![]() |
Abstract |
|
![]() |
1. Introduction |
![]() |
![]() |
The structure of this paper mirrors the student experience. Student writers begin by completing a tutorial that teaches them how to play (read) a story using NWN. Students then complete a second tutorial that teaches them how to use the Aurora Toolset. They use it to create the setting, props, non-player characters (NPCs) and dialogs for their story. The paper then describes one of the main stumbling blocks that can prevent a writer from creating an interactive story - the necessity of writing computer program scripts to control the interactions in the story. We describe our novel solution to the problem, which we call generative patterns, and our tool, ScriptEase (2005), that allows writers to generate scripts from patterns without programming. Finally, we describe feedback we received from the teacher after piloting our storywriting software in a class of grade 10 English students. |
|
![]() |
2. Game Playing and Creation Using NWN Tools |
|
![]() |
For the students
to play the Neverwinter Nights game and to develop the backgrounds
for their own stories, we developed two tutorials based on the existing
BioWare tools. The tutorials were developed by a high school teacher
and tested by high school students before our pilot project was conducted. |
|
![]() |
2.1 Playing the Game |
|
![]() |
2.2 Creating the Story World |
|
![]() |
3. Problems with Manual Scripting |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
4. Patterns - A Solution to Writing Scripts |
|
![]() |
ScriptEase provides more than fifty encounter patterns that can be adapted for use in thousands of different stories. In fact, there are several kinds of adaptation, each requiring different levels of abstraction skill and, therefore, different levels of cognitive ability. The simplest kind of adaptation only requires the writer to select the options required by a pattern; for example, selecting the container, the item and the door objects for the pattern described previously. The kinds of adaptation in increasing order of difficulty are:
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
5. The Classroom Experience Our goals for this pilot project were:
The feedback we received from the pilot indicates that students have different attitudes towards interactive storywriting and traditional storywriting and that they exhibit different behaviors when performing the two activities. This feedback has resulted in several hypotheses about the differences. In this section, we describe the feedback we obtained along with some preliminary hypotheses we have developed to explain the feedback. There are many ways to describe, analyze and interpret the feedback we received. Our approach is to begin with an observation from the teacher involved in the project. She stated: "Never underestimate the importance of fun in learning, since activities where students want to do the work make learning easier and allow students to learn more quickly." However, fun is such a generic term that finding out whether the students had more fun with the interactive story than the traditional story would not be helpful unless we can quantify the consequences of the "extra" fun. Therefore, to interpret the feedback we asked the teacher and ourselves four informal questions:
We were not surprised to discover that all of the students found that at least parts of interactive storywriting were fun. Although only about a third of the students in the class were interested in writing a second traditional short story, about two thirds of the students wanted to write another interactive story (even if they had to do it at home, outside of school time). We discovered two differences in the two storywriting modes. One difference is related to getting started and the other difference is related to staying on task. In addition we gathered some other general feedback. |
![]() |
![]() |
5.1 Getting Started To start a traditional story, it is necessary to set the scene of the story by writing a considerable amount of descriptive prose, before getting to the "good" part of telling the story. With an interactive story, the scene can be quickly "painted" using the Aurora Toolset to add scene components. We hypothesize three main consequences of this difference that we believe make it easier to start an interactive story (and therefore make it more fun).
