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

Downloaded from: http://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/622232/

Version: Published Version

Publisher: IGI Global

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2017070104

Please cite the published version

https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk

DOI: 10.4018/IJGBL.2017070104

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017

Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

Can Games Help Creative Writing Students to Collaborate on Story-Writing Tasks?David Jackson, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester School of Art, Manchester, England

ABSTRACT

Storywritingisacomplexsemanticandcreativetask,andthedifficultyofmanagingit ismadegreaterbyattemptingtowriteincollaborationwithothers.Thiscomplicationcandeterstudentsfromexperimentingwithcollaborationbeforemasteringtheirownpracticeinrelativeprivacy.Suchreticenceisinspiteofthefactthattherearemanyclearbenefitstocollaboration.Theseincludepeersupportandfeedbackforthestudentontheirpractice(Leach,2014;Vygotsky,1978),andthedevelopmentofcollaborativeskillsandexperiencesthatareeasilytransferabletoarangeofcreativecontextsinfuture(Ravetzetal.,2013).Speciallydesignedgameshavethepotentialtohelptofacilitatecollaboration,bymakingthedifficultyoftellingastoryasagrouppartofthegame’schallenge.

KeyWoRdSCollaborative Skills, Creative Collaboration, Creative Writing, Game Based Pedagogy, Story Telling, Story-Writing Games

INTRodUCTIoN

Aplayfulapproachtoproblems(Schell,2008)inherentingameplaycanactivelymitigateasenseofrisk(Bateson,2006)andmarktheactofplayingasapositiveformativeexperienceofcollaboration.Limitationsreducetaskcomplexitytoo.Playershavetheopportunitytobecomefamiliarwitheachother’scollaborativeworkingstylesinanenvironmentcontrolledbythegamesrules.However,thequalityofthetextproducedduringplayisimportanttothelonger-termroleofsuchgamesincreativewritingclassrooms.Ifgamescannotproducemeaningfulstoriesitisunlikelythatparticipantswillwishtocontinueplayingthematthecostoftheirnormalcreativepractice.

ThispapersharesresearchfrommyPhDthesisshowinghowmyspeciallydesigneddigitalgameshelpedcreativewritingstudentscollaboratemoreeasily.Itmakesreferencetoacollectivecasestudyofplay-testingsessionswithdegree-levelparticipantswherethemajorityhadnevercollaboratedonacreativewritingprojectbefore.Inthecasestudy,studentsreportthatgamesdopromoteasenseofteamworkbetweenthemandotherparticipants.Theyalsoprovidedopportunityforself-reflectioninawaythatisrelativelyuniquetocollaborativepractice(John-Steiner,2000).Finally,asummaryofthefeedbackfromanexpertpanelonthequalityofstoriesshowstheeffectofgamerulesonthequalityandmeaningfulnessofthestorycreatedduringthegamesinclass.

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

39

testing,primarilywithhighereducationstudents.Designwasalsoinformedbyaliteraturereviewandanalysisoffourotheronlinewritingplatforms.

Creativewritingstudentsweretaskedwithplaytestingtwodifferentonlinegames(Figure1),Game1andGame2,insmallgroupsofthreeorfour.Game1(Twisted)beginsbyofferingPlayer1anarrativeoutlineandothercuesdesignedtoinspirethemtowriteastory.Player1thentypesoutthestartofthestorybasedonthesecues.Attheendoftheirturntheyareinstructedtoaddacomplication(atwist)forthenextplayer,suchasswitch perspective.Thenextplayer(Player2)mustcontinuethestoryandrespondtothetwist(i.e.theymustswitchperspectivewithinthenarrative),beforefinallysettingtheirowntwist(e.g.Figure2).Thegamecontinuesuntiloneoftheplayerselectsforthenextturntofinishthestory.

InGame2(Bamboo),thefirstplayerisofferedinspirationalpromptstobeginastory.Then,followingPlayerOne’sturn,PlayersTwoandThreeofferalternativecontinuationsoftheplot.PlayerOnethenchoosesoneplotlineanddiscardstheother(seeFigure3).PlayerOnemustcontinuethe

Figure 1. Gameplay structures of Game 1 and Game 2

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017

40

Figure 2. Game 1 player writes new chapter in response to challenge

Figure 3. Game 2 offers the player two alternative story segment to choose from

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017

41

plotlinetheyhavechosenandPlayerTwowritestheiralternative.ThewinnerofthissecondroundischosenbyPlayerThree.PlayerThreeandPlayerOnewillwritenext,withPlayerTwochoosing,andsoon.Thegamecontinuesfortenturnsatwhichpointwritersmustfinishthestory.

Followingthedesignphase,aselectionofthestoriesthathadbeenproducedduringStoryjackertestingwerethenratedandcommentedonbyanexpertreadingpanel,madeupoffourcreativewritingacademicsfromhighereducationinstitutes(HEI)andtwoliteraryindustryprofessionals.Thepanel’sratingsandcommentsinformafinalanalysisofthevalueofstoriesproducedbythegamesinanHEIcreativewritingclassroomsetting.

defining Creative CollaborationInordertounderstandthenatureofthechallengefacedbystudentslearningtocollaborateoncreativewritingprojectsitisnecessarytodefinecreativecollaboration,especiallyasitoccursinalearningcontext.IfweacceptthedefinitionputforwardbyMoranandJohn-SteinerinCollaborative Creativity(2004),creativecollaborationisthehigheststandardofworkingtogetherinacreativecontext,involvinganintricatebalanceofcollaboratorqualitiesto‘realiseasharedvisionofsomethingnewanduseful’(p.12).Itissuchasharedvision,theysay,thatdifferentiatesitfromcooperation,whichsimplyimplies‘theconstraintofasharedpurpose’;orworkingtogether,whichonlyimplies‘coordinationofeffort’.However, thedefinitionofcollaborationisproblematicandimpractical. Itsuggests thatproofofcollaborationisthatitproducessomethingnewanduseful,orthatcollaboratorshaveasharedvisionofsomethingnewanduseful.Thissuggeststhatcreativeinteractionsthatstartoutspeculativelyorplayfullyandendvariouslywithusefulandoriginal,orsillyandderivativeworksareonlycreativecollaborationsinthecaseoftheformer.Inthecasestudy,studentsdescribeasenseofcollaborationinwritingtogetherregardlessofoutcome.GabrielleIvinsonoffersalessrestrictivedefinition,statingthattheartstudent‘sittingsilentlydrawinginalifedrawingclass’isinvolvedincollaborationwiththeartisticcommunitythatinventedlifedrawing,herartschoolandevenherfamily(Ivinson,2004,p.96).Ifthisgenerousconceptualisationofcollaborationiscorrect,whatisitwetalkaboutwhenwediscusscollaborationwithinthisarrangement;wheredoescollaborationstartandfinishwhenthreecreativewritingstudentscollaboratetogethertoplayawritinggame?

Infact,creativewritingclassroomsmaybeparticularlyencouragingofcollaboration.HeatherLeach inThe Road to Somewhere (2014)outlines thecollaborativecreativeculture thatcreativewritingpedagogyrelieson.Whilstengagedonacreativewritingcourseoneisreliantonothersfor‘ideas,feedback,timetowriteandmotivation,butaboveall…permissiontobeawriter’(p.90).Allthoseinagivengroupsharethesedependencies:writersoffertheirpracticalsupport‘inexchangeforthesame’frompeers(Leach,2014,p.92).Whilstitisnotnecessarilythecasethateveryglibcommentonastudent’sworkbyanotherconstitutesactivecollaboration,itisstillclearthatstudentsstudyingandworkingwithinacreativewritinggroupsharethe‘jointpassionateinterestinanewproblem,artformorsocietalchallenge’thatJohn-Steinerconsiders‘crucialtocollaborativesuccess’(John-Steiner,2000,p.189).

