TOWARDS A MODEL OF CRITICAL GAMIFICATION: WRITING GAMES, RULES DEPLOYMENT, AND REAL WORLD SUCCESS

Guiseppe Gettogettog@ecu.edu

Nathan Franklinnfinitum.nathan@gmail.com

What We’ll Cover

What we mean by writing games

iFixit’s writing game

Towards a model of critical gamification

Implications

Writing Games

Definition

A problem-solving activity [involving

writing], approached with a playful

attitude – Schell 2008

Writing Games, 2

Rules deployment

Games facilitate human contact, are enjoyable,

use rules to create problems for people to solve,

and engage creativity - Radoff 2011

The closer you get to this with rules you build, the

better

Thus rules deployment in writing games should be

rhetorical (e.g. critical, epistemological,

persuasive)

iFixit’s Writing Game

The Technical Writing Project

(http://edu.ifixit.com/)

Free devices and tool kits shipped to

technical writing instructors

Teaching and technical support

Students create real documentation for

the repair of devices

iFixit’s Writing Game, 2

iFixit’s Writing Game, 3

iFixit’s Writing Game, 4

iFixit’s Writing Game, 5

iFixit’s Writing Game, 6

iFixit’s Writing Game, 7

iFixit’s Writing Game, 8

Critical Gamification

Some problems with gaming theory

“Gamification is bullshit” - Bogost 2011

E.g., you can’t gamify anything that isn’t already a game

But this essentializes a “game” as something that is a

priori designated as a game, and rules out everything else

So, because iFixit labels their Technical Writing Project a

“project,” can it never be a game?

Isn’t there more than one way for something to be a

game?

Critical Gamification, 2

Some problems with gaming theory, 2

Definitions of games are too facile and don’t

discriminate between different types of games

Immersive

Mobile vs. online vs. offline

Social networks vs. individual

Competitive vs. casual

Micro games vs. large-scale games

Gamified professional environments like classrooms

Critical Gamification, 3

Some problems with gaming theory, 3

We don’t have enough empirical research on

gamification to say definitively if it works or not

We know people like games

Thus folks are busing gamifying things on the

assumption people will like them more

We need comparative studies between gamified

situations and non-gamified situations

Critical Gamification, 4

Some problems with gaming theory, 4 Gaming studies uses “correlationism” to

define what is and is not a game Correlationism = saying there is an a priori

arrangement for all possible networks - Meillassoux 2009

The response is “contingency” Network arrangements are always already

contingent on the specific arrangement of both human and nonhuman actors that emerge within a given network - Latour 2005, Bennett 2009

Critical Gamification, 5

Some attempted solutions More empirical research on gamification! An open question: can gamification be

critical? Meaning: Used rhetorically, but ethically - Rickert

2013 Used democratically rather than as a

marketing ploy - Reeves and Read 2009, Chatfield 2010, Radoff 2011

Viewed as a way to change the ways actors relate to one another within a given network

Critical Gamification, 6

iFixit’s Technical Writing Project is a “social experience game” (or an experience that uses game-like features to enhance engagement) - Radoff 2011 Successful rules deployment

Turns technical documentation into a more social and more enjoyable experience

Engages writers in “structured creativity” - Radoff 2011

Real world problems, e.g. new knowledge will be democratically negotiated with other users

Thousands of engaged users from all over the world

Implications

Certainly, not everything is a game

Perhaps elements of games can be used critically for teaching and other forms of professional engagement Need more research!

This critical gamification must be rhetorical, ethical, and based in the contingencies of specific networks