International Perspectives on Military Education

International Perspectives on Military Education

volume 1 | 2024

Wargaming Preferences

How Participating in Educational Wargames Changes Student Preferences on Learning

Amanda M. Rosen, PhD, and Lisa Kerr, EdD

https://doi.org/10.69977/IPME/2024.001

PRINTER FRIENDLY PDF
EPUB
AUDIOBOOK

Abstract: Educational wargaming has shown its clear value in the classroom, leading to deeper and more long-lasting learning. Yet, it is unclear how students respond to the use of games in the classroom and whether they perceive them to have educational value above and beyond “having fun.” This study of the War at Sea wargame at the U.S. Naval War College provides evidence that students see wargaming as a valuable learning activity, that they consider it appropriate for the PME environment, and that participating in a wargame makes them more likely to want to learn via wargames in the future. These findings provide evidence in support of the ongoing effort to increase wargaming in professional military education (PME) curriculum, and suggest that early exposure to wargames creates buy-in among students that can be harnessed throughout their careers.

Keywords: wargaming, professional military education, PME, student learning, student perspectives, leader development, War at Sea

Wargames are experiencing a renaissance in the educational halls of PME institutions—or as game designer Sebastian J. Bae puts it, they are once again going through a “cycle of rediscovery.”[1] During the last 10 years, wargaming has found its way back into the curriculum and practice of the major staff and war colleges, and even in the Service academies in the form of a wargaming design course at the U.S. Naval Academy. As Bae outlines, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have heavily invested in these active learning educational tools, and the creation of new commercial platforms and games like Operational Wargame System and Littoral Commander are getting widespread play in a variety of educational settings. Strategy and policy concur with this development; Naval Education Strategy 2023 highlights how wargaming “reinforces active, experiential learning” and recommends that Naval University System institutions “more fully integrate wargaming into education programs and curricula.”[2]

This rediscovery is not surprising, given the evidence for gaming’s effectiveness as an educational activity. Extensive research on active learning exercises like games, wargames, and simulations consistently supports the finding that gaming leads to gains in content knowledge and skills such as negotiation, decision making, and empathy—the tools of strong leadership.[3] Moreover, studies have shown that these gains are deeper and longer lasting than learning gains from traditional educational approaches such as lecture and discussion.[4] For example, Adam Wunische found that while both lectures and simulations led to immediate learning gains, only students participating in a simulation retained their initial knowledge.[5] While more traditional teaching methodologies persist, the research is clear that if we value student learning, wargaming should be a highly used tool in the PME professor’s toolbox.

At issue then is not the value of wargames, but whether altering curriculum to include wargames is worth the costs and risks. Such costs range from monetary costs in producing and maintaining game materials; the time it takes faculty to create, train on, execute, and debrief wargames; the loss of other content from the curriculum to accommodate a wargame; and the risks of student pushback against what is still seen as an unconventional approach to learning.[6] Many of these costs will vary based on the curricular pressures of a particular program or institution. In some cases, the Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP) may incentivize faculty to prioritize extensive content areas, leaving no room for anything but the quickest learning techniques; in others, a commercial game like Blitzkrieg! or Root might eliminate the need for extensive training, material development, or support.[7] One universal risk of adoption, though, is the potential student response. Students may enjoy playing games in the classroom, but they do not always see the educational value of playing games as part of a curriculum.[8] This risk is the focus of this article. Will adult, career officer, PME students recognize the value of games in the classroom?

The answer is more mixed than one might expect. Certainly, military officers are familiar with wargaming and are aware that senior military leaders regularly participate in such games, many of which are run by the Naval War College’s wargaming department. Such events are of course taken seriously, but their primary purpose is research, not education. If an individual learns something new by participating in a global game, that is a wonderful byproduct, but not the purpose of the event, which is to produce data to analyze and inform. Furthermore, the sophistication of such games can be a far cry from being asked to play a board game in a class. Students used to learning via lecture and discussion may bring a healthy skepticism as to whether playing a game in class will have serious educational value.

Indeed, studies have shown that students do not always recognize the sources of their own learning. In one study of a Harvard physics class, Louis Deslauriers et al. found that students reported learning less during an active learning activity, when objective measures found that they had actually learned more.[9] Likewise, Shana K. Carpenter, Amber E. Witherby, and Sarah K. Tauber argue that students consistently suffer from “illusions of learning,” misjudging the sources of their learning.[10] It is possible that even if students are found to learn more from wargames than traditional teaching techniques, that they do not perceive games as an effective approach to learning.[11]

We are left with three questions to answer. First, do students want to learn via educational wargaming? We want to understand whether they prefer to learn via games versus other techniques, particularly after they have engaged in an educational wargaming experience. Second, do students believe they learn during wargaming? Regardless of whether they like learning via wargaming, do they view it as an educational experience? Finally, do students view educational wargaming as an appropriate tool for the PME classroom? In particular, we want to know whether educational wargaming achieves some of the affective or skill-based objectives instructors set for students, such as creating bonds with their peers and developing leadership skills.

The findings of this article suggest that the answer to all three questions is yes. Through a study of students participating in the Naval War College’s War at Sea wargame, used in the Joint Military Operations (JMO) Department to teach concepts of operational art, the authors found that students are fully aware of and appreciate the learning value of educational wargaming. This recognition means that faculty may not face student resistance to adopting this learning technique—and also presents the opportunity to create future wargamers who could make enthusiastic contributions to the analytical wargames that are central to naval research and planning.

Methodology

The War at Sea game is a fertile ground for exploring these questions on student learning preferences. War at Sea is a bespoke game designed to teach maritime operational art. Its use in the JMO classroom dates to 2018, and along with the Operational Wargame Series (OWS), is the main platform for educational gaming in the department.[12] It is a turn-based tabletop game adaptable to many scenarios; in the current study, the authors focused on the Battle of Leyte Gulf and Falkland Islands (Malvinas) scenarios that are used during the operational art content block. During the game, students are divided into blue and red teams and charged with designing and carrying out an operational plan to achieve victory for their forces. Each turn, they plan how to move their units, conduct surveillance and reconnaissance, and fire on enemy units. A team of facilitators and umpires adjudicate the moves, reveal the results, and oversee battles, whether planned or due to tripover engagements. Through making decisions based on constantly incoming but incomplete information, students experience firsthand the challenges of enacting an operational plan to achieve strategic objectives. The planning, gameplay, and debriefing for War at Sea typically takes two additional seminars (six hours) above and beyond the traditional case study of the conflicts being explored.[13] 

The authors’ previous publication on War at Sea compared student responses to objective test questions on the Leyte Gulf case, finding a statistically significant number of students demonstrated higher levels of learning after wargaming compared to both their prewargaming selves and their nonwargaming peers. Building on that, and the issues addressed above, this part of the study focuses less on student knowledge and more on their learning preferences; that is, whether they see wargaming as an appropriate activity that increased their learning and their desire to learn via wargaming. This results in three hypotheses to assess:

H1: Students will increase their preference for learning via wargaming after participating in an educational wargame.

H2: Students are more likely to recognize the learning value of wargames after participating in War at Sea compared to before.

H3: After participating in a wargame, students are more likely to view wargaming as an appropriate and valuable educational activity.

To test these hypotheses, the authors used data gathered during a quasi-experiment at the Naval War College in the JMO Department.[14] In 2021–23, faculty in both the intermediate leader (ILC) and senior leader (SLC) courses were able to choose whether to incorporate a wargame into the content block on operational art. About one-half of the 17 seminars chose to do so, allowing for a natural experiment to compare students in wargaming seminars to those in seminars that relied solely on more traditional methods such as readings, lectures, and seminar discussions.[15] The authors surveyed students on their learning preferences prior to the start of the content block at the beginning of their course, and then again after completing their operational art content block. Some questions about learning preferences were asked on both surveys, allowing a longitudinal comparison, whereas others—mostly those about the impact of the wargame—were asked only of wargaming students once at the completion of their gaming experience.

Specifically, the authors asked students to rank eight different approaches to learning. These learning modalities included course readings, conducting independent research or writing papers, full class discussions, small group discussions within classroom settings, case studies, exercises and activities like wargames, studying for or taking exams, and individual tutorials with faculty. Using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the authors were able to compare students over time and group to see whether participating in a wargame changed student attitudes toward wargaming. In addition, the authors asked them to respond to a series of five-point Likert scale statements about their learning, measuring whether and how they perceived the game to have educational value.

Results

A total of 98 students completed the pre-course survey. Of these, 63 students were in the courses that did not experience the wargame learning activities, and 35 students experienced the wargame learning activities.[16]

H1: Students will increase their preference for learning via wargaming after participating in an educational wargame

The evidence supports H1. As figure 1 shows, only 21 (33 percent) of the students who were not in the courses that experienced wargaming initially ranked activities like wargaming as one of their top three preferred learning modalities. Similarly, 14 (40 percent) of the students who were in the courses that experienced wargaming ranked activities like wargames as an effective learning modality.

Figure 1. Students’ initial perspectives on the effectiveness of wargaming on learning

Source: courtesy of the authors, adapted by MCUP.

At the completion of the content block, students were invited to complete a post-course survey and rank the same learning modalities previously mentioned. All (35/35) students who completed the pre-course survey that engaged in wargaming in their seminars completed the post-course survey as compared to 43 percent (27/63) of their peers who did not engage in wargaming in their seminar.[17] Figure 2 illustrates the differences in how students ranked the perceived effectiveness of wargaming as a learning modality between those who were in a class that incorporated wargaming into the seminar and those whose seminars did not include wargaming.

Figure 2. Students’ post-content block perspectives on the effectiveness of wargaming

Source: courtesy of the authors, adapted by MCUP.

As figure 2 shows, students who experienced wargaming as a part of their learning activities were more inclined to indicate that they perceive learning activities like wargames as effective learning modalities. While the percentage of students in the classes that did not engage in wargaming did not show much change in their perceptions of the effectiveness of wargames as a learning activity, the percentage of students who experienced wargaming who ranked wargaming as one of the top three most effective learning modalities nearly doubled to 77 percent. Practically, the data indicate that when students have opportunities to engage in wargaming, they recognize the effectiveness of the modality and become more willing to learn by that modality in the future.

H2: Students are more likely to recognize the learning value of wargames after participating in War at Sea compared to before

H2 receives mixed support. Students are able to recognize the overall learning value of wargames. Table 1 outlines the additional questions that wargaming students were asked, in the form of statements they rated from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) on a 5-point Likert scale. In all cases, the mean and modal responses indicate strong agreement with the items measuring student self-assessment of learning. Students report better understanding of course concepts post-wargame (4.4) as well as improvements in their problem solving, adaptation, and decision making (4.5) and analytical (4.4) skills. Students also report an increased ability to derive operational lessons (4.2) and the importance of having operational plans (4.3). Finally, students reported that the wargame gave them a stronger appreciation for the constraints Japan was under during the Philippines campaign (4.0), a nuance that faculty had anecdotally reported had gone overlooked prior to the wargame.

Table 1. Student perspectives about wargaming benefits

Source: courtesy of the authors, adapted by MCUP.

However, while students recognize that wargaming increased their learning, their perceptions on the reasons why they learned does not match expectations. Students were asked to rank in order of how effective each component of the wargaming process—the preparation, gameplay, and debriefing phases—was for their own learning. Table 2 shows that students ranked playing the wargame as the most important for their learning, followed by the preparation and then the debriefing. With most of the literature noting that the debriefing is where the learning actually occurs, by providing the time and space to connect gameplay to course concepts and creating meaning-making, this finding indicates that while students know they learned, they do not always recognize the value of the debriefing in the learning process.[18]

Table 2. Students perspectives on the learning value of wargaming experience components

Source: courtesy of the authors, adapted by MCUP.

H3: After participating in a wargame, students are more likely to view wargaming as an appropriate and valuable educational activity

H3 is also supported. Overall, the student responses support the conclusion above that students appreciate and enjoy wargaming as a learning activity. Students expressed that they enjoyed the game (4.6) and that they perceived that engaging in wargaming was beneficial to their learning in the course (4.5). Additionally, students reported that they increased their sense of connection with their peers (4.4) and their abilities to understand (4.4) and critique (4.4) course concepts as a result of engaging in the wargaming process. Generally, students perceive that the time spent learning and engaging in the wargame was time well spent and enhanced their learning. Most students, in fact, strongly disagreed with the statement that playing the wargame was a waste of time (1.5) or that they would have preferred to learn via other means (1.5).

Discussion

The topline finding is that students who wargame show a marked increase in their desire to learn via wargaming. A single wargaming experience, then, may be sufficient to change student preferences on how they learn, suggesting that they not only see the clear value in a game like War at Sea for learning operational art, but that they are more open to experiential learning in the future.[19] Whereas prior to wargaming, students cited lecture and assigned readings as preferred learning methods, both methods decreased in importance to them after wargaming, and wargaming itself rose substantially in the ranks of preferred techniques for students in the post-test.[20] This suggests that providing an early wargaming experience could reduce student resistance to incorporating other experiential and active learning approaches in the classroom. Fears of such resistance can potentially be easily countered, reducing this risk to building wargaming into curriculum.

It is possible that students may be open to a learning methodology that they do not actually see as adding learning value—but that is not the case here. The author’s findings show that students do report learning from their wargaming experience, and combined with previous findings in this study, suggest that there is a match between student perceptions and reality of learning. This brings some good news to those concerned by the Deslauriers et al. study’s findings that students do not recognize the sources of their learning, and others that suggest students are overconfident of their own learning.[21] However, the authors’ findings suggest that students may still misplace the source of their learning, as they were more likely to cite the gameplay and preparation phases than the debrief as the most important parts of their learning. In this case, either the students are incorrect, or scholars should reconsider the value they place on the debrief for experienced graduate students.[22] Regardless, faculty should consider how to improve student awareness of the value of the debrief and ensure their high engagement with that aspect of wargaming, even as institutions work to ensure faculty are prepared to maximize the value of the debrief in connecting gameplay to course concepts and theories.

Finally, those concerned with whether military professionals will see wargaming as an appropriate and valuable way to spend class time should be reassured. Support for gaming as a method of increasing skills, connection with peers, and analyzing decisions all suggest that students see wargaming as a serious activity that can develop their leadership skills. When asked if they would rather learn through other, more accepted techniques, the modal student gave a definitive no.

Conclusion

Combined, these results suggest high levels of student support for the War at Sea experience that go beyond the objective learning improvements documented in the authors’ previously published work.[23] The results from the quasi-experiment demonstrate that students want to learn through wargames, that they recognize the learning value of such games, and that they see them as appropriate tools for a PME classroom. Most importantly, students participating in a wargame change their preferences for learning via game, developing an increased preference for wargaming as a teaching and learning methodology.

This suggests three avenues for action and research. First and foremost, the results of this work suggest that PME students should participate in an educational wargame sooner rather than later. As PME institutions add more wargaming to their curriculum in line with educational strategies, student resistance must factor in, and it is clear that an early experience can make students more amenable to learn via wargaming later. Furthermore, developing wargaming skills early may lead to more students choosing this as a focus during their education, setting them up to be experienced and skilled wargamers when they encounter analytical wargames later in their careers. Therefore, PME curricular developers should look for opportunities where wargames can enhance their content, perhaps focusing on low-intensity games that offer many of the benefits of games at lower cost.[24]

Second, researchers should explore the impact of the piecemeal creation and execution of educational wargames in PME. This study suggests that War at Sea is successful in its goal to aid student learning—but it was created and executed to meet the needs of a single department at one PME institution. If early educational gaming experiences matter, and officer wargaming skills are valued, then it is incumbent on institutions to create a true ecosystem of wargames that reinforce such learning.[25] Within the Naval War College, even other departments are unfamiliar with wargames used in JMO; across institutions, there is little effort to coordinate educational wargaming either horizontally or vertically. Armed with the knowledge that wargaming is an effective technique supported by students, researchers and curricular developers should consider how to work cross-institutionally to ensure a well-rounded wargaming education for officers throughout their careers.

Third, there is a real need for a greater faculty perspective on wargames. In this article, the authors focused on student preferences and risks, but faculty resistance to wargaming is likely to be as much if not more of a barrier than students. Given that many of the costs of running wargames fall on already-burdened faculty, this is no small risk, and even those faculty who recognize the educational benefits of wargames may resist their implementation. Thus, PME needs more research on faculty perspectives and preferences on educational wargaming, but also action by institutions to ease these costs and burdens and invest the resources needed to create faculty allies rather than adversaries during the curriculum revision process.

Moving forward, institutions should balance the various benefits, costs, and risks in increasing educational wargaming in the curriculum, and consider the wider ecosystem and future opportunities of students to wargame. While it is clear that wargames can bring great learning gains, and that initial student resistance can be overcome by a positive gaming experience, these benefits are not without cost and risk. As PME institutions look to expand their educational wargaming offerings, they must invest real resources in creating quality games that are aligned with curriculum, provide career-long skill development, and give faculty the time to develop, train, and execute them properly. War at Sea is effective at least in part because of such investments; effort will be required to ensure that other efforts achieve similar success.

About the Authors

Dr. Amanda M. Rosen is professor of teaching and learning and interim director of the Writing and Teaching Excellence Centers at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI, where she conducts faculty development, research, curricular development, and assessment on educational gaming and instructional strategies in the security studies and professional military education contexts. She is the author of the 2024 book Teaching Political Science: A Practical Guide for Instructors and is the cofounder of the award-winning Active Learning in Political Science blog. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Political Science Education, PS: Political Science & Politics, International Studies Perspectives, Politics & Policy, and multiple edited volumes. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1858-481X

Dr. Lisa Marie Kerr is an associate professor in the College of Leadership and Ethics at the U.S. Naval War College, where she contributes to the graduate degree program and facilitates executive leader development for the U.S. Navy. Her current research agenda focuses on learning effectiveness for leader development in professional military education settings, human factors in systems thinking, and holistic wellness for optimal performance and warfighter readiness. Kerr is a career educator dedicated to supporting and challenging leaders as they advance into positions that address more dynamic, complex, and ambiguous problems. https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9081-7462

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Naval War College, Marine Corps University, the U.S. Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.