Certainly,whentestingStoryjacker,collaborativegamesplayedinuniversityclassroomsandotherlearningspacessucceededinfosteringproductivecollaborationwithcreativewritingstudentsaftergamesplayedorconvenedonlinehadfailed.InadditiontothecollaborativecontractdescribedbyLeach,playersenjoyedcommunicatingwitheachother.Infact,MaartenDeLaatandVicLally(2004)useamodelofgradualgroupdevelopmentoverthelifetimeofacollaborationthatbeginswithdialogueandfamiliarisationandfinisheswithacomplicatedsynthesisofviewpoints.Duringtheprojectplaytests, incaseswherewriterswerealreadymore familiarwithworkingwitheachother,seriousdebatewaseasierandwherewriterswerelessfamiliar,casualandhumorousgroupconversationonbroadtopicswheretherewascommongroundprevailed.Thisallsupportsthenotionthatelementsoutsideofcollaborativeintentshouldbeconsideredinfluentialwhendefiningtheextenttowhichitiscollaboration.

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.

Insomecontexts,suchasformsofcopywriting,soapscriptwritingandjournalism,collaborationisoftenthenorm.However,asRavetzetalpointout,forotherwritingpractitioners‘collaborationisatemporaryexcursionandthelearningthatresultsfromcollaborationissomethingtobeusedbackwithin theirestablishedpractice’ (Ravetz,Kettle&Felcey,2013,p.13). Indeed, itmaybeinpartthetemporalityofcollaborativepartnershipsthatimbuesthemwithasenseofexplorationandexamination.Itsdifferencesalsoinformwhatwelearn:collaboration‘impingeson’notionsofindividualitythatweusuallytakeforgranted.Thewriter-as-maker‘whoisdependentonpossession[ownershipofwork]’but’paradoxicallyalsodependentonothersfortheirself-constitution’throughcollaborationbecomesopentoherowninherent‘fluidityandrelationality’(2014p.9).Inotherwords,thecollaborationthatisatworkineveryactoflearningthattheindividualundertakes,themediationbyothersofeverythingfromourfirstwordtotheacquisitionofadvancedtechniquesforstorytelling,ismademoreexplicitduringcollaboration.Thismightbebecauseitmirrorstheformativeroleofcollaborationinearlylearning,documentedLevVygotsky.Heobservedthatgrouplearningprecedesindividuallearninginchilddevelopment,specificallyasgroup play:

[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)

ForVygotsky,groupplayisafundamentalactivityintheprocessoflearning.Inplay,rulesareenactedcollectivelyuntiltheyareinternalisedbyeachoftheplayers.

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)

InMorley’sdefinitiongamesareawayofsimulating‘therealthing’,awayofpractisingforanimportantpiece.Thecomplexityofcreatinganextendedworkofcreativewritingrequiresthatitbeproduced‘instages,aspassages,scenesandstanzasandeachstagerequiresseveraldrafts.Writinggamesclonethisprocess,andareoftentruetothenaturalrhythmofliteraryproduction’(Morley,

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017

43

2007,p.xiv);theformofwritinggames,oftenshortandfocused,isnotatoddswiththeprocessofwritinglongerworkbecausetheselongerworksareoftenproducedthroughaseriesofshortandfocusedburststoo.Morleypositionsthegamesintheplacethattheyweresituatedinmyowncreativewritingeducation:asapracticefortherealpieceofworktocome.

InHazelSmith’sThe Writing Experimentsheexplainsherhighereducationteachingofcreativewritingas‘systematicandbasedonstep-by-stepstrategies’.ThepremiseissimilartothatoftheStoryjackergames:‘youdonothavetohaveanideatostartwriting,butyoucangenerateideasbymanipulatingwords’(Smith,2005,p.3).Playingwritinggamesisrearticulatedhereas‘engagingwithlanguage-basedstrategies’whichwhenabsorbeddeeplyenoughcanrenderallwords‘triggersforwriting’.Thispowerofcreativegenerationshenotes,stemsfromthefactthatwordsarepolysemic:theycanconjureupmanyassociationsatonce.Smithoffersanumberofwordassociationactivitiesthatcanhelpthewriterproducenewandinterestingcombinationsandasaresultnewideasanddirectionsoftravelinwriting.

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).

If,asWalliscomments,thisbalanceis‘noteasytoachieve’(ibid.),itmaywellbetodowiththeeffectthatcompetitionhasonourabilitytobecreative.AstudybyTeresaM.Amabile(1983)concludedthatthenatureofwhatmotivateswritershasadirecteffectontheircreativity.Thetestusedindividualswhoidentifiedthemselvesas‘activelyinvolvedincreativewriting’(Amabile,1983,p.393).Writerswereaskedtowriteapoembeforeandafterataskaskingthemtorankreasonsforwritingfromapredeterminedlist.Thestudyfoundthatifawriterinthetestwasgivenalistandaskedtorankextrinsicreasonsforwriting,forexample‘youknowthatmanyofthebestjobsavailablerequiregoodwritingskills’(Amabile,1983,p.396),thentheyweremorelikelytowritealowerqualitysecondpoem,comparedtoacontrolgroup.Thosewhoweretoldtofocusonandorderintrinsicreasons,‘youfeelrelaxedwhenwriting’or‘youliketoplaywithwords’(Amabile,1983,p.396),hadslightlybetterresultsthanthecontrolgroup,whohadunaffectedmotivations.Itmightbeinferredbythisthattheroleofagamethataimstogetthebestoutofacreativewriteristoheightenthisintrinsicmotivationforwritingandreading,ratherthanattemptingtorewardoutputorcloselytieperformancetooutcome.

Thesestudiessuggestthatinsituationswherestudentsareattemptingtobecreative,theiroutputisverysensitivetothefeedbackofpeersandthedesignoftheirenvironment.AstheStoryjackertestsindicate,surroundingsandthesocialconfigurationofplaycanhaveasmucheffectonwritersasthegameitself.Whilstfuncanbeheightenedbycreatingasatisfyingchallengeoranobjectiveitisimportantthatthatobjectiveisnotextrinsictothecreativewriter’scorereasonsforwriting,oritwillinhibitandnegativelyaffectthequalityoftheiroutput.

CASe STUdy FINdINGS

Duringtheprojectthreegroupswereobservedusingtheplatform:creativewritingstudents,studentsonothercreativeartscoursesandpublishedauthors.Over60playtesters,mainlycomprisingHEIstudents,producedmore than50 stories.However, thispaper focusesonacollectivecase study

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017

44

representedbythecreativewritingstudent(CWS)group.Thesestudentswerefromvariouscohortsandrepresentedbothpostgraduateandundergraduatecoursesontwoseparateuniversitycampuses.Thecasestudydocumentsbothonlineandclassbasedtesting.Feedbackandreactionstothegameswerecapturedviasurveyandobservationalmethods,aswellthroughthestoriesthestudentsproducedduringthelessons.

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.

Intests,theStoryjackergamesonlyworkedwellwithrelativelyhighlevelsofsupportprovidedbyafacilitator.Inallfacilitatedclassroomenvironments,studentsworkedhappilyingroups.Playerspreferredthissupportiveenvironment:whenofferedachoiceforafollow-upsession,groupsexpressedapreferenceforclass-ratherthanweb-basedactivities.Thisultimatelysupportedthefindingsfromstudiesthatshowthatcollaborationcannotoccurwherethereisnottheopportunitytoestablishasharedlanguageandaims,tofostertrustinanopenandcommittedprocess(Storey2004).Inaddition,trendsofparticipationonlineshowthatitisalwaysaminoritythatparticipateactivelyincreativeactivitiesonline(Nielsen,2006;Goodier,2012),sothatlargenumbers(farlargerthantypicalclasssizes)arerequiredinordertoguaranteeenoughself-motivatedparticipation.

TherewasanexpectationthatthecreativewritingclassroomandculturessurroundingitwouldoffereffectivesupportforthekindofexperimentalcreativewritingpracticesStoryjackerexhibited.Thisappearedtobethecase:studentsrespondedwelltotheplatformandunderstoodandappreciatedthegameasaprocessformakingstories.CreativewritingstudentsgenerallysawtheapplicationofthepolysemicandrandomresponsemethodsasawaytopractisetheirwritinginthemannerofthewritinggamesdescriptionbyMorley(2007)intheliterature.

However,whereastheideaofwritingusingpromptsandothergame-likedeviceswerefamiliartothem,theideaofcollaboratingonapieceofwritingwasnot.Infact,thecreativewritingstudentplaytestersinvolvedintheprojecttypicallyhadlittleornoexperienceofcollaborationoncreativewritingprojects.Inasamplegroup,fifteenofthenineteentestershadnevercollaboratedonacreativewritingprojectbeforeandconsideredtheideaofitnovelandrewarding.Intheirfeedbackwasevidenceoftwotrendsinexperience.Somereportedthatthegamespromotedasenseofcreativeteamworktheyhadnotencounteredbeforeascreativewritersandwasfun:

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

45

Inotherstudents,thegamesencouragedamoreintrospectiveeffect,leadingthemtoreflectondiscoveriesabouttheirownworkingpracticesinfeedback.

[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.

Ontworeportedoccasions,humorousnarrativestrategiesbyplayersproducedinappropriatestories,involvingderogatorydepictionsofgroupssuchastheelderly.Whatisaglib,sarcasticstrategyforcomedyinarelativelyquick-firegamesuchasGame2,wheresurprisingandoutrageousplottwiststhrive,doesnotalwaystranslatewellforstoryreaders.Readersareusedtoconsideredtextspublishedonlyafterauthorshavehadtheopportunitytoconsidertheirjokesandanyoffensetheymightcause.Therewasnoclearrelationshipbetweenhumourandthemarksofthepanellists(thereissomewell-judgedhumourinallofthehighestmarkedstories).However,textstheyreportedasdisplayinganunsavouryhumourweremarkedpunitively,withlowscoresinallcategories.

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.

Twopointsofviewpolarisedfeedbackandwereexplicitlyreferencedbythreeofthepanelists(Table1),nearlyalwaysinjuxtaposition:

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

47

Forthosepaneliststhatusedthisterminology,theextenttowhichtheytookupthesepositions,eitherasatypicalstoryreaderoraswriter-as-readergenerallyinformedtheirscoresandresponsetothetext:thelowestscorer,Panelist1,explicitlypositionedthemselvesasastoryreader,(‘formeasareader’and‘fromareader’spointofview,Ifind…’).Thehighestscorer,Panelist2,explicitlypositionedthemselvesasawriterorreader-writer,(‘AsawriterI’minterestedin…’and‘Asareader-writer,thesetalesenableusto…’).

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

Writer-as-reader response Story reader response

‘…asaworkshopexerciseIcouldseeityieldingrealbenefitstothewriters’(Panellist1)

‘…asareaderitwasaratherforced,derivativeandintrospectiveimitationofthekindsofcollaborative/onlineauthorshipthatarealreadyoccurring’(Panellist1)

‘…Ifoundthisinterestingassomeonewhoisinterestedinthecraftofstorytellingandwriting…’(Panelist2)

‘…itmightweakentheexperienceofthestoryfora‘lay’reader(Panelist2)

‘AsawriterI’minterestedinthe“possibilities”anddon’tviewthisstoryaseitheraworkinprogressorafinishedcollaborativenarrative-ratheritinspiresmetobemoreexperimentalwithmyownapproachtostory-building.’(Panelist3)

‘Howmuchitmightaffecthowanon-writerwouldrespondisdifficulttoimagine.’(Panelist3)

‘Asareader-writer,thesetalesenableustoglimpsefragmentsofworldsthatwemightwriteourselvesinto,through,outof.Evenifweneverchoosetodevelopanyofthesealternativeapproachesinanygreatdetail,thefactofhavingexperimentedwiththembringsanewunderstandingtoourownprocesses.’(Panelist3)

‘Asa“reader”thereisthesuccessimperative-doesthestorymakesense,istheviewpointconsistent,istheendingsatisfying?’(Panelist3)

‘Ithinkthisstruckmeasavaluableworkshop/craft/disciplineexerciseforthewriters…asIsayithasmanyotherbenefitswhichIcouldimaginemakingitwellworthawriter’swhiletoengagewith.’(Panelist1)

‘…fromareader’spointofview,Ifindthestoriesmainlyfailedtohitthemark,andIthoughtthetransparent,painstakinglyaccountablecollaborativeprocessmainlyobstructedmyengagementasareader…’(Panelist1)

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

49

CoNCLUSIoN

Thisstudyunderlinestheimportanceofcollaborativeworkinginthecreativewritingclassroomandtherolegameshavetoplayinintroducingcollaborativestrategies.TheStoryjackergamesreviewedinthispaperofferedcreativewritingstudentparticipantsanintroductorycontextforwritingcollaborativelythattheyfoundfuntoengagewith.Inaddition,studentsreportedspecificlearningoutcomesrelatedtotheircollaborations.Someparticipantsreportedthattheyhadapositivefirstexperienceofwritingaspartofateam(despitebeingincompetitionwitheachotherinthegame).Otherswereabletoreflectonthewaythatfellowstudentsincorporatedtheirwritingintoongoingnarratives.Thisgavethemnewperspectiveswithwhichtodeveloptheircreativewritingpractice.

