Simulating with Care: Some Thoughts on Mitigating the

Potential for Harm in Social Studies Simulations

Sara Evers

Ferrum College, Ferrum, Virginia

Cory Wright-Maley

St. Mary’s University, Calgary, Alberta

Keywords: simulations; social studies education; curricular violence;

teaching methods; teaching strategies

How to cite this article (APA): Wright-Maley, C., & Evers, S. (2025). Simulating with care: Some

thoughts on mitigating the potential for harm in social studies simulations. Annals of Social Studies

Research for Teachers, 7(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92

ABSTRACT

This editorial commentary and introduction addresses the ethical

concerns with simulations for social studies education. While simulations

can be a powerful pedagogy for engaging students in perspective taking

and decision-making, the harmful and inappropriate use of simulations is

well documented. Simulations have the potential to harm students by

enacting curricular violence, stereotyping, appropriation, and the

reproduction and normalization of oppressive systems. However, with

careful pedagogical mediation, these potential harms can be mitigated.

This article discusses how simulations may harm students and provides

guidance for navigating ethical concerns when using simulations for

social studies education.

Published June 29, 2025

Corresponding Author

Sara Evers

saralevers@vt.edu

DOI

https://doi.org/10.29173/ass

ert92

Pages: 1-10

Distributed under Creative

Commons

Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0

International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

article’s copyright remains with the

author(s), subject to the Creative

Commons license.

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 2

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, Julliard’s school of drama faced backlash following a classroom simulation intended to

educate students about Black history and musical culture. The simulation included an immersive

soundscape projecting the noises of slave auctions, racial slurs, and cracking whips. Former student

Marion Gray described how she felt as a Black student during the experience: “It’s maddening to

have your humanity so disrespected, to have something done to you that is so wrong” (Kabbany,

2021). Another student questioned the pedagogical merit of the simulation: “I don’t know a single

Black person who needs to go through the experience of enslavement to understand what racism

feels like today” (Winert-Kendt, 2021). The incident at Julliard highlights the dangers of ill-conceived

simulations and underscores the need for careful pedagogical mediation and sound instructional

rationale for their use. Research and media reports indicate that the inappropriate and harmful use of

simulations to teach sensitive topics is a problem in K-12 classrooms (Brown et al., 2022; Schweber,

2003). In editing this issue, we felt that any compilation that did not address the potential for harm

posed by simulations would be incomplete. We have taken it upon ourselves to offer commentary on

the ethical concerns about social studies simulations and how harm to students can be mitigated.

THE RESEARCH

Simulations for social studies education are designed to represent real-world processes and

environments to help students better understand their underlying features and dynamics. In the

classroom, simulations might involve activities where students assume the roles of historical or civic

figures to deliberate on key issues. Digital technologies like Virtual, Extended Reality, and Generative

AI are emerging as new mediums through which educational simulations are being enacted in

museums and classrooms. Simulations for social studies education have the following

characteristics:

 Simulations reflect reality in a structured and limited way.

 Simulations illustrate significant dynamic events, processes, or phenomena.

 Simulations incorporate learners in active roles through which the phenomena are revealed.

 Simulations are pedagogically mediated (Wright-Maley, 2015, p. 67).

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 3

These characteristics encompass both the dangers and safeguards of using simulations for social

studies education. This article explores the ethical issues surrounding the reflection of reality and

the incorporation of learners in active roles during classroom simulations. We offer guidance on

how teachers can structure and limit the verisimilitude, or perceived “realness,” of simulations and

pedagogically mediate the appropriate and safe use of simulations for student learning. We will

first detail the types of dangers posed by classroom simulations before offering guidance for

implementing simulations as a powerful pedagogy for social studies instruction.

