Jackson, D (2017)Can games help creative writing students to collaborate on story-writing tasks? International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 7 (3). pp. 38-50. ISSN 2155-6849 Downloaded from: Version: Published Version Publisher: IGI Global DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2017070104 Please cite the published version
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Jackson, D (2017)Can games help creative writing students to collaborateon story-writing tasks? International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 7 (3).pp. 38-50. ISSN 2155-6849
Can Games Help Creative Writing Students to Collaborate on Story-Writing Tasks?David Jackson, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester School of Art, Manchester, England
Project Method SummaryInordertoexplorethepossibilitiesofgame-basedstorywriting,Idevelopedtwoweb-basedgamesthat formed an online platform Storyjacker (www.storyjacker.net). These were produced via aniterative design methodology which involved cyclical phases of software development and user
38
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
42
Learning outcomes of CollaborationPreviousresearchpinpointsmanyoftheimportantcharacteristicsthatcanbeconsistentlyobservedintheworkofcreativecollaborators.Forexample,AmandaRavetz,AliceKettleandHelenFelcey,intheirbookCollaboration through Craft(2013)describetheactionsofanycreativecraftasabalanceofcertaintyandrisk.Collaboration,statetheauthors,isoftenanunderminingforceinthebalancebetweenthesetwo,andcancauseaworktofaileitherbyprecipitating‘anentropicrestrictionofideasandforms’throughatendencytowardstoomuchcertitude,orpoor-qualityworkthroughanindulgenceintoomuchuncertainty(Ravetz,Kettle&Felcey,2013,pp.5-6).Duringtheproject,evidenceoftheformerwasdocumentedincomplaintsfromexpertreadingpanellistsaboutoverrelianceonclichédimageryinsomestories;andthelattercanbefoundintheformofabreakdownofcoherenceinsomestories(evidencedinfeedbackfromthereadingpanelbelow).Incollaboration,makersmusttransposetheirnormalconsiderationsofriskandcareintonewcontexts,‘involvingfrictionthatmaygobeyondthemaker’sexistingskillset’(Ravetz,Kettle&Felcey,2013,p.6).Inotherwords,themakerwhogoesintocollaborationwithaskillsetrelatedtothetaskmustlearntoadapttheircreativeknowledgeandextendit.
[A] child first becomes able to subordinate her behaviour to rules in group play and only later does voluntary self-regulation of behaviour arise as an internal function. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90)
Games and the Creative Writing PedagogyWritinggamesasexercisesareacommonfeatureofcreativewritingclassesandworkshops.InThe Cambridge Introduction to Creative Writing,DavidMorleyexplainsthereasonwhywritinggamesaresoimportanttocreativewritingasalearningmethod:theyareawaytodevelopandmaintainwritingskillsbysimulatingnormalcreativewritingprocessesinafocusedandconcisemanner:
Writing creatively can feel a little like working out logistical, even mathematical, challenges. Writing games provide this elegant calculus in taut form. (Morley, 2007, p. xiv)
Challenges of Creating Collaborative Story-Writing GamesWhen considering story-writing games, what complicates this notion of fun as a productivemotivational strategy is theadditionof adifficult-to-define literaryproduct anda collaborative-creativeprocess.Anygamethatexcitesplayerstowritemeaningfulfictionmustsurelycombinetwomotivationalelements:motivationtoplaythegameaswellasthemotivationtocreatemeaningfulstories.StorygamedesignerJamesWallissuggestsmotivationtocreatestoriesemanatesfromanaturaldesireforresolution;‘yourimaginationseesapatternofeventsandresolvesitintoastory’(2007,p.69).Thebalancingofthisstory-makingmotivationwithnormalgamemotivationrequiresagamewhichis‘bothfunandcreatesasatisfyingstory’(Wallis,2007,p.70);itrequireswhatheterms‘story/game balance’(p.73).