Time saved during scene set-up provides more time to write the character dialogs that are key to the story itself. It is possible that writing a play instead of a story could have the same effect, but a playwright must still write down a textual description of the stage to replace the description in a story. Setting a scene is just easier to do visually than textually. This is not surprising since at an early age children use toys to set the stage for stories that they want to play. The toys provide the visual background that replaces the tedious scene description necessary in a written story and children quickly focus on the dialog between the toys - the story itself. |
![]() |
![]() |
5.2 Staying On Task Why are students more willing to stay on task when writing an interactive story, or equivalently why is interactive storywriting more engaging, during the middle or end of the storywriting process? Although quick visual feedback is useful in getting started quickly, students can be distracted from any task that is repetitive or does not evolve in difficulty or stimulation level over time. One might think that, for some students, the fact that interactive storywriting is easier at the start could actually increase the boredom factor and make them tire of it more quickly. Based on our experience, we postulate that it is the "interactive" nature of interactive storywriting that most contributes to staying on task. We identified two kinds of interaction that we feel are important. There is interaction between the writer and the tools (already discussed in the Getting Started section) and there is interaction between the writer and the other students. Interpersonal collaboration was not encouraged or discouraged during the interactive storywriting process. In fact, we did not even think about interpersonal collaboration in designing the activity. What we discovered was that students began collaborating on their stories from the beginning of the tutorial exercises. One student would spontaneously say to the next student, "look what I tried" and the other student would immediately get involved by adapting the idea to his/her own story or by suggesting related things to try. Groups of students began gathering at one workstation or another observing particular students' activities. This encouraged all the students to produce better stories, knowing that their work was being seen/appreciated by their fellow students. Constructive collaboration within a community of learners provided students with an opportunity to improve their critiquing skills. We believe that it also resulted in better understanding of concepts since students would often try to explain things (that they had figured out by themselves or that were clarified by the teacher) to their peers. The teacher contrasted this high level of interpersonal collaboration in interactive storywriting with the collaboration in traditional learning activities: "ScriptEase created interaction among my students which was not typical of an individual activity such as storywriting. This way of storywriting encouraged collaboration before, during and after their stories were complete." |
![]() |
![]() |
5.3 Other Feedback
There is a current trend in education to integrate technology throughout the curriculum. However, it is a challenge in some disciplines. For English classes, besides the standard approaches of using word processors and slide presentations, there are few opportunities for adding relevant and innovative technology into the curriculum. Interactive storywriting provides a natural opportunity for technology integration. The use of computer technology to promote critical thinking during problem-solving activities can be an important part of a student's educational experience (Jonassen, 2000). Critical thinking involves being able to think reflectively and effectively and to analytically assess evidence (Santrock, 2001). Various aspects of critical thinking are often associated with the higher-order instructional objectives of application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation as described in Bloom's et al. (1956) taxonomy. Such instructional objectives are well suited to the context of interactive storywriting. Application objectives require having students apply existing knowledge to new situations they encountered during problem-solving. For example, students can apply computer game playing experience to their interactive story-writing exercise. Analysis objectives involve breaking complex information down into constituent parts, such as identifying the main elements of the story plot and specific character interrelationships. Synthesis objectives require the construction of something new by integrating several pieces of information, an integral part of any story-writing exercise. Finally, evaluation objectives are concerned with placing a value judgment on the data by comparing it with a given standard; e.g., comparing the traditional story writing experience with that of writing an interactive story. Finally, it may take some training for students and teachers to take full advantage of some aspects of interactive stories. Most students wrote sequential stories, even though they were writing an interactive story that would not have to be "read" in the same sequential order by all readers. For example, we were told of a story that contained a plot that involved the completion of three quests. In a traditional story, the author would have described how the protagonist completed each of the quests in a particular order. In an interactive medium it would have been possible to write the story so that the three quests could have been completed in any order. However, the student storywriter required them to be in a linear order - this was probably due to experience with traditional linear stories. Students and teachers are so accustomed to traditional modes of expression that "thinking outside the traditional linear storywriting box" will take time and explicit effort. |
![]() |
![]() |
6. Conclusion |
![]() |
![]() |
7. Acknowledgements |
![]() |
![]() |
8. References Ananny, M. (2002). Supporting children's collaborative authoring: Practicing written literacy while composing oral texts. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Boulder, CO, pp. 595-596. Gardner, H (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: BasicBooks. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. Teachers Evaluating Educational Multimedia Report. [Online]. Available: Robertson, J. (2001). The Effectiveness of a Virtual Environment as a Story Preparation Activity, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Robertson, J. & Good, J. (2005). Story Creation in Virtual Game Worlds. Communications of the ACM, 48(1), pp.61-65. Santrock, J. W. (2001). Educational psychology. Toronto : McGraw-Hill. ScriptEase (2005). Online. http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~script/scriptease.html |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |