Journal of Moral Education, 2015

[Link]

EPIC: a framework for using video

games in ethics education
Karen Schrier
Marist College, Poughkeepsie, United States
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

Ethics education can potentially be supplemented through the use of video games. This article
proposes a novel framework (Ethics Practice and Implementation Categorization [EPIC] Frame-
work), which helps educators choose games to be used for ethics education purposes. The EPIC
Framework is derived from a number of classic moral development, learning, and ethical deci-
sion-making models, including frameworks and theories associated with games and ethics, as
well as prior empirical and theoretical research literature. The EPIC Framework consists of
seven ethics education goals (e.g., building ethical awareness, practicing reflection, and enhanc-
ing character), and 12 strategies associated with ethics education, which are also present in video
games (e.g., role-play, modeling, and simulation). Each of the framework’s categories is
described in detail, and the limitations of the framework are also discussed.
Keywords: games, ethical thinking, moral development, ethics education, video games,
theoretical framework

Introduction
The purpose of this article is to describe and analyze a novel framework—the
Ethics Practice and Implementation Categorization (EPIC) Framework—which
can be used to systematically categorize current and future video games such
that they could be more readily used in ethics education. The EPIC Framework
helps educators identify and better incorporate games to be used for ethics prac-
tice in both classroom and informal learning environments. The EPIC Frame-
work is a multilayered approach, and involves identifying ethics education goals
(e.g., building ethical awareness, practicing reflection) and also selecting ethics
education strategies (e.g., role-play, simulations) to meet these goals, and then
using this process to select appropriate video games to meet both goals and
strategies.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen Schrier, Marist College,
Media Arts Department, Lowell Thomas, 3399 North Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12560,
347-510-6487. Email: [Link]@[Link]
© 2015 Journal of Moral Education Ltd
 2 K. Schrier

Ethics defined
There are a number of different definitions for ethics and morals, and often these
terms get used interchangeably. Typically, morals refer to ‘universal truths, or
public rules or principles’ (Tierney, 1994, p. ix), or the code or set of principles
that drives a person’s decisions, behaviors or actions (Wines, 2008). Ethics, on the
other hand, are referred to as the cognitive and reflective processes related to
applying moral principles to situations and choices (Wines, 2008). Meng, Othman,
D’Silva, and Omar (2014) also define ethics as the investigation of these processes;
they explain that it is ‘a science which concerns the question of right and wrong in
human behavior’ (p. 134, quoting Lillie, 1971).
There are many different approaches to how one defines an activity, attitude, or
behavior as being ethical, including utilitarian, deontological, or Kantian ethics
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

(Shafer-Landau, 2010), and there may be different moral orientations used by

people, or the ‘perspective from which one approaches decision making’ (Levitt &
Aligo, 2013, p. 195); for example, a justice-oriented approach to ethics (maintain-
ing equality and fairness; Botes, 2000; Glover, 2001) or one that is care-oriented
(maintaining relationships and other’s needs; Botes, 2000; Gilligan, 1982).
The term ‘values’ is often used in concert with ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ and is usu-
ally deemed the outcome of one’s ethics and morals, or the guidelines that dictate
what matters to an individual, family, institution, or community (for more about
types of values, see Schwartz, 1994).
Regardless of the term, approach, belief system, or orientation used, which may
change over time or between types of scenarios (Levitt & Aligo, 2013; Schrier,
2014a; Schrier, Diamond, & Langendoen, 2010), we need students to hone and
practice the skills and thought processes necessary for what I call ‘ethical thinking’
(Schrier, 2014a, 2014c; Schrier & Kinzer, 2009). Ethical thinking is the assem-
blage of skills and cognitive processes related to determining how to act ethically
and how to think through ethical choices and scenarios (Schrier, 2012; Schrier,
2014a, 2014c; Schrier & Kinzer, 2009). Ethical thinking, therefore, is a set of criti-
cal skills and practices that can be taught, for example, in a classroom or informal
learning setting. The skills, concepts, and processes related to ethical thinking may
include interpretation, analysis, and prioritization; systems thinking and multi-
causality; awareness of and reflection on one’s personal ethics, societal ethics, and
other systems of ethics; perspective taking and emotional understanding; bias iden-
tification; as well as logic and reasoning (Schrier, 2014a, 2014c). Ethics education
may not just involve skills practice; it may also integrate character development,
citizenship and civic engagement, comparative ethical frameworks (e.g., deontolog-
ical, utilitarian, Kantian), cross-cultural studies of ethics, social aspects of ethics,
and comparisons of institutional versus personal ethics (Frey, 2010; Lynn, 2010;
Morris & Wood, 2011).
Ethics has been taught in and applied to a variety of different fields, including
engineering (Doorn & Kroesen, 2013), business (Brown, 1994; Wines, 2008;
Maclagan, 2012), accounting (Liu, Yao, & Hu, 2012), marketing (Celuch &
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 3

Saxby, 2013), counseling (Bradley & Hendricks, 2008; Levitt & Aligo, 2013),
forensics (Barnao, Robertson, & Ward, 2012), and hospitality (Lynn, 2010), as
well as in the K-12 classroom (Elliott, 2007; Paul & Elder, 2012). However, there
are no clear, agreed-upon guidelines in any of these fields, or in K-12 in general,
of how ethics or ethical standards should be taught (Paul & Elder, 2012; Ryan &
Bisson, 2011).
Yet, there is a great need for ethics education (Schrier, 2014a, 2014c; Paul &
Elder, 2012; Elliott, 2007). Academic programs cite business and accounting scan-
dals (Floyd, Xu, Atkins, & Caldwell, 2013; Riemenschneider, Leonard, & Manley,
2011), and a rise in cheating and plagiarism (Riemenschneider et al., 2011), as
evidence of why it is essential to have ethics education in higher education, or to
even start earlier by integrating it into K-12.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

Even if there is no ethics ‘crisis,’ however, ethics education is still integral to

human development and full participation in humanity (Nussbaum, 2010), as well
as to democratic engagement. Ethical thinking is essential for both everyday ethical
decisions and longer-term, more complicated challenges (Schrier, 2014a; Schrier
& Kinzer, 2009). Paul and Elder (2012) identify ethical thinking as one of the core
critical thinking competency standards. People need to develop ethical thinking as
a key literacy, just as they would other critical literacies (Jenkins, Clinton, Purush-
otma, Robison, & Weigel, 2006; Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe, & Terry, 2013;
Patrick, 2003).
Moreover, the purpose of a liberal arts education is to prepare students to be
lifelong, engaged learners (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956;
Nussbaum, 2010; Wines, 2008), to lead a good life (Sicart, 2009) and to ‘prepare
the student to take a meaningful role in participatory government as an active and
informed citizen’ (Wines, 2008, p. 485). Nussbaum (2004) explains that people
need:
… narrative imagination. This means the ability to think what it might be like to be in
the shoes of a person different from oneself, to be an intelligent reader of that person’s
story, and to understand the emotions and wishes and desires that someone so placed
might have.

(Nussbaum, 2004, sec. 4, para. 1)

Effective ethics education is a major component of this approach to learning.

There have been studies suggesting both the general effectiveness of ethics edu-
cation (for example, in the case of business ethics, which is more effective when
training is coupled with students’ consideration of personal ethics, perceptions of
ethics, and attitudes toward ethics; Hejase & Tabch, 2012; Zgheib, 2015), as well
as its ineffectiveness (for example, in the case of medical ethics, the training may
be too cognition-focused and detached, rather than considering the psychological
and social aspects of a situation or person; Campbell, Chin, & Voo, 2007;
Kleinman, 2011). However, the potential effectiveness of ethics education in vari-
ous domains (Ryan & Bisson, 2011) is not the focus of this article. Rather, this
 4 K. Schrier

article posits that one possible primary or supplemental activity that could be
integrated into an ethics curriculum is the playing of, discussion of, and interaction
with, video games. Based on this assumption, it is important for educators to
choose the most appropriate game to meet their specific pedagogical goals and
strategies. To aid in this process, this article puts forth a framework to help
identify relevant video games for use in ethics education. In the next section, I will
discuss why games may be appropriate for use in ethics education.

Using games for ethics education

Studies have suggested the effective use of media in ethics education, such as film,
movies and television (Pierce & Wooloff, 2012), literature (McMillan & Gentile,
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

1988) and cartoons and comics (Rule & Montgomery, 2013). Other strategies
such as role-playing exercises (Brown, 1994; Doorn & Kroesen, 2013) and the use
of cases and scenarios (Bagdasarov et al., 2012; Maclagan, 2003; Peacock et al.,
2012) have been used frequently as well, and will be discussed further later in the
article. In one example, Fleischmann, Robbins and Wallace (2011), developed
interactive cases for information systems students, where the students needed to
take on different roles in a group, and make interdependent ethical decisions.
From this, the researchers created a scalable educational simulation that could be
used at other institutions to teach students about global ethical challenges.
Based on this previous research, it is not a stretch to consider that another form
of media, video games, which can provide opportunities for role-playing and simu-
lation, and/or other effective educational strategies, may be used in ethics educa-
tion as well. There has been a growing body of research around the effectiveness
of using games for learning and education (Schrier, 2014b), and an increase in the
design and development of these games, or use of commercial off-the-shelf games
(COTs) for these types of purposes. Often, these types of games for education are
called serious games, educational games, learning games, games for change, social
impact games, or games for learning. These terms have overlapping meanings and
usages, for example, the term ‘serious games’ typically refers to using games for
so-called serious purposes like health, educational, or government-led training, but
has a slightly different meaning than social impact games, which focus on games
with an overall purpose of sparking social good and real-world change (Schrier, in
press). The specific term to use is less important than the idea that games are
being used for a variety of educational purposes. For example, games have been
suggested to be effective and relevant for learning diverse topics, such as history
and social studies (e.g., López & Cáceres, 2009; Schrier, 2014d; Squire, 2011), lit-
erature and literacy (e.g., Ferdig & Pytash, 2014), research methods and statistics
(Boyle et al., 2014) and science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM) (Bertozzi, 2014; Werner, Denner, & Campe, 2014). Wouters, van
Nimwegen, van Oostendorp, and van der Spek (2013) found that games are effec-
tive for learning and retention, potentially even more so than other methods of
instruction. Moreover, Greitemeyer and Osswald’s research on prosocial games,
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 5

such as City Crisis, suggests the possibility for prosocial effects of games, such as
increased helping behavior, and activation of prosocial thoughts (2010). Christen,
et al., describe how games may potentially support the practice of empathy for
game characters and not just other people, and a feeling of responsibility for game
characters (2012), which Schrier’s research also supports (Schrier, 2016). A
national survey conducted by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center found that 9% of
teachers used games every day, 55% of surveyed teachers used games in their
classroom at least once a week, and another quarter of respondents used games at
least once a month (Joan Ganz Cooney Center, 2014).
Games have also been suggested to use for ethics education and to help prac-
tice ethical thinking and ethics-related skills (Consalvo, 2005; Gilbert, 2010;
Schrier, 2014a, 2014c; Steinkeuhler & Simkins, 2008; Zagal, 2009, 2011),
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

though this has not been extensively empirically studied (Schrier, 2014a, 2014c).
Video games, and games in general, may have elements that are suited to ethics
education, in that they can motivate participants to experiment with new identi-
ties and roles, take risks and push boundaries and practice certain behaviors,
without worrying about the dire consequences that could occur in real life or in
a traditional classroom (Paul & Elder, 2009, 2012; Schrier, 2014a). The ability
to play in experience alternate perspectives and systems of ethics, and try out
different possibilities with varying consequences, also make the use of games in
ethics education particularly compelling (Schrier, 2014a, 2014c). For example,
Schrier et al. (2010) describe Mission US: For Crown or Colony, a game created
by PBS/WNET and Electric Funstuff for middle school students, to encourage
the practice of historical empathy-related skills, reflection, and ethical thinking
skills. Schrier et al. (2010) explain that the Boston Massacre is a key moment in
the game, because each player receives slightly different vignettes showing what
happened, since what happened is still unknown. Teachers could pause the game
and use this in-game moment to question students as to their differing perspec-
tives on the event, motivate students to discuss any differences, and to reflect on
why each player received varied vignettes. In the next part of the game, students
would decide what happened at the Boston Massacre at an official deposition,
where their responses (and whether they lie or not about what they saw) would
have consequences for their game’s ending, and for how their character’s rela-
tionships with the non-playing characters (NPCs) would turn out. The research-
er’s findings suggested that the game helped enhance skills such as empathy and
historical empathy, ethical reasoning, and awareness of ethics issues (Schrier
et al., 2010).
The purpose of this article is not to evaluate the overall or specific effectiveness
of games in ethics education, or to posit that individual or general games will
support ethics education. Instead, it is to help those educators, researchers, and
designers interested in further investigating, implementing, or experimenting with
games in ethics education more effectively choose potential video games, with
consideration to ethics education strategies and pedagogical goals.
 6 K. Schrier

Review of previous frameworks

To develop the EPIC Framework for using games in ethics education, the previ-
ously-developed ethics, education, and games-related frameworks were identified,
investigated, and analyzed. A full literature search for ethics curriculum, games,
and ethics was used to identify the appropriate frameworks for study. This section
summarizes the major frameworks used and their key components.

Relevant ethics and education frameworks

Major frameworks that have been applied to ethics education were considered.
The following criteria were used to decide which frameworks should be included
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

in this review: (1) frequency of reference and citation; (2) relevancy to ethics edu-
cation and moral development; and (3) critiques and/or incorporates one or more
other relevant frameworks. Thus, the following databases were searched using
search terms ‘moral development framework’ and ‘ethics education framework’:
EBSCO Host (all databases) and Science Direct. Then, the two most frequently-
cited frameworks were culled from the top 25 most relevant (as defined according
to that particular database’s search engine) published journal article results as
determined on June 18, 2015. The two resulting frameworks that emerged were
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development and Rest’s Four Component Model,
each of which have been frequently cited and applied to the creation of ethics ped-
agogy and in conceptualizing moral development. Next, based on the above crite-
ria, I also added a newer (2013) framework, the Transformative Model, which
builds on three earlier ethics and learning models. This framework was selected
based on my evaluation of newer scholarship connecting moral development and
learning to action and community.
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development. This is a classic model of moral develop-
ment, which posits that people go through specific stages of development in a lin-
ear fashion. According to this theory, how one makes moral judgments depends
on where s/he is in the stage of moral development (Riemenschneider et al.,
2011). Kohlberg (1969) explained the three levels as: (1) the preconventional level
(people make egocentric decisions and focus on how those decisions affect the per-
son); (2) the conventional level, where individuals consider common values and
norms when they make decisions; and (3) the postconventional level, where indi-
viduals autonomously create and apply universal principles based on society and
community (Kohlberg, 1969; Levitt & Aligo, 2013). Gilligan expanded on
Kohlberg’s theory by focusing on the potential differences between how men and
women develop morality (Gilligan, 1982; Levitt & Aligo, 2013), suggesting that
one’s individual character and values can shape decision-making, and that care is
additionally an important component of moral judgment (Gilligan, 1982).
Rest’s Four Component Model. While there are numerous proposed models of eth-
ical decision-making, there is no standard model of ethical decision-making in
games or out, and few models are grounded or have been validated empirically
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 7

(Cottone & Claus, 2000; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005; Rogerson, Gottlieb,
Handelsman, Knapp, & Younggren, 2011). Addressing all of the different ethical
decision-making models is out of scope for this article, but can be further investi-
gated in Cottone and Claus (2000) and O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005). One
framework, created by Rest (1986), is discussed as it has been applied in a number
of ethics curricula (Meng et al., 2014), as well as to ethics games (Staines, 2010).
Rest’s (1986) framework has four major components, including identifying and
becoming aware of the ethical issue, making a judgment or evaluation, becoming
focused and motivated toward a specific goal, and implementing an action, based
on one’s goal (Meng et al., 2014; Narvaez & Rest, 1995). The decision-making
comes from both the intuitive and personal feelings of what is right or wrong,
based on prior knowledge and experiences, and it also comes from a critical evalu-
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

ation and reasoning through the evidence and situation to make a judgment
(Meng et al., 2014).
Transformative Model. This model, developed by Tello, Swanson, Floyd, &
Caldwell, 2013), incorporates key elements from Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning,
Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning, and the Transformational Learning
model, each described below. The purpose of this model is to show how people
‘understand and apply knowledge aimed at creating greater value for themselves,
organizations, and society’ (Tello et al., 2013, p. 107). The model also connects
this knowledge to action and behavior using the Theory of Reasoned Action (see
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), which is beyond the scope of this article.
Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) is a useful model for evaluating
how well a particular pedagogical activity or exercise spurs higher order thinking
(Arthur, 2010; Tello et al., 2013). It consists of six different levels, which starts at
the lowest level, remembering or recall, and moves up to understanding/compre-
hension, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating and creating new opinions
and ideas (the top level) (Arthur, 2010; Tello et al., 2013). A useful discussion of
Bloom’s Taxonomy and relevant chart appears in Krathwohl (2002). One critique
of Bloom’s Taxonomy is that it focuses on the basic acquisition of new facts and
concepts, rather than on the later reflection on that knowledge (Tello et al., 2013;
Wineburg & Schneider, 2009). That said, a number of studies have applied
Bloom’s Taxonomy to ethics education, including Tello et al. (2013). The ele-
ments of Bloom’s Taxonomy that inspire Tello et al. (2013)’s Transformative
Model include being able to: (1) define key concepts, theories, and principles,
such as being able to identity and integrate other’s perspectives and ethical possi-
bilities; (2) frame problems and issues, including understanding the consequences
of decisions; and (3) generate positive, creative ethical outcomes, by understanding
and applying ethical concepts to solutions.
Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning. Fink’s taxonomy focuses on developing
one’s values, ethical self-awareness, and understanding one’s own identity and
value system (Floyd et al., 2013; Tello et al., 2013). Unlike Bloom’s Taxonomy,
which is more hierarchical, Fink’s is more integrated and non-hierarchical, and
incorporates the affective elements that he felt Bloom’s was missing (Tello et al.,
 8 K. Schrier

2013). Fink’s model includes the elements of Bloom’s, such as the development of
foundational knowledge, application of the knowledge, and integration and com-
parison with other knowledge, along with new elements such as human and self-
awareness, caring and empathy and inclusion of other’s feelings, and a desire for
lifelong learning (Fallahi, 2008; Tello et al., 2013). Fink’s Taxonomy has been
applied effectively to ethics education (Tello et al., 2013) and curriculum in gen-
eral (Fallahi, 2008; Fallahi et al., 2009). The elements of Fink’s Taxonomy that
inspire Tello et al. (2013)’s Transformative Model include being able to: (1) learn
how to learn and communicate those learnings; (2) understand one’s own values
and ethical perspectives; and (3) develop ethical self-awareness, and developing a
set of core values and character.
Transformational Learning. The Transformational Learning model, developed by
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

Mezirow (1991, 2000), focuses on critical reflection on experience, as well as

personal growth, and integrates the cognitive and personal aspects of learning
(Merriam, 2004; Mezirow, 2000; Tello et al., 2013). This model focuses on being
self-directed, practical and problem-oriented, action-oriented, and collaborating
with others (Tello et al., 2013). Transformation Learning has also been applied to
ethics education (Tello et al., 2013) and other curricula centered on the develop-
ment of critical thinking (Flores, Matkin, Burbach, Quinn, & Harding, 2012). The
elements of Transformational Learning that motivate Tello et al. (2013)’s Trans-
formative Model include being able to: (1) Reflect on the validity of past truths
and assumptions; (2) Test one’s assumptions and adopt new insights and mean-
ing; and (3) Create a framework for reasoning through and weighing the costs and
benefits to ethical decisions.

Relevant games and ethics frameworks

The major frameworks that have been applied to the practice of ethics in games,
how ethics are designed in games, how games function as ethical systems, and the
use of games for ethics education, were considered for this review. As this is a bur-
geoning field, however, there are only a few frameworks currently available and
most were recently published and not yet empirically tested. The following data-
bases were searched using search terms ‘ethics education and games’: EBSCO
Host (all databases), ProQuest, and Science Direct on June 18, 2015. Because of
the newness of the field and limited amount of relevant journal article and book
search results, any relevant publication’s references were also searched further for
related books and articles. From these relevant articles and books, a number of
frameworks were culled and the following criteria were used to determine which
frameworks should be included in this review: (1) relevancy to ethics education;
and (2) relevancy to how games and ethics intersect. In addition, I included a
newer (2011) framework from my own empirical research on ethics and games.
While these frameworks do not necessarily focus on the potential educational
aspects of games, they are useful in understanding how ethics may be reflected on,
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 9

negotiated, and expressed through games. The four frameworks are reviewed
below.
Sicart’s theory of games. Sicart (2009) contends that games do not just express
ethical choices as part of their gameplay, but that they themselves are also ethical
systems that express values (Sicart, 2009). As Sicart explains, game players,
designers, and reviewers are all ethical agents, which themselves are also integrated
into a complex web of systems—such as social, historical, and ethical ones (Sicart,
2009). This is an important distinction, because it suggests that games are not just
expressing ethics content (like a book might explain ethical theories or pose ethical
dilemmas), but it explores how games are ethical systems that may impact other
systems, and that games and game designers are part of broader ethical, cultural
and economic systems. Players themselves can interact within those systems,
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

affecting how ethics and values are negotiated and experienced.

Zagal’s ‘Ethically Notable’ games: Zagal (2009, 2011) describes a framework for
identifying which games are ethically notable games, or games that are particularly
able to encourage ethical reflection and reasoning. Zagal (2011) describes that
these types of games involve rationalized responses and emotional responses,
explaining that:
… games that encourage rationalized responses typically engage players’ critical think-
ing and problem-solving skills … games that elicit emotional responses often encour-
age players’ investment in the narrative and fictive elements of a game while
simultaneously facilitating their reflection on their in-game choices and decisions.

(Zagal, 2011, p. 20)

Zagal explains that elements such as narrative and gameplay can encourage partici-
pants to reflect on and evaluate their ethics, address the social context of ethical
issues, and consider varying consequences of different choices and actions (Zagal,
2011). He explains that the ethics of the game’s play (its mechanics, rules and
goals, and its broader system, narrative and/or themes), as well as the player’s in-
game actions, choices, and behaviors, contribute to helping the player reflect on
and reason through ethics (Zagal, 2011). The very existence of this type of frame-
work further suggests that some games may be better at eliciting the skills associ-
ated with ethical thinking, and it is an initial step in identifying the relevance of
certain games to curricular needs. Also relevant is Zagal’s supposition that there
are both emotional and intuitive, in addition to reasoned and analytical, responses
in games that are integral to the ethics component.
Stevenson’s classification framework for ethical games. Stevenson (2011) created a
framework for classifying and critiquing ethical games. Most relevant to this analy-
sis is Stevenson’s classification of the major types of ethical games. He posits three
levels of ethical games, which suggest the differential ways that the game’s ethical
system interacts with the player’s behavior:
1. Static, or games that integrate ethical themes through their goals and game
play, whereas the player does not make any actual ethical decisions that might
 10 K. Schrier

impact the game (Stevenson, 2011). For example, a game’s goals, themes, or
mechanics may encourage the player to question the system’s ethics or the nat-
ure of violence (Stevenson, 2011). This is similar to reading a book, where the
main character works through ethical dilemmas, but the reader has no direct
impact on the book’s narrative, and instead may work through the possibilities
as part of her imagination.
2. Adaptive, or games that invite ethical decisions made by the player, but which
do not have obvious quantifiable consequences as a result of those decisions,
in terms of any rewards or penalties or game changes (Stevenson, 2011).
Stevenson describes that the typical adaptive game has a branching narrative,
where players can gain access to slightly different narrative content, or a differ-
ent order of events, even if the ultimate outcome is the same.
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

3. Systemic, or games that include player’s ethical decisions, and also change in
regard to those decisions, in quantifiable and measurable ways (Stevenson,
2011). In this type of game, decisions could result in changes in, for example,
reputation, goodness or evilness, or karma, such as in games that have an
alignment statistic, or a friendship/trust statistic (Stevenson, 2011).
Schrier’s model of ethical decision-making in games. While there is no standard
model for ethical decision-making in games, Schrier (2011) identified the main
components of ethical decision-making in one particular role-playing game, Fable
III, based on empirical data and a coding scheme that was derived from the data
using Invivo coding and thematic analysis. The framework consists of the four
types of skills and thought processes used, as well as the player ‘drivers’ or
underlying motivators of decision-making in games, which interact with the skills
and thought processes used. The skills and thought processes were categorized
into four different classifications: (1) reflection-related; (2) information gathering-
related; (3) reasoning-related; and (4) empathy-related. For more about the
model, see Schrier (2011, 2014a). This model is useful in further identifying the
different aspects of ethical thinking and decision-making, and suggests that players
do practice ethical thinking in video games.

The Ethics Practices and Implementation Categorization Framework

Upon investigating the aforementioned frameworks, I developed the EPIC Frame-
work. The EPIC Framework consists of two levels of use—educational goals and
strategies (see Table 1 for a summary of the goals and strategies in the frame-
work). In other words, educators may use the framework to find relevant and
effective games for teaching and encouraging the practice of ethics, based on their
unique educational goals, educational strategies, or both. Depending on one’s edu-
cational needs, different mixes of goals and strategies could conceivably be used.
Distinct sets of strategies could be used to meet the same goals, and there is not
necessarily a clear or direct relationship between strategies and goals. In other
words, sometimes using emotion, simulation, and application to real-world issues
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 11

Table 1. The multilayered EPIC Framework includes consideration of both educational goals
and strategies to meet those goals. The goals and strategies could be mixed and matched in
different ways to help educators and designers select the most appropriate games for a particular
educational need
Educational Goals
E1. Enhance ethical awareness
E2. Enhance emotional intelligence
E3. Practice care or empathy-related skills
E4. Practice ethical reasoning
E5. Practice ethical reflection
E6. Enhance character
E7. Cultivate facility with major ethics issues, approaches, and frameworks
Strategies
S1. Emotion, mood, and tone
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

S2. Diaries or personal reflection devices

S3. Role-taking and role-playing
S4. Story or narrative
S5. Modeling through avatar or character
S6. Choices and consequences
S7. Simulation
S8. Social interaction and collaboration
S9. Deliberation, dialogue, and discourse
S10. Applications to real-world issues
S11. Procedural exploration and interaction
S12. ‘Nudges’ or contextual and/or personalized clues

are the appropriate strategies for meeting a goal of enhancing emotional intelli-
gence, and in another situation, social interaction, choices and consequences, and
story and narrative might be more appropriate.
An important caveat is that the framework does not critique or judge whether
individual games are effective in meeting these goals, but rather, it helps educators
identify which goals and strategies are relevant for their educational purposes, so
the educator can more easily find matching games. Further research is necessary
to understand whether the games chosen actually meet the goals, strategies, and
other needs of ethics educators.

The EPIC Framework: educational goals

This section explains the seven educational goals, which were drawn from the
aforementioned frameworks, theories, and research literature, and related to ethics
education and ethical thinking-related skills, processes, and practices. This frame-
work does not privilege the development of particular ethics-related skills over
other skills, but rather explores which types of skills may be desirable and could be
potentially practiced using a video game.
Regardless of the method of instruction used to deliver ethics education, goals
and objectives must be first established (Ryan & Bisson, 2011). For example,
Weber (1990) posited that ethics education must establish a goal or set of goals
before the curricula can be created (Ryan & Bisson, 2011). Each of the goals listed
 12 K. Schrier

below is broad and general to fully capture the spectrum of ethics education needs.
As such, educators may want to take these goals and shape them to their students’
unique needs and their own pedagogical plans. These goals have been established
in the literature as part of the ethical decision-making and ethics education pro-
cess; one is not necessarily more important and the goals may overlap or be inter-
related.
E1. Goal one: Enhance ethical awareness. The goal of enhancing ethical awareness
is to help people become more aware of their own ‘ethical and moral … decisions
and actions’ (Montgomery & Walker, 2012, p. 95). Developing ethical awareness
includes the practice of many relevant skills, such as the awareness that a moral
dilemma or issue even exists, identification of one’s own and other’s perspectives
on a given situation, interpretation of the situation, and imagining cause and effect
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

(Meng et al., 2014). Rest calls this type of awareness, moral sensitivity, which is
the first stage in his aforementioned theoretical framework, and is described as,
‘an awareness of how one’s actions affect others and the different responses that
are available to the actor in an ethical scenario’ (Jordan, 2007, p. 324; citing Rest,
1983, 1986, 1994). Awareness is a core aspect of ethics education, because it
helps people become more cognizant of their ethical identity and moral orienta-
tion, which in turn often leads to more sound ethical decisions in the future
(Butterfield, Trevino, & Weaver, 2000; Lynn, 2010; Meng et al., 2014). For
example, Levitt and Aligo (2013) explain that for counselors, making ethical
decisions is not assured, even if the counseling professional is talented, intelligent,
and experienced. A more salient factor may be the counselor’s self-awareness.
Greater self-awareness leads to personal and professional growth, which in turn
leads to more grounded ethical practice (Levitt & Aligo, 2013). A number of the
aforementioned frameworks express the importance of ethical awareness, including
Transformative Learning, Fink’s Taxonomy, Transformational Learning, and
Ethically Notable Games.
E2. Goal two: Enhance emotional intelligence. Enhancing emotional intelligence is
another relevant goal in ethics education, and is defined by ‘capacity to reason
about emotions, and of emotions to enhance thinking’ (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2004, p. 197). The term ‘emotional intelligence’ was popularized by Daniel Gole-
man’s book of the same name (Goleman, 1995), and has been debated as whether
it is a form of intelligence or grounded in psychological research (Mayer et al.,
2004). While this debate is not the focus of this book, teaching the components of
what some educators and researchers refer to as emotional intelligence may be
useful. Emotional intelligence has four parts, as explained by Krishnakumar and
Rymph (2012), and include: (1) being able to identify emotions; (2) using emo-
tions appropriately; (3) understanding emotions in others; and (4) managing one’s
own emotions. Goleman’s model is similar, in that it involves self-awareness (1),
self-regulation (2 and 4), and empathy (3), and also includes social and motiva-
tional factors (Goleman, 2004).
Krishnakumar and Rymph (2012) explain that both positive and negative emo-
tions are an integral part of ethical decision-making, particularly in interpersonal
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 13

and social situations. In the Rest (1986) model of ethical decision-making,

emotions can be used by the decision-maker to aid in interpreting and gathering
information on a situation (Krishnakumar & Rymph, 2012). Different emotions
have been suggested to influence how a person processes decisions, affecting the
outcome of a decision (Krishnakumar & Rymph, 2012). Regardless of how an
emotional state affects a decision—emotions do affect decisions (for better or
worse)—so it follows that being emotional aware can help a person better navigate
their ethical decisions. Ethical decision-making is related to being able to negotiate
societal mores, norms and values (Kohlberg, 1969), thus there is suggested rela-
tionship between this and emotional awareness and emotional management
(Krishnakumar & Rymph, 2012). Becoming more emotionally intelligent, particu-
larly in being aware of and managing one’s own emotions, helps people make
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

more sound ethical decisions (Krishnakumar & Rymph, 2012). A number of the
aforementioned frameworks express the importance of emotional awareness,
including Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, Rest’s Four Component
Model, Transformative Learning, and Ethically Notable Games.
E3. Goal three: Practice care or empathy-related skills. Empathy is also integral to
moral development and ethical practice (Jollife & Farrington, 2006). Building on
Kohlberg’s six stages, Gilligan (1982, 1987) explains how care is also a component
of moral thinking, and that people’s relationships and connectedness with others
matters in how people think through ethical decisions. Likewise, Noddings (1984)
explains that morality requires a ‘sentiment of natural caring. There can be no eth-
ical sentiment without the initial, enabling sentiment. … The second sentiment
occurs in response to a remembrance of the first’ (p. 244). There are four core
components of empathy, which include

‘(1) the capacity for an automatic or unconscious affective response to others that
may include sharing others’ emotional states; (2) a cognitive capacity to take the
perspective of another; (3) the ability to regulate one’s emotions; and (4) a level of
self-/other-awareness that allows some temporary identification between self and other,
but also ultimately avoids confusion between self and other’

(Decety & Jackson, 2004; Decety & Moriguchi, 2007; quoted in Gerdes, Segal,
Jackson, & Mullins, 2011, p. 112).