Problems with distance Play Testing and Creative WritersDuringtheearlyphaseoftheproject,itprovedverydifficulttoengagewithcreativewritingstudentsasplaytesters.Earlyprototypesweredesignedtobeplayedonlinewithremoteplayers.Twopilotplaytestingplanswithcreativewritingstudentsfailedanditwaschallengingtogainanyinsightintothemotivationsofnon-participants.However,ratherthanattributingthislackofengagementtothestudentstestingthework,Iputthisproblemdowntoafundamentalflawinmytestingmethodology:IhadbeguntestingwithremoteparticipantsatastagewhenTracyFullertoninAPlaycentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games(2014)recommendsplayingwith‘confidants’whilstpresentsothatthedesignercan‘explainthegametothemtobeginwith…becausetheprototypewill likelybeincomplete’(p.250).PlayingwithadiverseandremotetargetaudienceisreservedbyFullertonforthefourthandfinalrefinementstage(Fullerton,2014,p.252).JeremyGibsonissimilarinhisdescriptionofanexpandingcircleofplaytesters,fromyourself,totrustedfriendsoutwards.Theoutermostringofthisplaytestinggroupisonlinetesting.Headvisesthatthegame‘shouldbeinbetaphasebeforeyouattemptthis’(Gibson,2014,p.150)because‘thereislittleornoaccountabilityforactionsorstatements’onlineGibson,(2014,p.147).Adoptionofclassroom-basedworkshopsprovidedbetterinsightofwhatcouldbecausingproblemsforremotetesters.Thosewhoattendedthefirstsessionsweremotivatedinpartbymeetingupandsocialisingwithotherwriters.ThisnotionisreinforcedbyobservationsbyHeatherLeach(2014)aboutcreativewritingpedagogyintheliterature.
Good fun to collaborate with others.Working collaboratively meant our ideas bounced off one another, which sparked inspiration. Working with like-minded people helped to create an enjoyable experience.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
[R]eally interesting to help see what people think of my characters.It was fun to see all the ways that people respond to and expand on your ideas.I enjoyed being challenged as a writer and also seeing my own piece evolve.
In this case, personal insights by students into their own work came about as an effect ofcollaboratingwithothersontheirwriting.InthecreativecollaborationcasestudiesofVeraJohn-Steiner(2000)shenotedthata‘long-termcreativecollaborationcanactasamirror…:achancetounderstandone’shabits,styles,workingmethodsandbeliefsthroughcomparisonandcontrastwithone’scollaborator’ (p.189). It appears thateven in theseshort-termcollaborations, similar self-reflectioncanbeachieved:notinspiteofcollaborationbutbecauseofit.
Gameplay and Collaborative Story-WritingHumour, Play, and the Mitigation of Risk in CollaborationTheStoryjackergameshelpedpeoplecollaborateonstory-writingtasks.Theamountoffunplayersreportedhavingwasconsistentlyhighacrossallgroupsandoverthecourseofthetestingcertainconclusionscouldbedrawnabouttheelementsthatmadethegamesentertaining.Humourwasoftenpresentinboththestoriesthatparticipantswroteintheformofjokesandfarcicalplotstructures,andevidentintheirreportingoftheirownapproach.Participantssawthisasawayoflimitingtheirexposuretobeingjudged.Asinothercreativitystudies(Cade,1982;Holmes,2007),humourdidnotseemtodistractfromthetask.Insteaditfosteredaneasyrelationshipbetweenplayersandallowedthegroupstoenjoywhattheyweredoingtogether.
WhenpeopleplayedGame2,therewasacomplementarystrategytohumourreportedthatalsohelpedtonavigatecollaborativevulnerabilities:theplayerwhosegoitwastochoosewouldpicktheplayerwhohadbeenoverlookedoneormoretimesintherecentrounds,eveniftheywerenotthebestoption.TheuseofBateson’sconceptofmetacommunicationgoessomewaytoexplainthisphenomenon.Metacommunicationinplaydenotesasenseofdistancefromanyseriousfunctiontodemonstrate that this is play, inorder tomitigate threat (Bateson,2006,p.318).Anon-gamecollaborationmightdemandonlythebestoptionregardlessofcollaboratorandeverychoicemadebytheplayerswouldbeanegativeassessmentoftheloser’swritingability.Insteadplayersoptedtofosteralow-threatcollaborationthroughtheirgesturesofplayfulness.Thedistancedattitudedenotedbylaughtercouldalsobecharacterisedasawaytocommunicateasenseofplay,inthewaythatBatesondescribes.