The Hidden Potential for Harm in Social Studies Simulations

Simulations are a dynamic teaching method that boosts student engagement and increases their

agency during classroom activity. When used properly, simulations have the potential to engage

students in perspective taking and decision-making, offering them unique opportunities to develop

knowledge about complex systems and processes. However, lacking structure and pedagogical

mediation, simulations can lead to undesirable, even harmful, outcomes. In the sections below, we

will discuss several such outcomes, including curricular violence, stereotyping and appropriation, and

reproduction and normalization of oppressive systems.

Curricular Violence

Curricular violence occurs when educational experiences harm students (Haynes & Caines, 2024;

Ighodaro & Wiggan, 2010; Young, 2024). Simulations that recreate violent or oppressive realities

and/or ask students to take on the role of perpetrators or victims can cause harm to students. For

example, intergenerational trauma is evoked when students who are part of groups affected by

violent historical events are asked to imagine themselves in the role of someone involved in these

past events. Ill-conceived simulations that fail to acknowledge the trauma associated with sensitive

topics enact curricular violence that may be emotionally damaging to students.

Classroom example: Students in a fifth-grade history classroom participated in a mock slave auction

during a history lesson. Two students of color were instructed to stand at the front of the room while

the class discussed their physical features as part of the simulation before bidding on them as

enslavers (Masih, 2024).

A simulation like this may have verisimilitude, but it is dehumanizing and demeaning for all of the

students involved, especially to the students subjected to racialized bigotry sanctioned within the

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 4

confines of a classroom.

Stereotyping and Appropriation

Although simulations are sometimes billed as “empathy machines” (Rouse, 2021), it is important to

note the limitations of empathy. During simulations, students do not experience the processes/events

in a literal way, so the evocation of emotional responses through simulation can limit learners’

awareness of the temporal and spatial context of real-life events, not to mention that it fails to

consider their emotional readiness to grapple with the underlying issues of violent topics (Mann &

Cohen, 2011). Simulations that ask students to roleplay can be a valuable tool for perspective taking;

however, when simulating otherized groups, these activities can lead to appropriation or stereotyping.

These acts exploit the culture, heritage, and history of others for the purposes and pleasure of

dominant groups (hooks, 1992).

Classroom example: Cory developed an income inequality simulation, which he has used for many

years, and which continues to be part of his teaching regimen (Wright-Maley, 2013). Typically, the

simulation’s participants begin the game of Monopoly with different incomes and rules of play, in

which high-income and low-income players have different (dis)advantages. During one iteration, he

added a layer of verisimilitude to the simulation by providing teams with a brief and sympathetic

description of each family based on composites of families he had known while he was a high school

teacher. Before teams had made one trip around the board, the discourse had devolved with a

surprising speed into a volley of classist and culturally insensitive—if not outright racist—remarks.

Cory had to stop the simulation immediately to debrief these comments.

The simulation was derailed in this case because students relied on stereotypical heuristics to

represent their families. Not only did the addition of family identities cause the simulation to fail to

meet its learning goal, but it also revealed some more sinister dimensions of students’ (un)conscious

beliefs, which may have been harmful to others in the class. It is telling that this outcome has never

emerged without the inclusion of these profiles.

Reproduction and Normalization of Oppressive Systems

The dynamic nature of simulations can help students understand the complexity of systemic

processes. Debriefing and reflection activities are vital for helping students connect the simulation to

real-world human experiences and critically examine the systems and processes simulated (Gallavan

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 5

& Webster, 2018; Sanchez, 2006). Without this reflection, simulations run the risk of teaching

students that processes are not social constructions, but the natural and inevitable workings of the

world. This unintentional outcome risks conflating an accurate depiction of historical circumstances

with an inevitable one devoid of the choices human beings made to systematically exploit others. For

example, “win conditions” in simulation games sometimes represent the historical exploitation of

others accurately, but do not consider the potential impact that rewarding students who participate

and excel in exploitative processes might have upon the student.

Classroom example: In lesson materials for an Indian Ocean trade simulation game (Nokes, 2018),

enslaved people are included as part of the goods students will trade during the game. Enslaved

people are represented as numerical cargo in the game. The simulation structure is such that

students are encouraged to win the game by making the most advantageous trades–which include

the enslavement of others. This structure risks normalizing the violence embedded in the economic

system. Although students may opt not to engage in human trafficking, the simulations’ structures

nevertheless reward it.