Therefore, this goal overlaps with other goals listed in this framework. Part of this
goal is to help people identify, consider, care about, and integrate other’s perspec-
tives and ethical points of view (Schrier, 2014a, 2014c; Schrier, 2015). A few of
the investigated frameworks express the importance of empathy, including
Schrier’s ethical decision-making framework, Gilligan’s critique of Kohlberg, and
Transformative Learning.
E4. Goal four: Practice ethical reasoning. This goal relates to helping people iden-
tify and practice analyzing, interpreting and evaluating ethical issues, choices, and
situations. Lynn (2010) explains that people need to be able to think through ethi-
cal issues and use the results in other capacities and situations (Khan & McCleary,
 14 K. Schrier

1996; Lynn, 2010). Ethical reasoning relates to a number of skills, such as

prioritizing, establishing pros and cons, evaluating the issue, analyzing evidence,
identifying biases, and interpreting (Schrier, 2011). This includes being able to
address individual ethical issues as well as organizational or institutional ethical
issues (Elango, Paul, Kundu, & Paudel, 2010; Morris & Wood, 2011). Many of
the investigated frameworks express the importance of reasoning to ethical
thinking, including Schrier’s ethical decision-making framework, Rest’s Four
Component Model, Zagal’s Ethically Notable games, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and
Transformative Learning.
E5. Goal five: Practice ethical reflection. Another potential goal in ethics education
is reflection. Reflecting on ethical issues and decisions and thinking through their
consequences, as well as integrating how one’s assumptions and information may
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

have affected and influenced one’s decision and its outcomes (Lynn, 2010; Smith,
2011), is critical to ethics education (Montgomery & Walker, 2012). Merriam
(2004) explains that being able to critically reflect on and critique one’s assump-
tions, along with engaging in reflective discourse with others, is an important part
of mature cognitive development (Merriam, 2004). Likewise, Dewey explains that
reflection involves ‘“assessing the grounds [justification] of one’s beliefs,” the pro-
cess of rationally examining the assumptions by which we have been justifying our
convictions’ (Mezirow, 1990, p. 5, citing Dewey, 1933, p. 9). Critical reflection
and reflective discourse are often flagged as being an essential part of the ‘transfor-
mative learning’ model, as described earlier (Merriam, 2004). Merriam explains
that, ‘having an experience is not enough to effect a transformation’ (Merriam,
2004, p. 62), what is necessary for true learning is changing based on one’s reflec-
tion on that experience (Merriam, 2004; Morris & Wood, 2011). Although it
seems as though reasoning and reflection are quite similar, reflection focuses on
thinking through and interpreting one’s beliefs and assumptions to gain further
understanding or acceptance (Dewey, 1933; Mezirow, 1990, 1991), whereas
reasoning focuses on interpreting, sifting through, and analyzing causes and
consequences, events, objects, people, situations, and scenarios (Schrier, 2015).
Reflection and reasoning can overlap in the meaning, and may also be used in tan-
dem with moral judgment (Paxton, Ungar, & Greene, 2012), but are separated in
this framework because the steps leading to either reflection or reasoning in a
game may be different. Some of the previously described frameworks suggest the
importance of reflection to ethics education, including Schrier’s ethical decision-
making framework, Zagal’s Ethically Notable games, Transformational Learning,
and Transformative Learning.
E6. Goal six: Enhance character. Another goal involves providing character
education, such as helping people understand the connectedness of humanity,
treating others with dignity and respect, valuing participation in civic life, and
being an engaged, active citizen. The specific character traits may vary, but the
need for teaching a foundation in character is a common goal for ethics education.
Sommers explains that ‘respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, caring, justice,
fairness, civic virtue, and citizenship’ are all essential (2004, p. 506)
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 15

There are a number of different methods where games or other educational

interventions could impart guidelines about character. Researchers have argued
about the best method, such as through inculcation, modeling values, or by letting
students determine their own path (values clarification approach) (Simon, Howe,
& Kirschenbaum, 1995). For example, the values clarification approach involves
helping people build their own values through, ‘by asking good questions, being a
good listener, encouraging self-knowledge, and demonstrating trust in the seeker’s
ability to find the answer’ (Simon et al., 1995, p. 485). Sykes (1995) critiques the
values clarification approach, and explains that we need useful feedback on our
values and moral choices, otherwise it is too ambiguous. Sykes argues that stu-
dents need a grounding in a moral system or being provided with moral road
maps, ‘before they are allowed to make those choices’ (p. 492).
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

Regardless of the method, or use of multiple methods, a goal in ethics education

could be to enhance an individual’s foundation in character overall. An educator
should be mindful, however, about which approach(es) a game takes—whether it
is inculcation of clear standards of values, modeling of behavior by characters act-
ing with good values, or a values clarification approach with more control over
building and shaping one’s character—or some hybrid. Some of the previously
described frameworks suggest the importance of enhancing character in ethics edu-
cation, including Rest’s Four Component Model and Transformative Learning.
E7. Goal seven: Cultivate facility with major ethics issues, approaches, and frame-
works. Along with a foundation in character and values, another goal is to ensure
that people are aware of and have facility with key ethical issues, approaches, and
frameworks. For example, while some people may privilege a justice moral orienta-
tion over a care orientation, or a Kantian approach over a utilitarian approach,
understanding the range of ethical theories and traditions is useful (Felton & Sims,
2005; Walker, 2012). Moreover, knowing and understanding the important
problems and issues facing humanity is useful as an ethical thinker and participant
in society (Felton & Sims, 2005; Nussbaum, 2010; Walker, 2012), as any
outcomes or solutions could be applied to other circumstances and situations.
Some of the previously mentioned frameworks suggest the importance of facility
with issues and approaches in ethics education, including Bloom’s Taxonomy and
Transformative Learning.

The EPIC Framework: educational strategies

In addition to goals, I have identified 12 strategies that are associated with effec-
tive ethics education, and which may also be implemented with or designed
around video games. Depending on which strateg(ies) an educator wants to use,
they can use the framework to help them identify the best match—such as a game
that uses the strategies they want to incorporate into a classroom activity. Many
video games could use multiple strategies, just as they could fulfill multiple goals.
In addition, many of these strategies overlap and could be subsumed or integrated
into other strategies. Thus, the strategies listed here are not entirely distinct, but
 Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

Table 2. The list of 12 possible game strategies in the EPIC Framework, as well as examples of current games that use each strategy. Some
games will use more than one strategy.

