The  Game  of  Writing  

Gamification,  Research  and  Writing  

Geoffrey  Rockwell,  Roger  Graves,  Heather  Graves  and  Ryan  Chartier  
University  of  Alberta  

Abstract:  The  Game  of  Writing  (GWrit)  project  has  developed  a  prototype  of  an  
online  writing  environment  that  allows  us  to  experiment  with  different  models  with  
gamification  in  writing.  Gamification  is  the  making  of  a  game  of  a  task  like  writing  an  
essay  or  washing  the  dishes.  McGonigal  describes  a  variety  of  situations  where  
participants  can  be  motivated  by  the  gamification  of  an  otherwise  tedious  task.  
(McGonigal  2011)  GWrit  provides  an  environment  where  writers  can  break  up  a  
writing  task  into  documented  milestones  and  then  mark  them  complete  when  
finished.  The  system  keeps  track  of  how  many  milestones  you  have  completed  and  
how  presents  the  user  analytical  data  about  words  written  and  so  on.  The  
environment  then  allows  one  to  compete  with  another  participant  working  on  a  
similar  task.  Users  can  "brag"  about  what  you  have  completed  to  competitors.  We  
have  conducted  "think  aloud"  usability  tests  to  improve  the  tool  and  make  it  reliably  
usable  so  that  it  can  be  integrated  it  into  a  writing  course.  GWrit  is  not  simply  a  
gamification  of  writing  for  the  purpose  of  play.  It  was  designed  to  encourage  
documenting  and  bragging  about  writing  as  part  of  the  gamification  so  that  we  can  
gather  data  about  how  writers  conceive  of  their  writing  tasks  and  progress.  This  
raises  ethical  issues  around  the  design  of  games  for  research  that  will  conclude  the  
paper.  The  project  has  recently  turned  into  a  production  project  as  we  are  
partnering  with  Writing  Initiatives  to  redevelop  GWrit  to  support  large  writing  
courses  at  the  University  of  Alberta.  This  partnership  has  turned  a  slow  research  
project  into  rapid  production  project  with  embedded  research.  

1.0 Introduction  
Twentieth-­‐century  models  for  helping  students  learn  to  write  were  dominated  by  
printed  handbooks  and  textbooks.  In  the  first  decade  of  the  twenty-­‐first  century,  
publishers  have  embraced  the  digital  publishing  revolution  by  creating  electronic  
resources  including  PDF  versions  of  printed  books,  and  distributing  these  versions  
though  online  resources  such  as  Pearson’s  MyCanadianCompLab1,  and  making  these  
online  products  available  through  e-­‐readers  and  mobile  devices.  Pouring  the  old  
wine  of  textbooks  into  e-­‐readers  does  not,  however,  take  advantage  of  the  
opportunities  for  interactivity  and  analytics  that  computing  offers.  This  paper  
describes  a  project  to  develop  a  writing  environment  called  GWrit  (Game  of  
Writing)  that  hooks  gamification,  community  commenting,  and  analytics  into  an  
online  writing  environment  initially  meant  for  community  use,  but  now  being  
                                                                                                               
1  <http://www.mycanadiancomplab.ca>  now  renamed  MyCompLab.  

  1  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

adapted  for  teaching  level  1  writing  courses  in  partnership  with  Writing  Initiatives  
at  the  University  of  Alberta.  Gaming  is  arguably  the  most  disruptive  new  media  
technology  of  the  past  20  years,  and  publishers  and  educators  are  only  beginning  to  
explore  how  that  technology  might  be  leveraged  to  create  immersive,  interactive,  
and  engaging  experiences  for  students  who  are  learning  academic  writing  skills.  
GWrit  gives  us  a  framwork  for  experimenting  with  gamification  and  the  use  of  
analytics  in  a  university  writing  course.  

