Teaching History With Custom-Built Board Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. This article investigated the potential of a custom-built board game as a means to teach historical empathy, improve class participation, and to improve student understanding of the limitations of archival collections. Method. Participant behavior as well as verbal and written feedback were collected during a pilot study of POLICING THE SOUND. A total of 88 undergraduate and graduate participants from History and Indigenous Studies took part during the pilot study. Results. Student participation and understanding of historical context improved during the game. While graduate and undergraduate students showed similarity in their enjoyment of the game and their belief that it made historical arguments, the curricular differences in graduate and undergraduate programs influenced how each group approached the game. Conclusion. Participant feedback, facilitator observation, and external observation indicate that groups of players can resolve confusion more efficiently than individual players can, time constrained decision-making may help maintain student engagement, an inability to win does not necessarily cause disengagement in short educational games, and that a structured debrief is important in achieving educational goals even in custom-built games.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it