Strategy Description Examples

S1. Emotion, mood, Games that convey emotion in ways that help us see new Flower, Journey, Gone Home, Dear Esther, Passage,
16 K. Schrier

and tone perspectives on humanity. Parenthood, Akrasia, Loneliness, Howling Dogs, Nevermind
S2. Diaries or Games use journals, diaries and other personal reflection Reliving the Revolution, Mission US.
personal reflection devices and opportunities.
devices
S3. Role-taking and Games that use roles and characters to help explore Fable, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Migrant Trail
role-playing different ethical perspectives and identities, or one’s own.
S4. Story or Games that use story to express ethics. Mission US, Stanley Parable, Dys4ia, Walking Dead,
narrative Howling Dogs, Dear, Esther, Every Day the Same Dream
S5. Modeling Games that model behavior using characters and/or Mass Effect, Fable, Fallout, Mission US, Awesome
avatar. Upstanders
S6. Choice and Games with ethical choices and decision-making, which Fallout 3, Fable series, Skyrim, Walking Dead, The Stanley
consequences have an effect on the game play Parable, Papers, Please, Quandary, Spec Ops: The Line, the
Yahwg
S7. Simulation Games that simulate an issue, topic, event or aspect of Sweatshop, Papers, Please, Peacemaker, Don’t Starve, Black
humanity. and White, The Sims
S8. Social interaction Games that invite ethical questions due to their social WoW, Minecraft, Way, Counterstrike, League of Legends
nature, such as those with community rules and norms,
guild interactions, or interpersonal connections.
S9. Deliberation, Games that encourage dialogue, discourse, debate and Argument Wars, Reliving the Revolution
dialogue and deliberation on various issues, choices, or consequences.
discourse
S10. Application to Games that either may enable players to consider real- The Migrant Trail, Candy Crush Saga, Grand Theft Auto,
real-world issues world problems or contexts, or ones that may not have Blackwell Deception, Rapelay, Super Columbine Massacre,
initially obvious connections to ethics, but the story The Shooting at Sandy Hook, Call of Duty series
around the game (addiction, violence) spurs real-world
ethical questions and problem-solving.
S11. Procedural Games that clearly posit an opinion or argument on an McDonalds Game, Airport Security, Unmanned, Papers,
exploration issue through the gameplay and mechanics. Please, pOnd, Every Day the Same Dream, Free Culture,
Road Not Taken, Way, Triad, Lim, Loneliness, What Race
am I?
S12. ‘Nudges’ Games that provide contextual clues, calibrations, and/or Way, Nevermind, SchoolLife, Gone Home
personalized pushes to help shape behavior.
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 17

could be used in tandem with each other (See Table 2 for a summary and brief
description of the strategies).
S1. Strategy one. Emotion, mood, and tone. Krishnakumar and Rymph (2012)
explained that part of emotional intelligence is being able to identify and manage
emotions. A game that evokes emotions or exhibits the emotions of others could
ostensibly help people practice emotional identification, awareness, and manage-
ment skills. People often express that works of art are ‘moving,’ such as film,
books, or dance (Gerdes et al., 2011), which helps opens them up to practicing
empathy and becoming more emotional aware. This also can be true of games, in
that games can also ‘move’ people and be emotionally meaningful (Shea-Dinkin
et al., 2013). Gerdes, et al., explains that, ‘Using the medium of art can be a way
to engage people in training or retraining the mirror neurons for affective sharing
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

and the cognitive pathways for self-/other-awareness, mental flexibility, and emo-
tion regulation’ (2011, p. 122). Video games that may exhibit this strategy could
include Gone Home, an independent game that evokes a powerful and sustained
mood, and tells an emotionally charged story through the first-person navigation
of a house (see more about the game in Darvasi, 2014). Likewise, Dear Esther pro-
vides a game world with which to nonlinearly explore poetic reflections on the life
of one’s avatar. Nevermind, a game in progress, bases its gameplay on the results
of the players’ biofeedback sensors (it adapts to scared or stressed responses, and
becomes harder as the player is more fearful), with the aim of helping people
become more aware of their reactions to stress and feelings of fear, as well as more
able to manage and regulate it.
S2. Strategy two. Diaries or personal reflection devices. Researchers have expressed
the need for reflective practice in ethics education (Merriam, 2004; Montgomery
& Walker, 2012; Smith, 2011; Mezirow, 2003). Some techniques include the
inclusion of portfolios or diaries to help ‘students to consolidate and assess their
learning of a discipline and its practices’ (Smith, 2011, p. 211). Games that can
incorporate contemplative practice or reflective moments may help further reflec-
tion, as well as ethical awareness (Montgomery & Walker, 2012). A game could
also use a reflective moment, such as a deposition or discussion in game of previ-
ous events, and these moments could even take place outside of the game, but
using the game’s content or choices. Examples of this type of game could include
Mission US: For Crown or Colony?, which, as described earlier, enables students to
reflect on the Boston Massacre during an in-game deposition. Many teachers also
take the opportunity to do a guided reflection with students outside of the game as
well (Schrier et al., 2010). For example, Schrier, 2006; explains that when design-
ing Reliving the Revolution, a mobile educational game about the Battle of Lexing-
ton, the game experience included a deliberation and reflection after playing the
mobile component, which enhanced learning opportunities (Schrier, 2006).
S3. Strategy three: Role-taking and role-playing. Another potential strategy is the
encouragement and use of role taking and role-playing in a game. Gerdes et al.
(2011) explains that role-playing, psychodrama and other related techniques help
to promote ‘perspective-taking, self-/other-awareness, and emotion regulation …’
 18 K. Schrier

(p. 123) and in particular helps develop empathy-related skills. A number of

studies have suggested the efficacy of role-play in ethics education (Morris &
Wood, 2011). For example, Doorn and Kroesen (2013) explain the use of role-
play in engineering ethics, which helps them expand their perspectives, become
aware of their decisions, and come up with new ethical solutions. Brown (1994)
explains that role-play was used effectively to integrate ethics into a business
course. Observing how different roles or people approach a problem can also be
useful (Frey, 2010). An example of the use of role-playing in a game is the Fable
series, a series of video games where you can take on the role of a citizen of
Albion, a fictional universe, and go on missions and ‘level up’ your character. In
taking on the role of your avatar, or the main character in the game, you can make
ethical decisions in the game, such as whether to drain or preserve a lake, or sacri-
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

fice a friend or villagers, in the case of Fable III (Schrier, 2011, 2014c).
S4. Strategy four: Story or narrative. Another possible strategy is the use of story
or narrative. The use of story in cases and scenarios is well established in ethics
education, as cases ‘provide narratives that convey real world situations and prob-
lems’ (Frey, 2010). Frey (2010) explains that stories work as ‘moral exemplars,’
modeling specific types of action or values, they can help students become more
aware of their own and other’s ethical perspectives, and enable the practice of ethi-
cal reasoning and experimentation with different moral possibilities. Story allows
access into other people’s lives and opens us further to practicing empathy. For
example, Cragg (1997) explains that, ‘to weaken the grip of prejudice in a society,
people, particularly children have to be brought into contact with images, stories,
experiences that challenge stereotypes and change perceptions’ (p. 236). Moreover,
story provides a context to how we view ethics, which helps us further understand
ethical issues, our own ethical assumptions, and makes us more ethically self-aware
(Floyd et al., 2013). Personal narratives can be particularly compelling for address-
ing ethical issues, particularly when students construct the narratives themselves
(Bagdasarov et al., 2012). Using narrative in a game could also serve as an assess-
ment tool, in that the student’s own narratives could be evaluated (Hatcher, 2011).
The strategy of using narrative and story in a game also relates in part to
Stevenson’s framework’s Adaptive game type (2010), which explains that interac-
tive stories enable participants to play through different ethical story options, even
if the quantifiable outcomes are the same. Stevenson uses The Witcher as an exam-
ple, a game ‘in which players are presented with various short-term decisions that
often end up having unforeseen long-term ramifications’ (2011, p. 40). However,
some story-based or interactive narratives do have quantifiable outcomes as well.
Examples of a video game with narrative choices include The Walking Dead game
series, which takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, and is based on The Walking
Dead comic book series. The player, as the main avatar, makes dialogue choices,
such as whom to save from zombie attacks, which have a short-term effect on the
story, but also affect one’s relationships with other characters (NPCs) and how the
NPCs view the avatar. The story, so far, has ended up in the same narrative result,
even if the mini-choices differ. Likewise, in the computer game, I Have No Mouth
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 19