2.0 The  Problem:  Introductory  Writing  Course    

The  English  and  Film  Studies  (EFS)  department  of  the  University  of  Alberta  typically  
offers  over  150  sections  of  level  1  English  courses  over  the  year  (including  summer  
sessions.)  These  courses  are  taken  by  students  across  the  disciplines  as,  among  
other  things,  a  introductory  writing  course.  Due  to  budget  constraints  that  led  to  
voluntary  retirements,  EFS  will  be  cutting  back  the  number  of  sections  they  offer.  To  
meet  the  campus-­‐wide  demand  Writing  Initiatives  is  collaborating  with  researchers  
associated  with  the  GRAND  Network  of  Centres  of  Excellence  to  develop  a  blended  
learning  version  of  the  Writing  Studies  (WRS)  101  course  that  makes  use  of  GWrit  to  
provide  a  multi-­‐disciplinary  blended  learning  writing  experience.2  The  goal  is  to  be  
able  to  teach  up  to  1200  students  a  year  in  large  (300  student)  sections  that  have  
access  to  online  resources  through  our  eClass  CMS  and  GWrit.3  
The  environment  offered  by  GWrit  will  provide  students  with  composing  tools  
(word  processing),  reviewing  opportunities,  research  guidance,  models  for  writing,  
and  advice  about  writing  through  one  interface.  This  environment  will  be  consistent  
with  the  move  to  “flipped”  classrooms  or  blended  learning  because  GWrit  makes  the  
writing  environment  the  classroom;  formal  teaching  will  come  in  the  form  of  short  
video  lectures,  textbook  readings,  email  and  chat  exchanges  with  instructors  and  
peers,  links  to  writing  resources  already  on  the  web,  and  existing  library  resources.  
Instead  of  regular  classes,  the  in  person  meetings  will  be  organized  around  issues  
and  disciplines.  Students  will  have  a  menu  of  drop-­‐in  sessions  available  depending  
on  the  discipline  they  come  from  or  the  writing  issues  they  need  help  with.  
Students  will  play  a  key  role  in  their  own  education  through  GWrit  as  they  will  
required  to  review  the  work  of  others  in  the  class.  R.  Light's  study  from  Harvard  
University  and  Rogers'  study  from  Stanford  University  point  to  the  importance  of  
content-­‐specific,  out-­‐of-­‐class  peer-­‐group  writing  experiences  as  key  ways  to  
improve  student  writing  (Light,  2003;  Rogers,  2010).  Light  (2003),  for  example,  
notes  that  students  who  improve  the  most  as  writers  work  with  a  professor,  a  
writing  teacher,  or  a  study  group.  This  research  suggests  that  by  creating  a  rich  
online  environment  that  has  multiple  ways  for  students  to  connect  and  interact  both  
with  instructors,  peers,  and  alumni  we  can  improve  their  skills  as  writers.  If  

                                                                                                               
2  The  current  Writing  Studies:  Exploring  Writing  (WRS  101)  course  is  offered  in  sections  of  20  

students.  See  <http://www.ois.ualberta.ca/~/media/ois/WritingStudies/docs/WRS_101_Brochure_-­‐

_2011-­‐2012_final.pdf>  (PDF).  
3  The  University  of  Alberta’s  Course  Management  System  (CMS)  is  called  eClass  and  is  built  on  

Moodle.  See  <https://eclass.srv.ualberta.ca/portal/>.  

  2  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

students  continue  to  return  to  the  environment  after  taking  the  course,  they  can  
continue  to  develop  as  writers  throughout  their  undergraduate  careers.    
In  addition  there  will  be  analytics  and  “gamification”  features  that  provide  students  
with  feedback  and  encouragement.  When  students  sign  in  to  enter  the  online  
environment,  they  will  get  to  work  actively  rather  than  wait  for  a  lecture  to  begin.  
More  about  this  later.  
In  sum,  the  design  of  the  blended  version  of  WRS  101  will  include:  
• Each  3-­‐unit  course  would  be  built  around  4+  writing  assignments.  For  each  
assignment  students  will:  
o Choose  which  version  (template)  of  the  assignment  they  want  to  work  
on  depending  on  their  discipline.  Thus  a  science  student  might  choose  
the  version  relevant  to  science  writing.  
o Write  drafts  and  track  progress  within  GWrit.  
o Submit  drafts  for  review  by  peers,  peer  tutors,  TAs  and  eventually  
alumnae.  
o Rewrite  based  on  peer-­‐comments  and  tutor  comments.  
• Once  a  week  in-­‐person  meetings  that  are  not  organized  around  sections,  but  
around  disciplines  and  issues.  
• New  writing  resources  including:  
o Short  (60  second)  videos  about  common  topics,  
o Online  content  on  writing,  
o Annotated  example  writings,  and  
o Links  to  other  online  resources.  
It  should  be  mentioned  that  this  new  blended-­‐learning  version  of  WRS  101  builds  
on  a  number  of  both  in-­‐class  and  online  versions  of  introductory  writing  initiatives  
managed  by  Roger  Graves  and  Heather  Graves  over  the  years.  Further,  much  of  the  
content  we  will  be  adding  online  resources  already  exists  in  the  form  of  two  
handbooks  co-­‐authored  by  Heather  Graves,  Roger  Graves,  and  Lester  Faigley:  The  
Brief  Penguin  Handbook  (604  pages)  and  the  Little  Penguin  Handbook  (320  pages).  

