Why digital GBL is not practical in Malaysia yet

I conducted a training in UPSI today. The theme of the training course is "Aplikasi Teknologi Inovatif Dalam P&P" or "Application of Innovative Technologies in Teaching and Learning". I knew the participants would be my colleagues in UPSI, whom I believe should have been well-verse in conventional technologies in teaching and learning activities. Towards the end of the course, one of the colleagues questioned me the relevance of the content I delivered with the theme set by BSM.

Saya nampak tajuk training ni, ingat ia berkaitan dengan pendedahan pelbagai teknologi pendidikan, bukan guna games sahaja..."

At heart, I was stunned by this question. And then I had a long chat with a senior colleague after the training session, herewith the comments and questions (not actual quotes):

"Guna komputer tu kira advanced la..."

"Apakah ciri-ciri utama GBL berbanding dengan lain-lain kaedah P&P?"

"UPSI perlu ada guideline dan teori-teori GBL yang tersendiri."

"Kursus macam ni perlukan dua hari: hari pertama tu mula dengan Game Design for GBL; hari kedua kena ada hands on, di mana perserta diminta untuk bawa RI atau lesson plan sendiri, dan cuba jadikan ia GBL. Lepas tu ada presentation, yang mana you comment samada peserta buat dengan betul ke tidak."

"Kebanyakan sekolah di Malaysia, komputer pun tak de, so nak guna kaedah digital GBL tu susah. So kita perlukan GBL yang bukan digital. Contohnya, macam guna board game..."

"Saya masih tercari-cari keunikan GBL berbanding dengan kaedah lain."

-------------------------------
I am a proponent of digital GBL, in UK and US. And I am trying to promote digital GBL in Malaysia now. It seems like digital GBL has been perceived as something "very advanced" to all the participants, and they wish to practice non-digital GBL.

I asked the colleague what would be seen advanced? She said anything that requires computer is considered as advanced; and digital GBL can only be practiced successfully in universities or colleges, instead of schools. Most of the schools have limited computers that is available for teaching and learning--this view was conflicting with another colleague whom I  spoke to after lunch break. Perhaps they were talking about different school types.

Now I am in a dilemma: should I continue focusing on digital GBL or moving backward to establish non-digital GBL here in UPSI? The ideal scenario would be covering both in one shot. Like what the senior colleague suggested, that is to start with designing games for GBL practice, and then specializing in two sub-types: non-digital GBL and then digital GBL. The scope of coverage should be comprehensive, i.e. starting from induction setting and informing LOs, and ending with various forms of GBL assessments.

It would be great if there are case studies of how non-digital and digital GBL were practiced in Malaysia, and guidelines for teachers or educators to follow in designing and developing their own games for their own GBL practices. From these case studies, UPSI would be able to establish teaching and learning principles and theories for use in Malaysia, using Robert Yin's (2009) analytical generalization theory development approach.

To achieve this ideal scenario, I need to first come out with some guidelines for GBL practice, probably in the form of module or a book. Next, the guidelines must be implemented and tested in actual classrooms across different subject matters, and each practice would be documented and studied as a case. And the end of the studies, cross-case analysis would be carried out to develop theories and principles, as opposed to the initial guidelines, for non-digital and digital GBL practice in Malaysia. Hence UPSI's theories and principles for GBL.