and I Must Scream, the player plays as five different characters from the original
Ellison short story of the same name. Throughout the point-and-click puzzle
adventure game, players also make choices, such as which dialogue options to
choose, which leads to slightly different game endings.
S5. Strategy five: Modeling through avatar or character. Another possible strategy
is the use of modeling. A game’s character or one’s avatar model, could model
particular behavior or choices, and a player could experience those choices through
observations of or the playing as this character. Modeling was mentioned as a
potential strategy in character education (Simon et al., 1995). Noddings (2003)
also explains that modeling is an integral component of ethics education. There is
overlap between this strategy and others, as modeling is part of the power of sto-
ries (Frey, 2010). This strategy seems to relate tangentially to Stevenson’s Frame-
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

work’s first category, Static games, wherein the player experiences the gameplay
and observes the characters, to gain an ethical understanding of the game. An
example of this might be BioShock (Stevenson, 2011), in which the player plays as
the main character, Jack, and both observes and plays as him, and through this,
engages with the game’s moral system and ethical philosophy. (For more about
BioShock and ethics, see Travis, 2010; Cuddy, 2015).
S6. Strategy six: Choices and consequences. Another strategy involves providing
choices for people to work through, such that the player could experience their
consequences. Providing ethical choices in clear scenarios is a strategy that some
games are starting to incorporate into gameplay (Melenson, 2011; Schrier, 2014a).
Making choices and experiencing their consequences is another core component of
case-based instruction (along with story). Cases have been a frequently used and
effective strategy in ethics education (Lynn, 2010; Wines, 2008; Maclagan, 2003),
and have been suggested to help people practice necessary ethics-related skills,
such as ethical awareness, reflection and empathy (Noddings, 2003; Bagdasarov
et al., 2012). They also help people repeat and iterate through possibilities and get
feedback on those possibilities and their consequences (Upchurch, 1998). The
choice and consequences strategy overlaps with other strategies, such as simula-
tion, role-playing and story-based strategies.
As described in the framework section, Stevenson’s model delineates levels of
ethical choices on the game play and their impact on the game’s simulation of
processes and its ethical system. This strategy more closely relates to Stevenson’s
Systemic ethical type, in that the player’s choices have a measureable and conse-
quential effect on the game play, game world and/or character or role of the
player. This strategy could be implemented in a way that is very simple—the
player makes a choice and gets clear feedback, which has been suggested to be an
effective strategy (Peacock et al., 2012). Or, this strategy could involve a complex
web of choices and consequences, which may have both long- and short-term
effects on gameplay, character, story, or the game experience. Examples of this
type include the Fallout, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect series, which are large-scale,
COTS role-playing games that involve the player (as an avatar he or she created)
making ethical decisions that have quantifiable and story-based consequences,
 20 K. Schrier

such as differential relationships with NPCs, loyalties to particular groups, karma

ratings, and access to dialogue and story options. For more about these games and
ethics, see Melenson, 2011; Schrier, 2011). Likewise, in Quandary, players are
given ethical scenarios, and invited to choose how to help shape a new civilization
on a fictional planet, Braxos; these choices have consequences for themselves and
others in the new Braxos society.
S7. Strategy seven: Simulation. Another strategy that is related to choices and
consequences is the use of simulation to experiment with processes, issues, or
ideas. A game can simulate, for example, an ethical system or a key ethical issue,
and enable a player to try out different possibilities related to it. In a sense, this is
similar to a case, in that it allows the participant to play out different scenarios
and experience changes, results or outcomes. Participants may not make specific
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

choices, per se, but may act, express, or behave in ways that affect the game’s sys-
tem. Games and simulations go beyond a story or case, however, because it can
algorithmically incorporate many factors, and model an issue from many perspec-
tives. A simulation is also more scalable than a non-digital case, such that the data
and outcomes could be analyzed and implemented anywhere, and shared among
participants (Fleischmann, Robbins, & Wallace, 2011). A player can then experi-
ment with this model iteratively to learn more about it, to enhance their ethical
awareness, understanding of issues or frameworks, or to better reason through sce-
narios. A simulation does not necessarily need to have a realistic or real-world
counterpart (for example, a fantasy role-playing game could simulate a currency or
ethics system that has no direct connection to the real world), but the simulation
strategy can be used in tandem with strategy 10 (application to real-world issues)
for enhanced impact. An example is The McDonald’s Game (by Mollendustria),
which attempted to model the different processes related to McDonald’s restau-
rants, including growing crops and cows, slaughtering cows for meat, making cor-
porate business decisions, and front end restaurant management (hiring, cashiers).
Players need to interact with each of these processes simultaneously to ensure that
McDonald’s runs smoothly and profitably, while making ethical decisions along
the way, such as whether to add antibiotics to meat or lower wages. Another rele-
vant game is Sweatshop, which simulates a sweatshop and enables players to act as
a manager and make decisions about hiring child labor and providing access to
water or breaks.
S8. Strategy eight: Social interaction and collaboration. Another strategy involves
using social interaction, whether with real people, or virtual characters (NPCs).
This can either involve collaborative or competitive gameplay. For example, stud-
ies have suggested the importance of social interaction in ethics education (e.g.,
Maclagan, 2003), such as in the formation of an ethical identity, in developing
ethical awareness, through the modeling of behavior (Bandura, 1977), and in the
practice of empathy-related skills (Belman & Flanagan, 2010). Examples of this
include Way, a collaborative two-person game, where participants work together
using only non-verbal communication to overcome game obstacles and problems
(Schrier & Shaenfield, 2016).
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 21

S9. Strategy nine: Deliberation, dialogue, and discourse. Another strategy used in
ethics education is deliberation. Noddings (2010) discusses the importance of dia-
logue in moral education, and explains that in ‘dialogue, both parties speak, and
both parties listen. They work their way sensitively toward the resolution of a
problem’ (Noddings, 2010, p. 147). The practice of deliberation and argumenta-
tion has been useful for learning critical thinking, perspective-taking, reflection,
civic engagement and social studies learning (Gastil & Dillard, 1999; Kuhn, Goh,
Iordanou, & Shaenfield, 2008; Mezirow, 2003). Examples of this include Argument
Wars on [Link], which is an educational site for learning civics, social studies,
and government. In Argument Wars, created by Filament Games, the player argues
real historic cases as a lawyer by building arguments and deciding when and how
to refute the opposing lawyer’s arguments (Schrier, 2014d).
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

S10. Strategy 10: Application to real-world issues. In this strategy, a game helps
players apply their skills to real-world problems and contexts, and/or understand
and meditate further on ethical issues happening in the world. A number of stud-
ies have suggested making connections to real world issues in ethics education,
and explained that learning skills and frameworks becomes more useful and rele-
vant when connected to real world applications (Ritter, 2006; Ryan & Bisson,
2011). Using realistic cases or issues potentially helps students learn ethical think-
ing and decision-making skills, as well as implementation skills (Felton & Sims,
2005; Ryan & Bisson, 2011). The theory of situated cognition, or combining
learning with context, also supports the strategy of mixing theories with authentic
tools and realistic problems and issues (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Schrier,
2006). An example of this is The Migrant Trail, a game that takes the real world
issue of immigration and immigration control, and enables participants to play as
an illegal immigrant escaping Mexico into the US desert, making decisions about
whether to sacrifice group members or use rations on the sick and weary. Migrant
Trail participants can also play as an immigration officer, providing multiple per-
spectives on the real-world issue.
Moreover, games could even help players solve real-world ethics-related issues
and provide knowledge and insight to unsolved ethics problems. For example, in
the game-in-progress, SchoolLife, participants play through different scenarios that
are related to bullying. Through the players’ responses, the game (and its design-
ers) better learn the complexities of bullying—such as how to better simulate and
make more realistic future in-game interactions around bullying, and also how to
better handle it (Hodson, 2013). The upcoming game, The Sudan Game, from
University of Southern California’s GamePipe Lab and Carnegie Mellon asks par-
ticipants to walk through the real-world steps to peace in the Sudan, based on the
realistic perspectives of the many different tribes. Participants play as tribe mem-
bers and need to work together to test each sequence of events to evaluate if it
leads to a peaceful outcome (Landwehr, Spraragen, Ranganathan, Carley, & Zyda,
2013).
S11. Strategy 11: Procedural exploration and interaction. Procedural exploration
and interaction is another educational strategy reviewed, and is the least
 22 K. Schrier

