In October 2006, I conducted an online survey about the Oregon Trail computer game by using the beta Facebook API to authenticate users and target OT enthusiast groups. Tonight I’ve published raw results. In only 8 days the survey had 500+ participants representing 44 states and 4 countries. While my original intent was to evaluate my methodology and eventually reconduct the survey, I realized that a) others can use this data, so I should share it b) it’d be beneficial for me to revisit this in anticipation of an upcoming presentation c) I’ve had some terrific blog dialog recently and I’d like to see that continue.
One thing to keep in mind while viewing the results is that the survey was entirely an experiment; I wasn’t entirely convinced that outside of my group of friends I’d attract much attention. I was pleasantly wrong. Most of the questions required short-answer responses, and the lack of quantitative data collected makes the sheer number of responses unmanageable in many ways. Along the lines of oral histories, many of the responses shed light into how students played the game in the classroom, and how they remember parts of the game. I’ve had luck navigating the responses by using keywords, although without being able to bundle similar responses it’s difficult measure the number of occurrences. Still, patterns in the results can be discerned. Here are the questions I asked:
Year of Birth:
Gender:
State:
Game Version:
Where did you play the game?
How often did you play the game?
Was the game taught with a lesson on the trail, or did you just play the game?
What was your favorite part of the game?
What was your least favorite part of the game?
How were Indian characters portrayed in the game?
How were female characters portrayed in the game?
How were male characters portrayed in the game?
What did the West look like in the game? Do you think this was accurate?
Do you think the game accurately portrayed the Oregon Trail? Why/Why Not?
Any additional comments or memories of the game:
The object of the survey was to have respondents recount representation within the game, judge whether or not they think this memory of the game is accurate, as well as give insight into how the game was used within an educational setting. Understanding historical representation in the classroom, and measuring the effectiveness of the game to present that knowledge was of key interest.
Beyond the educational goals of the game, many of the survey responses discussed elements of the game that I glossed over in my research, but resonated with students. One of these was the ability to name characters in the game. Here are some interesting quotes related to that:
I liked the excitement of it. It felt like an adventure, plus you could always name your crush as your husband in your party!
I would use my friends names as members of my wagon train
Being able to name people… And then letting the ones I didn’t like die, or rub salt in their wounds, etc. Morbid, I know, but I think most kids will agree that was the best part of the game.
the first time I played, the people I played with named all our characters after the X-men because they were popular at the time, because of the cartoon.
Also fun to name your characters stupid things. My personal favorites were names like “Nobody” or “Somebody” or “Everybody,” so that the game would be like “Somebody has cholera” and you’d be like ‘but who?’ and “Nobody has died” and you’re like ‘Whew, that’s a relief.’
The last response was the best IMHO.