Teachers must weigh the verisimilitude of a simulation against its potential impact on students.

Removing the trafficking of humans in this simulation also risks sanitizing history, which we want to

avoid. When using simulations, teachers might make choices which foreground the ethical

considerations they take when representing history. These include offering correctives to reduce

harm while teaching history accurately.

In the previous sections, we have provided three illustrative examples that were published in news,

research, or emerged from our curricular experiences. Unfortunately, these critical missteps are all

too common. They highlight the importance of careful instructional design choices when using

simulations for social studies education.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

The following guidelines can help identify and mitigate the dangers of simulations.

Identifying Potential for Harm

Researchers contend that certain information constitutes “difficult knowledge” for the learner

(Britzman, 1998; Epstein & Peck, 2018; Gross & Terra, 2018; Zembylas, 2014). Educational content

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 6

might be considered difficult if it challenges students’ identity, evokes painful emotion, or

communicates a contested narrative. Evaluating the difficulty of curricular content can help teachers

decide how to approach topics within a simulation, and whether using a simulation is appropriate for

the subject matter. The following questions can help identify difficult knowledge and potential dangers

in a planned simulation activity:

 What themes, topics, and perspectives are students exploring during the simulation?

 Why am I using a simulation to teach this topic? How will I connect the topic to my learning goals?

Are there more appropriate alternatives to simulations in this case?

 Who is in your class? How might the simulation evoke intergenerational trauma?

 What “settled” and “open” debates are present in the simulation? What forms of discussion should

students engage in when roleplaying?

 Does the simulation ask students to simulate persecution (either as a victim or a perpetrator)?

Are students asked to enact perspectives that go against their morals?

 How will I debrief the simulation to help students process their experiences and connect them to

broader learning goals?

 How might power dynamics—such as race, gender, or social status—be reinforced, challenged,

or distorted through this activity?

By answering these questions, teachers can select appropriate topics for simulation and make

instructional design choices that mitigate the dangers of simulations.

Thoughtful Role Creation

Thoughtful role creation ensures that students are not being asked to roleplay perspectives that

cause trauma or replicate harmful stereotypes. As shown in the articles in this issue, creating roles

that align with course objectives supports student learning. For example, assigning students the role

of historians or time travelers in an Extended Reality simulation helps them analyze the simulation as

a historical source (Fitzpatrick et al., 2021). The role of time traveler/historian creates opportunities

for students to analyze perspective and representation of the past, supporting inquiry and student

understanding of history as interpretation. In another example, the PurpleState simulation places

students in the roles of a team of interns working for a political campaign. Students work together to

design a media strategy for or against a policy issue (Chen & Stoddard, 2020). The roles students

take in this simulation have more verisimilitude to the types of professional positions students might

occupy in the real world. In both examples, the roles reinforce student development of disciplinary

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 7

concepts in history and political science.

Limiting Verisimilitude

The limited verisimilitude of simulations is not only inevitable but is also a feature of designing

simulations for learning (Baudrillard, 1999; Wright-Maley, 2015). By streamlining processes, rather

than overloading the simulation with features to increase fidelity to real-world processes, the meaning

of the simulation is illuminated more effectively for students. Furthermore, limiting verisimilitude

around sensitive topics avoids the reenactment of traumatic events. For historical simulations,

prompting student reflection about verisimilitude affords people from the past respect by explicitly

communicating to the students that while simulations can evoke a sense of presence in a time or

place, their experience is not analogous to the experiences of people from the past (Mann & Cohen,

2011). Distancing helps students engage in metacognition about the environment, people, and

processes simulated, contributing to student learning and their critical reflection around issues of

justice.