Reading Panel Feedback on the Value of the Stories to ReadersDuringtheevaluationstageoftheproject,thereadingpanelreviewedaselectionofthestorieswrittenbythegames.Inthefeedbackthatfollowedtworesponsescouldbeidentified.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
46
• The Writer-as-Reader (Referred to as the Reader-Writer, or Writer):Inallcases,thewriter-as-readercouldfindsomethingvaluableeitherinthetakingpartinthesegamesasexercises,assatisfyingtheirinterestinstorytelling,ortoinspiremore experimentalapproachestotheirownpractice.EspeciallythroughtheleftoverfragmentsintheGame2presentation,Panelist3seesthepotentialityofworlds that we might write ourselves into, through, out of.Thisisnotonlyreading,butthinkingofwritingwhilstreading.
• The Story Reader (Referred to Variously as ‘the “Lay” Reader, Non-Writer or Reader):Thestoryreadertakesamoreabsoluteposition:forthemtherewasasuccess imperative,whichdictatedthatthestoriesshouldsucceedinmakingsenseandinofferingasatisfyingending.Fromthissecondreader’sperspective,itwasfeltthatstoriesmainlyfailedtohitthemark.Aswellasthetextsoftenfailingtosucceedasstories,thosepresentationalelementsthatmadereadingthegamestoriesinterestingtothewriter-as-reader,suchasin-gamechallengelabelsandcomparativetexts(Figure4andFigure5)weakenedtheexperienceofthestory.
Figure 4. An example of the multiple story lines presented to the reader of a Game 2 story
Figure 5. Prompts pop up when the reader moves their cursor over the text
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
BothpositionsfindampleagreementinRolandBarthes’S/Z(1990).Init,heidentifiesthereaderlyandthewriterlyastwotypesoftext,astwowaysofunderstandingtext.Thereaderlyexperienceisaproductoftheusualdivorce‘betweentheproducerofthetextanditsuser’(1990,p.3).Inthereaderlymodel,thereaderis‘plungedintoakindofidleness–heisintransitive;heis,inshort,serious:…insteadofgainingaccessto…thepleasureofwriting,heisleftwithnomorethanthepoorfreedomeithertoacceptorrejectthetext’(1990,p.4);asnotedabove,forpanelistsasstory-readers,storieseitherhit the markordidnot.Incontrastthewriterlytext‘isourselveswriting,beforetheinfiniteplayoftheworld…istraversed,intersected,stopped,plasticizedbysomesingularsystem’(1990,p.5).Barthesnotionofliteraryappreciationinvolvesembodyingthewritertobringthepossibilitiesofthetexttolife:any‘typologyoftexts’can‘belinkedonlytoapractice…ofwriting’(1990,p.6).EvidenceofgameplayinthepresentationofStoryjackertextsnotonlypromotesamoregame-likeappreciationofthestory;italsoseemstoclarifythelinktothepracticeofwritingbydocumentingeachstageofthewrittenprocess.
Thefindingsfromreaderandplayerfeedbackpointtooverlappingnarrativesingamestories:distinct elements beyond the story itself that draw out and document the process of writing forparticipatingstudents:
• Evidence of a Performance:Partofwhatobstructsthegametext’stransitiontobecomingadraftofastoryistheresidueleftbyitsownperformance:thatself-consciouselement(Norwood,2010)thattellsofitsliveorigins.Inclassroomwritinggames,thisnarrativeelementtendedtodescribetheawkwardperformanceofwritingasgameplay.Itcanbewitnessedintheoverlapping
Table 1. Response as story reader vs. writer/reader
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
48
ofstoryeventswiththeeventsinvolvedinconstructingthestory(someonewhispersinmyearinFigure6isanactualeventduringplay).Thisisarelativelyexclusivereference,whichprimarilytargets its audienceat timeofwriting: theotherplayers.Traditionally, fiction readers as anaudienceareseparatedfromthewriterbyindustrialprocess,fixingthemasother,anexternaltargetforthereaderlytext(Barthes,1990).ThisisnotthecaseinStoryjackergames.Studentsarephysicallyclosetoeachothersocanoftenreadwhatiswrittenpriortopublicationandjustafterpublication.Theyarebyturnthenitswriters,furtherblurringthereader-writerboundary.