3.0 GWrit:  The  Game  of  Writing  

The  first  version  of  the  Game  of  Writing  (GWrit)  was  developed  with  support  from  
the  GRAND  NCE  in  2012-­‐3  by  a  development  team  led  by  Matthew  Bouchard  under  
the  supervision  of  Geoffrey  Rockwell.  The  first  version  was  intended  as  a  prototype  
to  test  develop  interface  ideas  and  test.  It  was  developed  in  Python  using  the  Django  
framework.  The  first  version  was  not  developed  specifically  for  large  scale  writing  
courses  but  instead  for  individuals  online  who  want  to  try  a  gamified  writing  
environment.  Here  is  sample  user  screen:  
 

  3  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

 
Some  of  the  features  one  can  see  here  include:  
• In  GWrit  one  can  have  one  or  more  writing  Projects.  These  are  accessed  
through  a  dynamic  outline  in  a  left-­‐hand  panel.  
• Projects  have  Milestones  and  Milestones  have  tasks.    
• All  three  levels  (Projects,  Milestones,  and  Tasks)  have  two  associated  fields.  
One  field  (the  upper  field)  is  where  writers  can  write  about  what  they  are  
doing  or  have  to  do.  We  call  this  the  “Editorial”  field.  The  second  field  is  
where  they  actually  write  parts  of  the  target  work.  This  is  the  “Writing”  field.  
The  idea  is  to  encourage  planning  and  editorial  thinking  about  writing.  
• All  three  levels  can  be  marked  as  Done  which  feeds  into  the  gamification  
aspects  of  the  environment.  The  system  reflects  back  to  you  and  any  
“competitors”  what  you  have  “done”.  
• You  can  invite  another  user  to  compete  with  you  in  writing.  When  you  are  
competing  then  you  have  the  option  to  “Brag”  whenever  you  finish  a  task,  
milestone,  or  the  project.  Brags  can  Tweeted,  emailed,  or  they  can  show  up  in  
the  system.  Here  is  Brag  prompt:  