Consolidating Learning Activities

Teachers can harness the capacity of simulations to support student-driven learning by designing or

selecting simulations with a clear instructional purpose related to the lesson or unit objectives (Dack

et al., 2018). Learning is consolidated through reflection activities which prompt students to connect

their actions during the simulation with course concepts. For example, a teacher-facilitated

discussion after a trading simulation can support students in analyzing perspectives and processes,

comparing the simulation to real world examples, and critically examining the system simulated. A

synthesis writing assignment allows students to process their experience during the simulation and

discussion, while also enabling teachers to assess their understanding in relation to the lesson

objectives.

CONCLUSION

This editorial article addresses the ethical concerns with simulations for social studies education.

Simulations can become a form of curricular violence when they represent traumatic events, causing

particular harm to students from historically marginalized groups. They can lead to stereotyping and

appropriation when dominant groups are put in the position of performing others’ suffering. Without

intentional design and critical reflection during debriefing, simulations risk reinforcing and normalizing

exploitative systems. However, teachers can identify and mitigate these dangers. Thoughtful role

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 8

creation, constrained verisimilitude, and structured debriefing can make simulations an effective tool

for helping students grasp the dynamics of complex systems and examine them through multiple and

critical perspectives.

REFERENCES

Baudrillard, J. (1999). Simulacra and simulations. In Literary Theories: A Reader and Guide (pp. 381-

394). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748672776-045

Britzman, D. P. (1998). Lost subjects, contested objects: Toward a psychoanalytic inquiry of learning.

State University of New York Press.

Brown, A., Batt, J., Brown, K., Berry D. R. (2022, November 30- December 2). A cultural memory of

curricular violence: Re-examining slavery simulations in the classroom [Conference

presentation]. CUFA at NCSS 2022 Philadelphia, PA, United States.

https://sites.google.com/view/cufa2022/home?authuser=0

Chen, J. A., & Stoddard, J. D. (2020). A virtual internship to prepare high school students for civic

and political action. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3449–3470.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09847-5

Dack, H., van Hover, S., and Hicks, D. (2018). Beyond Facts and Fun: The Need for Purposeful

Simulations. In C. Wright-Maley (Ed.) More like life itself: simulations as powerful and purposeful

social studies (pp.63-84). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Embree, A. T. & Carnes, M.C. (2022). Defining a Nation: India on the Eve of Independence, 1945.

The University of North Carolina Press.

Epstein, T., & Peck, C. (Eds.) (2018). Teaching and learning difficult histories in international

contexts: a critical sociocultural approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315203591

Fitzpatrick, C., Hicks, D., Ogle, T., & Friedman, A. (2021). Using extended reality technology for C3

inquiries. Social Education 85(2), 98-104.

Gallavan, N. P., & Webster, A. (2018). Exploring cross-cultural responsiveness and critical

consciousness in social studies education with the Barnga simulation. In C. Wright-Maley (Ed.),

More like life itself: Simulations as powerful and purposeful social studies (pp. 243–264).

Information Age Publishing.

Gross, M., & Terra, L. (2018). What makes difficult history difficult? Phi Delta Kappan, 99(8), 51–56.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718775680

Haynes, J. D., & Caines, K. L. (2024). Unveiling Curriculum Shadows of Systemic Adversity among

Black Youth: Pathways to Eliminate Anti-Black Macroaggressions in Schools. Social Sciences

(Basel), 13(9), 444-. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13090444

hooks, b. (1992). Eating the other: Desire and resistance. In b. hooks, Black looks: Race and

representation (pp. 21–39). South End Press.

Houle, A. (2006). Listening to Students: Reacting to “Reacting.” Change, July/August, 52-53.

Ighodaro, E., & Wiggan, G. A. (2010). Curriculum violence: America’s new civil rights issue (Ser.

Education in a competitive and globalizing world). Nova Science.

Kabbany, J. (2021, May 24). Juilliard hosts online slave experience in name of diversity; apologizes

after Black students traumatized. The College Fix. https://www.thecollegefix.com/juilliard-hosts-

online-slave-experience-in-name-of-diversity-apologizes-after-black-students-traumatized/

Mann, S., & Cohen, D. M. (2011). When a boxcar isn't a boxcar: Designing for human rights learning.