• Evidence of the Game:Whilstswitchingbetweenwritingandreadingrolesoccurs,nodoubt,withinanywritingprocess,i.e.IwriteforamomentandthenreadbackwhatIhavewritten,theStoryjackermultiplayergameexternalisesanddrawsapartthenormalread-writeprocessesofcompositionasaseriesofmarkedeventsstructuredasplay:separatemovesbyopposingplayers.Thisisdenotedmostobviouslybychallenge-textmarkers(Figure5)thatdescribethetypeofplayandplayersinvolvedinproducingthespecificepisode.Thenarrativeofplaythatthesetextelementsinform,inturnaffectsthestorytext.ThechallengemessageinFigure5notonlytellsmeaboutthewritingevent,italsoprovidesaciphertodecodethestorytextthataccompaniesit.Aswellaspositioningthewriterinthetext,thereforeallowingeasieraccesstoawriterlyappreciationofthetext(Barthes,1990),theserecordsofthegamealsoelicitinthereaderasenseofdebateanddivergencemoretypicaltogamesandtheirpost-mortems,suchasinAlanAycock’sobservationsabouttournamentchess(1983)when‘numerouspreviouslysilentlinesofplay…arespoken’(Aycock,1993,p.21).Inthisway,thestudentasreaderplaysoutmanypossibleotherstorylinesfromtheonethatoccurred,exhaustingthestory‘alongseveralseams’.IntheGame2,evidenceofstorysegmentsrejectedinthegamesometimesledtocommentsaboutpreferredalternativeplotlinesbythereadingpanel.
• Evidence of Single-Phase Development:Duringthetests,studentstreatedthestoriesproducedasfinalpieces.Thereisalsonointerfaceintheplatformthatallowswriterstoedittheworkaftersubmission.Thismeansthatgamesoftenfeaturetypographicerrors(e.g.theunfinishedword‘f’inFigure6).Bythesamedegree,itoffersuneditedaccesstothefirstdraftsofexperiencedandnovicewritersalike;somethingthatreadingpanelliststhoughttobeusefulasapointofreflectionforcreativewritingstudents.
The meaningfulness of any story text is potentially expanded or changed by including thedescriptionofitscreation:newmeaningsarefoundbyaframingofthetextwithsurroundingtextsorparatexts,asexplainedbyStevenJonesinThe Meaning of Video Games(2008).Whatmakesthesegame-basedstorytextsdifferent,however,isthepermeationofthegamenarrativeparatextwithinthestorytextitself.Itoffersstudentsandstaffreviewingthegamestoriesasenseofthatstoryasadocumentofthecreativeprocessandasatoolforlearningaboutcreativewritingandcollaboration.
Figure 6. An example of both self-conscious prose and typographic errors
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017
50
ReFeReNCeS
Amabile,T.M.(1983).MotivationandCreativity:EffectsofMotivationalOrientationonCreativeWriters.Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,Anaheim,USA.
Leach,H.(2004).WritingTogether:GroupsandWorkshops.InR.Graham,H.Newall,H.Leach,&J.Singleton(Eds.),The Road to Somewhere: A Creative Writing Companion.Basingstoke,Hampshire,NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.
Morley,D.(2007).The Cambridge Introduction to Creative Writing. Cambridge Introductions to Literature.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803024
Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Wallis,J.(2007).MakingGamesThatMakeStories.InP.Harrigan&N.Wardrip-Fruin(Eds.),Second Person: Role-playing and Story in Games and Playable Media.Massachusetts:MITPress.