  4  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

This  first  version  was  tested  by  a  number  of  researchers  using  a  “talk  aloud”  
protocol  where  they  worked  on  a  writing  assignment  and  recorded  impressions  
about  the  system.  Most  of  the  feedback  in  this  first  user  test  had  to  do  with  
functionality  and  the  interface.  Issues  that  emerged  included:  
• It  wasn’t  clear  what  the  reasoning  was  behind  the  dual  panes  for  each  
Project,  Milestone,  and  Task.  In  the  new  production  version  the  Editorial  field  
is  used  for  template  instructions  and  suggestions  from  the  instructors.  In  
addition  we  are  adding  a  third  pane  of  comments  that  can  come  from  peers,  
tutors,  and  TAs.  
• Statistics  the  show  achievement  (like  number  of  words  written)  were  
appreciated,  but  the  degree  of  completion  (how  many  Tasks  and  Milestones  
that  are  Done)  was  not  clear.  We  are  experimenting  with  a  “fuel  guage”  
interface  feature  for  each  feature  so  it  clear  what  has  been  done  and  what  has  
to  be  done.  We  are  also  trying  to  weave  graphical  hints  right  into  the  left-­‐
hand  outline.  
• Competing  with  others  should  be  an  option  as  not  everyone  wants  to  write  
that  way  or  has  a  friend  who  would  be  interested.  
The  opportunity  to  partner  with  Writing  Studies  to  develop  a  version  of  GWrit  for  
production  use  in  a  course  changed  the  pace  of  the  project  and  the  development.  
The  prototype  version  didn’t  need  to  be  robust  enough  to  support  hundreds  of  
students.  As  we  are  expected  to  have  a  stable  version  by  September  1st  for  a  section  
of  approximately  100  students  we  have  discarded  the  current  code  and  are  
reimplementing  GWrit  with  professional  developers  in  the  University’s  Arts  
Resource  Centre.    
The  reimplementation  has  also  meant  that  we  have  to  redevelop  GWrit  to  suit  the  
researchers  and  instructors  in  Writing  Initiatives  so  it  fits  with  their  pedagogical  
design.  The  key  innovation  they  have  introduced  is  a  reviewing  system  that  allows  
students  to  post  their  work  for  others  to  comment  on  and  to  then  rate  the  
usefulness  of  the  comments.  
This  commenting  or  review  feature  is  now  being  designed  to  allow  reviews  by  
fellow  students,  by  peer  tutors  (which  Writing  Initiatives  currently  trains),  by  
graduate  student  Teaching  Assistants  (who  are  also  trained  to  be  able  to  mark  
writing),  and  eventually  by  volunteer  experts  from  the  community.  We  have  
proposed  involving  alumni  who  have  “real  world”  experience  with  writing  in  the  
review/commenting  process  as  it  will  give  students  authentic  feedback  on  their  
writing  as  it  would  be  read  in  contexts  outside  the  university.  By  inviting  alumni  to  
participate,  we  are  taking  up  the  challenge  that  S.  Toope  (2013)  outlines  in  
“Universities  must  give  up  control:  UBC  president”  to  pursue  vital  change  by  
lowering  the  boundary  for  alumni  and  others  to  participate  in  learning  activities  at  
universities.  The  Game  of  Writing  can  provide  just  the  kind  of  direct  experience  that  
Toope  and  others  (including  Harvard)  calls  for  (Perez-­‐Pena  2013).  By  encouraging  
alumni  involvement  we  will  add  resources  through  the  donation  of  time  and  build  
support  throughout  Alberta  for  the  work  of  the  University.    

  5  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

4.0 Gamification4  
Let  us  now  return  to  the  gamification  components  to  GWrit.  Gamification  has  been  
made  popular  by  Jane  McGonigal  through  her  game  designs,  public  talks,  and  her  
book  Reality  is  Broken.  McGonigal  starts  the  book  with  a  chapter  on  “What  is  a  
game?”  that  defines  games  by  four  defining  traits:  goals,  rules,  feedback  system  and  
voluntary  participation.  This  definition  works  well  for  the  purposes  she  wants  to  put  
it  to  in  that  it  helps  her  then  discuss  work  and  happiness.  (Reality  is  broken  because  
most  of  our  work  doesn’t  have  the  energizing  “eustress,”  as  in  happy  stress  of  
challenge  of  a  game.  (p.  32.)  As  she  puts  it  in  her  first  “Fix”:  
Fix  #1:  Unnecessary  Obstacles  
Compared  with  games,  reality  is  too  easy.  Games  challenge  us  with  voluntary  obstacles  
and  help  us  put  our  personal  strengths  to  better  use.  (p.  22)  

The  problem  with  this  definition  and  what  she  does  with  it  is  that  just  about  
anything,  including  the  work  of  reality  would  fit  in  the  definition.  Most  work  has  
goals,  rules  (often  called  law),  feedback  and  is  voluntary  (at  least  in  so  far  as  we  can,  
theoretically,  quit  our  job.)  She,  like  most  writers  on  games  falls  into  Wittgenstein’s  
trap  of  trying  to  define  games  and  ends  up  with  such  a  broad  one  that  it  can  do  just  
about  anything  but  explain  what  is  special  about  games.  
To  be  fair,  McGonigal  is  not  trying  to  define  games  as  a  philosopher  would  so  much  
as  defining  in  order  to  introduce  them  in  her  larger  theme  of  life  and  work.  This  is  
the  focus  of  the  book.  It  isn’t  really  about  gaming  but  about  the  place  of  gaming  in  
leisure  and  work.  Her  argument,  at  least  in  the  beginning,  goes  something  like  this:  
• Millions  of  gamers  are  spending  more  and  more  time  playing,  
• So,  there  must  be  something  wrong  with  reality,  
• Therefore  we  should  make  reality  more  like  gaming.  
Put  this  way,  the  argument  seems  sort  of  silly,  and  of  course  there  is  more  to  it  
(including  a  section  on  happiness  research).  Nonetheless,  I  put  it  this  way  to  show  
the  flaws:  
• The  fact  of  all  these  people  are  playing  games  doesn’t  mean  anything  in  
particular  without  research.  It  is  a  standard  move  to  take  some  shift  (like  a  
growth  in  game  playing)  and  try  interpret  it  to  suit  whatever  snake  oil  you  
want  to  sell.  
• We  might  just  as  well  point  out  that  millions  of  people  spend  even  more  time  
watching  television.  Does  that  make  reality  broken  or  prove  anything  about  
reality?  For  that  matter  all  sorts  of  people  spend  hours  and  hours  a  week  in  
all  sorts  of  leisure  pastimes  from  gardening  to  reading.  No  one  tries  to  argue  
that  reality  is  therefore  broken  and  we  should  make  work  more  like  reading.  
The  tensions  between  work  and  leisure  have  been  with  us  since  we  had  
philosophers  to  think  about  them.  McGonigal  thinks  she  just  discovered  such  
a  tension  and  can  save  the  world  by  erasing  it.  