empirically studied for its role in ethics education. Games, unlike other media,
involve a mix of mechanics, rules, goals, and gameplay. Bogost explains that games
actually ‘mount claims through procedural rhetorics’ (Bogost, 2007, p. ix), or in
other words, games make arguments about its meaning through the ways in which
people play it. Unlike books or television, games are making arguments through
‘rule-based representations and interactions’ (Bogost, 2007, p. ix) and not just text
or images. In some ways, this strategy overlaps with simulation strategies and
modeling, and seems, at first glance, akin to a player’s observing and experiencing
the gameplay that Stevenson (2011) describes in Static type games in his classifica-
tion framework. This strategy, however, goes beyond a simulation and emphasizes
the complex, interactive nature of games. Even if no obvious ethical choice or
behavior is required, and there is no clear-cut consequence of a choice, the very
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

rules of play that a player must navigate can lend themselves to making claims
about ethics, ethical systems, and ethical issues, and can potentially support
related skills and concepts. While one could argue that all games have the poten-
tial to make procedural claims about ethics, one clear-cut example is Papers, Please
by Lucas Pope. In this game, the player acts as an immigration officer for an
ambiguous Eastern European country, and needs to detect issues with passports
and other documentation based on current rules and regulations. The officer’s per-
formance results in financial compensation, which have repercussions for one’s in-
game family; not following the rules could end in termination. At points in the
game, players can decide to break the rules to help certain immigrants enter the
country, with potentially destructive consequences. Through the playing of the
game and its rules, players begin to understand the game’s ethical system, and
experience its brutal arbitrariness, as well as the suffocating nature of the bureau-
cracy surrounding immigration (Singal, 2013).
S12. Strategy 12: ‘Nudges’ or contextual and/or personalized clues. Another possible
strategy is the concept of ‘nudge’ or the use of triggers, both social and situational,
to compel different types of actions and behaviors. The concept of ‘nudge’ was
popularized by Thaler and Sunstein (2009), who use a behavioral economics
approach. This concept has been applied to health, design, business, policy, and
training contexts, with varied results (Selinger & Whyte, 2012). Nudge refers to
subtle changes and calibrations that can affect decision-making and choices
(Selinger & Whyte, 2010). It is based on research that people use shortcuts and
heuristics, and are influenced by biases, when needing to make quick decisions or
are aroused or tempted (Selinger & Whyte, 2010).
For instance, a game might use different contextual clues, just-in-time feedback,
non-player character interactions, particular text and wording, avatars, a well-
configured interface, or even other players to nudge players, and help them
become more ethically aware or sensitive, motivated, or reflective of ethics. One
could argue that any well-designed game provides nudges in the form of contex-
tual clues (from explicit arrows to more implicit valuing of particular behaviors
with points or progress toward goals). For example, Gone Home provides a virtual
home with objects and rooms that the player can explore. It uses a mix of locked
 Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

Table 3. An example of the strategies and goals (highlighted in gray) that are potentially employed by one game, Fable III, as suggested by
empirical results (see more at Schrier, 2010, 2016), and extrapolated from personal gameplay experiences with Fable III (however, these would
need more empirical evidence to support). Fable III could potentially meet different permutations of goals and use different strategies to fulfill
those goals; however, evidence does not lend as much support to Fable III’s ability to meet goals E6 and E7, or use strategies S1, S2, S7, S10,
or S11. Designers and educators could use this chart to identify a particular game’s potential for meeting particular goals and strategies
EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 23
 24 K. Schrier

doors and hallways, and interactions with narrative scraps and objects, to compel
players to navigate the house in meaningful ways. Designers and educators could
more explicitly use nudges to support specific types of moral behavior or edifying
experiences. For example, Way matches players anonymously and virtually, and
enables only nonverbal communication between the two. The pairs need to work
together to solve in-game tasks to reach the end goal. The game provides limited
nonverbal gestures and sounds, such as movement of one’s avatar’s arms to point,
and a ‘shout’ to ostensibly direct, halt, punish, and/or alter one’s partner’s
behavior (Schrier & Shaenfield, 2016).
Games could even adapt to a particular player or group of players to provide
personalized nudges based on one’s emergent needs, limits, values, behavior, or
goals. There are no such games available at this time, and this may be an open
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

area of research consideration and design. That said, there are broader ethical con-
siderations for using a strategy with the aim of influencing and modifying behavior,
particularly based on how one is currently behaving, or the personal information
and data a person contributes. While all of the strategies described in this article
may raise ethical concerns, privacy and other issues should be particularly deliber-
ated while implementing this type of strategy (Kapsner & Sandfuchs, 2015).

Conclusion and next steps

The purpose of this article is to propose, describe, and analyze a novel framework,
EPIC, which can help educators identify potential video games for ethics educa-
tion and facilitate the incorporation of video games into informal and formal ethics
learning contexts. This framework can be used to help educators, policymakers,
and designers select appropriate games that match both education goals and strate-
gies for specific ethics education needs and activities. The framework could be
used to identify gaps in existing games, and to evaluate the types of games that
should be developed for ethics education. It can also be used by designers to guide
the creation of new video games that can fill those gaps and help better support
ethics education. Finally, designers and educators who are creating a game for
ethics education could use the framework to communicate to others a game’s
potential for meeting particular goals or strategies. For an example of one game
(Fable III) and how it may be used to meet the goals and strategies in the EPIC
Framework, please see Table 3.
The EPIC Framework consists of seven education goals (e.g., ethical awareness,
reflection, and empathy) and twelve educational strategies related to ethics educa-
tion (e.g., role-play, story and narrative, and choices and consequences) (see
Table 1). While educators may have other goals and strategies, the ones included
into the framework are best supported by the current research literature on ethics
learning, games and ethics, as well as by existing COTS and educational games.
There are many other ways to approach the intersection of games and ethics,
and to identify appropriate video games, such as by relevant ethical or social issue
 EPIC: a framework for using video games in ethics education 25

(e.g., genocide in Darfur or cyberbullying), genre of game, by the approach to

ethics taken (e.g., utilitarian, Kantian, virtue, pluralism, ethics of care), or the val-
ues embedded in a game (Flanagan, et al., 2007). Although these perspectives are
beyond the scope of the EPIC Framework, they should be considered alongside
this framework when selecting an appropriate game. The choice of game and cre-
ation of an educational strategy should refer to the sociocultural context of the
game and its play, as well as the game’s design itself, as well as any emergent
interactions among them. Moreover, educators need to be mindful of the age
appropriateness of the games that they use. For example, Mission US is appropri-
ate for middle school students but may not be appropriate for college students,
while The Walking Dead would be appropriate only for mature audiences (college
age or mature high school students). Games such as the Mass Effect series or
Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 08:12 07 December 2015

Dragon Age series may be too lengthy to incorporate into a formal curriculum, and
some games may only be available on consoles or mobile devices that are not avail-
able to all students and/or school districts. Moreover, the EPIC Framework is
more focused on identifying the pedagogical needs and strategies used to teach
ethics, and does not take into consideration a students’ previous knowledge or skill
level. Knowing this would be useful, too, for educators searching for appropriate
games and developing ethics curriculum. Thus, age and other factors, should be
additional elements considered when educators choose relevant games for their
classrooms and educational settings.
Moreover, the EPIC Framework has not been empirically tested and the games
provided as examples have not been tested, in general, for their efficacy in ethics
education. Further testing is needed to understand whether these are the most rel-
evant goals and strategies in ethics education, whether specific strategies can be
used in tandem to meet ethics learning goals, and to what extent video games are
beneficial in ethics learning and development. Investigating the extent to which
specific elements in video games (e.g., role-play or modeling) can support the
practice of ethical thinking and learning, including which specific ethics skills and
concepts and under what types of conditions and factors this practice is best
supported, would also be useful next steps.

Disclosure statement
No financial interest or benefit has arisen or will arise from the direct applications of my
research. This work was not financially supported by any grants or agencies.

ORCID
Karen Schrier [Link]