of Fun, June 17, 2009
I’m happy to say I had a hand in this article.
History computer games have become an economic and cultural phenomenon, and historians should seize the opportunity to participate in their development. Players of history games are interested in the past and in the big questions that drive historical scholarship. In this way, games have the potential to draw players into the discipline if we can discover the best way to express history though simulation. But what research do we draw on as we study how to accomplish this transformation? This essay is the product of a meeting of historians, educators, and gamers who joined previously separate lines of inquiry to identify literature and models that we believe form the foundation for developing a theory of good history through gaming.
Les jeux vidéo à thème historique sont devenus un phénomène économique et culturel, et les historiens devraient saisir cette occasion de participer à leur développement. Les personnes qui jouent à des jeux historiques s’intéressent au passé et aux grandes questions qui mobilisent la recherche historique. Par les jeux, il est peut-être possible d’attirer les joueurs dans la discipline, si nous parvenons à découvrir la meilleure façon d’exprimer l’histoire par la simulation. Mais à quelle recherche faisons-nous appel quand nous étudions les moyens de réaliser cette transformation? Cet essai est le produit d’une réunion d’historiens, d’éducateurs et de spécialistes du jeu qui ont relié des pistes de recherche jusque-là indépendantes afin de repérer les études et les modèles qui, croyons-nous, serviront de base à l’élaboration d’une théorie de bonne pratique de l’histoire par le jeu