                                                                                                               
4  This  section  is  drawn  from  my  blog  review  of  Reality  is  Broken  at  <http://theoreti.ca/?p=3594>.  

  6  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

• Gaming  is  reality.  There  is  nothing  but  reality,  at  least  as  reality  is  normally  
defined.  McGonigal,  however,  is  defining  reality  as  the  non-­‐gaming  work  
reality  we  face  Monday  morning.  Again  there  is  a  long  tradition  of  seeing  
gaming  (and  other  forms  of  leisure)  as  the  other  of  work  reality  –  see  
Huizinga’s  Homo  Ludens.  Why  can’t  work  be  as  peaceful  as  reading  a  novel,  or  
as  entertaining  as  watching  a  live  spectacle  or  as  challenging  as  playing  a  
game?  Wouldn’t  it  be  nice  if  we  could  make  work  into  play?  Huizinga  and  
Suits  (who  she  quotes  with  approval)  tell  us  that  games  are  by  their  very  
nature  not  efficient  work.  What  makes  them  playful  is  that  we  don’t  have  to  
do  them  and  they  don’t  have  consequences  outside  the  game.  They  are  
inefficient  if  compared  to  work  as  a  way  of  getting  things  done,  as  Suits  
points  out.  And  herein  lies  the  problem  with  gamification  and  serious  games.  
You  can’t  have  it  both  ways.  You  can’t  have  games  that  are  work  and  not  
work.  It  isn’t  play  if  it  is  work  that  has  to  be  done  and  for  which  you  get  paid,  
no  matter  how  voluntary  the  job  sort  of  is.  Work  reality  isn’t  broken,  it  is  just  
different  from  play  (by  definition.)  We  can  change  the  ratio  of  leisure  time  to  
work  time;  we  can  blur  the  borders  between  the  two,  but  we  shouldn’t  fool  
ourselves  into  thinking  we  can  solve  the  reality  of  work  with  its  other.  
To  be  honest,  what  annoys  me  is  the  political  innocence  of  this  work.  One  has  the  
feeling  that  McGonigal  is  oblivious  of  centuries  of  political  science,  thought  about  
work,  and  the  political  struggles  to  make  the  reality  of  workers  better.  If  reality  (in  
the  sense  of  our  work  world)  is  broken  the  problem  is  just  as  likely  to  be  political.  
Perhaps  people  don’t  have  meaningful  jobs  because  the  jobs  are  going  off-­‐shore  or  
being  automated  or  workers  are  having  their  rights  to  collective  bargaining  
legislated  away?  McGonigal  seems  to  be  of  the  psychic  self-­‐help  tradition  where  you  
can  solve  everything  just  by  changing  your  attitude  and  being  happy.  She  quotes  
with  approval  the  literature  about  happiness  as  flow  as  if  that  were  all  it  takes  to  
live  a  meaningful  life.  If  all  it  takes  is  flow  then  just  turn  your  life  into  a  game  and  go  
with  the  flow.  Gamify  your  oppressive  dead-­‐end  job,  don’t  worry  about  the  politics  
or  the  fate  of  others,  just  be  happy  through  gaming  because  the  games  industry  is  
there  to  lend  a  hand.  (And  we  all  know  how  the  games  industry  is  generous  and  
altruistic.  They  are  looking  after  our  best  interests  and  making  sure  that  their  games  
aren’t  too  addictive  and  don’t  fleece  us  of  too  much  of  what  little  we  have.)  
No  doubt  I  exaggerate,  but  there  is  a  real  danger  for  any  of  us  to  study  gaming  and  
gamification  that  we  can  become  complicit  in  the  industry.  Reading  the  opening  
chapters  I  feel  that  she  wants  to  justify  gaming  rather  than  examine  it.  As  her  
subtitle  suggests,  her  book  is  not  whether  games  make  us  better  or  how  they  make  
us  better  or  don’t;  instead  the  book  is  about  “Why  games  make  us  better  and  how  
they  can  change  the  world.”  She  starts  by  trying  too  hard  to  prove  that  games  are  
good  in  order  to  predict  that  they  will  change  things  for  the  best  (if  enough  of  us  
cranks  can  just  get  with  the  program.)  No  doubt  this  makes  her  book  a  satisfying  
read  for  any  gamer  who  has  felt  guilty  that  they  aren’t  doing  other  things,  but  it  
doesn’t  make  it  convincing.  I  am  not  the  only  person  to  be  critical  of  McGonigal  or  
gamification.  Reviewers  like  Chaplin  have  argued  that  gamified  tasks  aren’t  really  
that  fun.  They  are  about  as  fun  as  doing  homework  for  a  scratch  and  sniff  sticker.  