Therearealsobenefitsforstudentswhoreadthroughthegames,withoutnecessarilyplayingthem.Theplayfulpresentationoftextdoesnotprovideanuninterruptedstoryreadingexperiencebutitdoesofferfreshperspectivesonthewritingprocessthatcanpotentiallystimulateandinspirestudentwriters.Theevidencethatastorycouldhavebeenwrittenanotherwayorthatitwasonlywritteninacertainwaybecauseofgame-basedrestrictionsreportedlyencouragesthereadertoreflectontheprocessandeventofwritingratherthansimplythequalityofthestory.Thisoffersnovelinsightsintostorywritingthatcannotsoeasilyoccurinnormalwritingpractice.Thestoriesthatareproducedcanhighlight,forexample,theimportanceofredraftingincreatingnarrativecoherenceandtheawesomedivergenceofendingsthatfellowstorywritersenvisagefromthesamestorybeginning.

Itisnotclearwhetherthereisanongoingbenefitforstudentstoengagewiththesetypesofmultiplayerwritinggames,oncetheyprogressintomoremeaningfultypesofcollaboration(orreturntomoreindividualisticwritingpracticeswithlessonslearnt).Thisisespeciallythecasegiventhatreadersas readersdonotappeartowhollyenjoythetextsproducedbygamessuchasthosetestedbutratherseethemasfertilegroundsforwriterlycontemplation.Furtherworkisneededtoclarifytheroleofgamesinhighereducationcreativewritingclassroomsandthecollaborativeprojectsthatcouldfollow.

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.

Aycock,A.(1993).Derrida/Fort-Da:DeconstructingPlay.Postmodern Culture,3(2).

Barthes,R.(1975).The Pleasure of the Text.Farrar,StrausandGiroux.

Barthes,R.(1990).S/Z.Blackwell.

Bateson,G.(2006).ATheoryofPlayandFantasy.InK.Salen&E.Zimmerman(Eds.),The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Cade,B.W.(1982).Humourandcreativity.Journal of Family Therapy,4(1),35–42.doi:10.1046/j..1982.00575.x

Fullerton,T.(2008).Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games.CRCPress.

Gibson,J.(2014).Introduction to Game Design, Prototyping, and Development: From Concept to Playable Game with Unity and C.Addison-WesleyProfessional.

Holmes,J.(2007).MakingHumourWork:CreativityontheJob.Applied Linguistics,28(4),518–537.doi:10.1093/applin/amm048

John-Steiner,V.(2000).Creative Collaboration.OxfordUniversityPress.

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.

Moran,S.,&John-Steiner,V.(2004).Howcollaborationincreativeworkimpactsidentityandmotivation.InD.Miell&K.Littleton(Eds.),Collaborative Creativity: Contemporary Perspectives(pp.11–25).London:FreeAssociationBooks.

Morley,D.(2007).The Cambridge Introduction to Creative Writing. Cambridge Introductions to Literature.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803024

Norwood,T.(2010).TheWritingofPerformance.InR.L.Clapham(Ed.),(W)readingPerformanceWriting:AGuide.LiveArtDevelopmentAgency(LADAStudyRoomGuides).

Ravetz,A.,Kettle,A.,&Felcey,H.(2013).Collaboration through Craft.A&CBlack.

Schell,J.(2008).The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses.Taylor&FrancisGroup.

Smith,H.(2005).The Writing Experiment: Strategies for Innovative Creative Writing.Allen&Unwin.

Storey,H.,&Joubert,M.M.(2004).TheEmotionalDanceofCreativeCollaboration.InD.Miell&K.Littleton(Eds.),Collaborative Creativity: Contemporary Perspectives.London:FreeAssociationBooks.

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.