Exhibitionist, Fall 2011, 26–31.

Masih, N. (2024, June 3). Teacher put on leave for holding mock slave auction, using racial slur.

The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/06/03/mock-slave-

auction-massachussetts-school/

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 9

Nokes, J. (2018). “Harnessing the Monsoon Winds” Promoting and constraining imagination in

historical simulations. In C. Wright-Maley (Ed.), More like life itself: Simulations as powerful and

purposeful social studies (pp. 205-222). Information Age Publishing.

Rouse, R. (2022). Against the instrumentalization of empathy: Immersive technologies and social

change. In J. A. Fisher (Ed.), Augmented and mixed reality for communities (pp. 3–19). CRC

Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003052838

Sanchez, T. R. (2006). The Triangle Fire: A Simulation-based Lesson. Social Studies, 97(2), 62 68.

https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.97.2.62-68

Schweber, S. A. (2003). Simulating survival. Curriculum Inquiry, 33, 139–188.

http://doi.org/10.1111/curi.2003.33.issue-2

Weinert-Kendt, R. (2021, April 30). A teaching moment for Juilliard. American Theatre.

https://www.americantheatre.org/2021/04/30/a-teaching-moment-for-juilliard/

Wright-Maley, C. (2013). Deficit crisis simulation: Using Monopoly to teach about the deficit debate.

Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/SSRP-01-2013-

B0006

Wright-Maley, C. (2015). Beyond the “Babel problem”: Defining simulations for the social studies. The

Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(2), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2014.10.001

Young, M. J. (2024). Perspectives on practice: I am queer, not obscene: Reorienting conversations

that censor readers and reading. Language Arts, 101(4), 268–271.

https://doi.org/10.58680/la20241014268

Zembylas, M. (2014). Theorizing “Difficult Knowledge” in the Aftermath of the “Affective Turn”:

Implications for Curriculum and Pedagogy in Handling Traumatic Representations. Curriculum

Inquiry, 44(3), 390-412. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/curi.12051

Simulating with Care

Wright-Maley & Evers

ASSERT, 7(1) | 2025 | doi: https://doi.org/10.29173/assert92 10

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Sara Evers

I serve as Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at Ferrum College in Ferrum, Virginia, U.S.A.

Teachers are community and school leaders. I am passionate about connecting teachers with research

to assist them in working with others to make informed curricular decisions for their schools. I believe

schools should be a place of creativity for students and teachers. My research centers on the use of

innovative methods and technologies for teaching history, including digital and non-digital simulations,

student-led inquiry, digital online archives, and GenAI. I am an avid outdoorswoman and enjoy life with

my partner and dog in Roanoke, Virginia– home to the most photographed spot on the Appalachian

Trail! Before becoming a teacher educator, I taught high school history in Virginia public schools for

four years.

Key work:

Whose historical thinking? Representation of women in the Digital Inquiry Group’s Reading Like a

Historian world history curriculum (link)

Cory Wright-Maley

I serve as the Editor of ASSERT and Professor of Education at St. Mary’s University in Calgary,

Canada, in Treaty 7 Territory on the Traditional Lands of the Blackfoot, the land of my birth. My

ultimate goal is to foster in new teachers the skills and passion they need to become the finest

educators the profession has to offer. A part of that goal is wanting teachers to have access to

important research that is practically oriented. I am interested in socioeconomic equity, political theory,

and simulations. My professional development efforts have been focused on learning from Indigenous

Elders and Traditional Knowledge Keepers. Outside of my professional pursuits, I am a partner to an

awesome midwife with whom I parent three little ones. I enjoy board and role-playing games, fantasy

hockey, and have been fortunate to travel to more than 50 countries. I lived in the United States for

eleven years, where I taught high school social studies for six of them.

Key work:

What every social studies teacher should know about simulations. (link)