  7  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

Ian  Bogost,  in  his  blog  essay  “Gamification  is  Bullshit”  was  even  less  complimentary:  
Rather,  bullshit  is  used  to  conceal,  to  impress  or  to  coerce.  Unlike  liars,  bullshitters  have  
no  use  for  the  truth.  All  that  matters  to  them  is  hiding  their  ignorance  or  bringing  about  
their  own  benefit.  
Gamification  is  bullshit.  
I'm  not  being  flip  or  glib  or  provocative.  I'm  speaking  philosophically.  
In  particular  he  objects  to  confusing  features  of  games  like  points,  leader  boards,  and  
levels  with  game  themselves.  Adding  game  features  to  things  that  aren’t  games  is  as  
likely  to  gamify  them  as  adding  wheels  to  fish  is  to  “bicyclify”  the  fish.  The  fish  might  
roll  a  little  better,  but  you  can’t  ride  it.  
Ian  Bogost  is  honest  enough  to  realize  that  this  critique  of  gamification  could  also  
apply  to  attempts  to  create  serious  games,  whether  educational  or  persuasive.  
Bogost,  author  of  book  on  Persuasive  Games,  tries  to  distinguish  gamification  or  
exploitationware  from  persuasive  games,    
I  mentioned  that  frames  like  "serious  games"  and  even  my  own  "persuasive  games"  had  
done  a  terrible  job  making  games  seem  viable  to  make  and  use  in  organizations.  The  
problem  is,  they  should  be  difficult  to  make  and  use  in  such  contexts.  In  fact,  games  
undermine  many  of  the  practices  of  industrialization  that  gamification  silently  
endorses.  (Bogost,  “Persuasive  Games:  Exploitationware”)  
The  difference  is  that  gamification  just  borrows  surface  features  and  conceals  the  
bitter  pill  of  learning  or  work  under  the  cloak  of  gaming  while  a  persuasive  game  
tries  to  model  a  phenomenon  so  that  playing  the  game  is  a  way  of  learning  about  the  
phenomenon.    
Why  then  are  we  integrating  gamification  into  GWrit?  First,  we  should  be  clear  that  
we  have  built  GWrit  so  that  it  can  be  a  platform  for  representing  information  about  a  
user’s  writing  back  to  them  in  the  form  of  analytics  or  gamification  components.  Our  
working  hypothesis  is  that  gamification  can  be  a  playful  way  of  representing  real  
information  back  to  users  so  that  they  can  make  decisions  and  possibly  be  
motivated  differently.  Gamification  is  therefore  an  process  of  re-­‐presenting  
information  in  a  different  rhetorical  mode.  Instead  of  simply  stating  information  
about  a  project  (as  in  “you  have  finished  3  out  of  5  tasks  in  9  days”)  gamification  is  
an  experiment  in  presenting  this  information  so  that  it  is  more  persuasive.  This  is  
not  a  statement  about  what  we  think  is  true,  so  much  as  a  hypothesis  to  test,  which  
is  why  we  need  an  environment  into  which  we  can  plug:  
• A  variety  of  analytics  that  gather  information  about  writing,  
• A  variety  of  “serious”  and  “gamified”  representations  of  that  information,  and  
• Tools  for  capturing  information  and  comments  about  the  writing  we  are  
trying  to  encourage  through  gamified  analytics.  

5.0 Partnerships  
We  see  this  then  as  an  opportunity  to  experiment  with  different  representations  of  
information,  including  playful  ones,  on  a  larger  scale  and  in  a  partnership  that  
brings  together  game  studies  researchers  with  researchers  who  specialize  in  the  

  8  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

scholarship  of  writing  instruction.  More  specifically  this  project  is  a  collaboration  
between  the  following  partners:  
• The  Faculty  of  Arts  which  has  traditionally  provided  writing  courses  to  
students  across  the  Faculties  and  is  now  having  to  find  try  different  ways  of  
offering  such  service  teaching.  
• Writing  Initiatives  that  has  been  called  on  offer  large-­‐scale  writing  sections  
and  which  has  a  research  function  to  study  rhetoric  and  writing.  
• Researchers  in  the  digital  humanities  and  game  studies  who  are  interested  in  
studying  different  interfaces  to  information,  different  uses  of  analytics,  and  
serious  uses  of  games/gamification.  

References:  
Bogost,  I.  (May  3,  2011).  “Persuasive  Games:  Exploitationware.”  Gamasutra.  Online.  
<http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134735/persuasive_games_explo
itationware.php>  
Bogost,  I.  (August  8,  2011).  “Gamification  is  Bullshit.”    Ian  Bogost  -­‐  Videogame  
Theory,  Criticism,  Design.  Blog.  Online.  
<http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml>  
Chaplin,  H.  (March  20,  2011).  “I  Don't  Want  To  Be  a  Superhero:  Ditching  reality  for  a  
game  isn't  as  fun  as  it  sounds.”  Slate.  Online.  
<http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2011/03/i_dont_want_t
o_be_a_superhero.html>  
Freedman,  J.  (2013,  November  25).  “MOOCs:  Usefully  Middlebrow.”  Chronicle  of  
Higher  Education.  <http://m.chronicle.com/  >  
Huizinga,  J.  (1950).  Homo  Ludens:  A  Study  of  the  Play-­‐Element  in  Culture.  Boston:  
Beacon  Press.  
Light,  R.  J.  (2003).  “Writing  and  students'  engagement.”  Peer  Review,  6(1),  28-­‐31.    
McGonigal,  J.  (2011).  Reality  is  Broken:  Why  Games  Make  Us  Better  and  How  They  Can  
Change  the  World.  New  York,  Penguin.  
Perez-­‐Pena,  R.  (2013,  March  25).  “Harvard  Asks  Graduates  to  Donate  Time  to  Free  
Online  Humanities  Class.”  New  York  Times.  <http://www.nytimes.com/>  
Rogers,  P.  (2010).  “The  contributions  of  North  American  longitudinal  studies  of  
writing  in  higher  education  to  our  understanding  of  writing  development.”  In  
C.  Bazerman,  R.  Krut,  K.  Lunsford,  S.  McLeod,  S.  Null,  P.  Rogers  &  A.  Stansell  
(Eds.),  Traditions  of  writing  research  (pp.  365-­‐377).  New  York:  Routledge.  
Suits,  B.  (1978).  The  Grasshopper:  Games,  Life  and  Utopia.  Toronto:  University  of  
Toronto  Press.  
Toope,  S.  (2013,  October  24).  “Universities  must  give  up  control:  UBC  president.”  
Globe  and  Mail.  Retrieved  from  <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/>  

  9  
     The  Game  of  Writing  

Watters,  A.  (2013,  November  29).  “Top  Ed-­‐Tech  Trends  of  2013:  MOOCs  and  Anti-­‐
MOOCs.”  Hack  Education  [blog].  <http://www.hackeducation.com/>  
 
 
 
 

  10