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.

To write or not to write, that is the question...

I have been thinking, and actually drafting the book titled "Game Design Methods". I started one chapter in early 2012, but stopped until now--the end of 2012.

Before I restarted to write this book, I was curious about how many books on “game design” have been published and sold in Amazon.com. My search showed 151,350 results. So why bother to write another book on game design? I should be focusing on writing journal articles or academic book chapters that will contribute to my academic credential. But when I flashed back the experience of reading books on game design, I remembered how difficult it was to comprehend books written by foreigners—I mean non-Malaysian—before having the experience of staying in the UK and the US. When the lack of vision on how people design games in Western world might provide enormous space for imagination, the need to  comprehend without understanding the socio-cultural contexts in the Western world could become a barrier to exellent game design.

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to study and work in Western countries, but the opportunity came only after I reached the age of 27. My world view prior to 27 years old was pretty narrow, and I believe most if not all of my young students in Malaysia share the similar world view like mine. I sensed the lack of vision among my students, which prompted me to write this book for them. Therefore, I tried to include examples and concepts which I think suitable for Malaysian students who study game design. 

Perhaps, I should write it in Malay...

Juiciness as the visceral design manifestation in games

Juul (2010) highlighted the component of juiciness in games and related it to Norman's visceral level of emotional design.

Juiciness occurred in both hardcore game and casual game, but in different conditions:

…hardcore game design has diegetic juiciness, which is juiciness within the game world, but casual game design is characterized by nondiegetic juiciness, which is juiciness that take place outside the game world. Hardcore juiciness takes place in the 3-D space of the game; casual juiciness takes place in screen space, but addresses the player in player space (Juul, 2010, p50)

Casual game design commonly features excessive positive feedback for every successful action the player performs. Casual game design is very juicy. 

Apart from juiciness, herewith the other four components of casual game design:

1. Fiction: The player is introduced to the game by way of screenshot, a logo on a web page, or the physical game box. Casual games are generally set in pleasant environments. Casual game design has emotionally positive fictions as opposed to the mostly emotionally negative, “vampires and war” settings of traditional video games.

2.       Usability. The player tries to play the game, and may or may not have trouble understanding how to play. Casual games presuppose little knowledge of video game conventions. Casual game design is very usable (for educational purpose as well).

3.       Interuptibility. A game demands a certain time commitment from the player. It is not that casual games can only be played for short periods of time, but that casual game design allows the player to play a game in brief bursts. Casual game design is very interruptible. 

4.       Difficulty and punishment. A game challenges and punishes the player for failing. Casual games often become very difficult during the playing of a game, but they do not force the player to replay large parts of the game. Single-player casual game design has lenient punishments for failing. The experience of punishment in multiplayer casual game design depends on who plays. 

References:

Donald Norman. (2004). Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Jespal Juul. (2010). A Casual Revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 

Game Goal vs. Design Goal

My students who are studying MMD1033 Game Design Principles always mix up two different matters--the game goal and the design goal when they write their game design document (GDD).

Game goal is what the player or avatar that represents the player intends to achieve in the game world. In most games, that would mean winning the game. In this sense, the designer should put himself / herself in the player's shoes when setting the game goal and any associated objectives.

Design goal is what the game designer intends to challenge players in the game world. Game challenges are formed by setting the game rules (what players can and cannot do) and the game goal, after considering the level of skills, knowledge and progress of the players.

To contrast the game goal and design goal, herewith an example that involves both of them:

• Game goal: Mario to rescue the Princess Peach from Bowser and save the Mushroom Kingdom.
• Design goal: to challenge the speed, accuracy and consistency of player's hand-eye coordination in controlling a game character (Mario) in a 2D or 3D game world.  

To players, they might not be able (or needed) to differentiate the above mentioned differences, especially when they play through first-person perspective. But it is important for game designers, and those who intend to re-purpose games (e.g. GBL teachers) to understand and take advantage of the differences.

The differences are obvious in games that feature background story or narrative (e.g. God of War, Super Mario Bro, etc). However, in games that were constructed with the three classical elements (rule-based, goal-oriented and feedback-driven), the delineation becomes implicit or blurred. Still, it is essential to separate game goal and design goal, particularly in diagnosing the success or failure of a game.

Goal and rules setting might be easy to game designers, but balancing the goal and rules with players' progressive enhancement and accumulation of knowledge and skills is tricky, because it involves tracking the learning progress of players, and learning happens in games through feedback mechanism. In other words, measuring players' learning progress over their in-game achievement is the key to get the game goal fits with the design goal. And this is very important to GBL or LBG practices--the design goal has been tuned towards education. 

In a word, game designers should be well-versed with the structural elements of games. By well-verse, I mean not only knowing what they are, but also knowing what they are not.

Gamification: Turning Activities in Daily Living into Games

Gamification is a term I heard of alongside with "edufication". Herewith my understanding of these two concepts:

Gamification is a process of turning non-game playing activities in daily living into game-like activities. The root word, gamify, means turning something into games.
In contrast, edufication is a process of turning non-education matters--mainly formal and semi-formal--into educational matters. The root word, edufy, means turning something into education matters.
The relationship between gamification, edufication and game-based learning (GBL) could be explained in a funnel diagram:



Both gamification and edufication need subject matter contents, and they can complement or even support each other. For example, car driving activity can be gamified into a car driving game, and the game can then be edufied to be used in a GBL practice. The subject matter contents of the car driving activity, including fundamental car mechanics (knowledge), manuvearing a car (skills), and driving etiquette (attitudes), can be restructured to form the six structural elements of games, as shown in the following diagram:

How to gamify and edufy? Different game experts would take different approaches. To me, I will first deconstruct the subject matter contents into measurable or operationable units, and then classify these units into the six elements of games. To achieve these tasks, one may need the knowledge and skills of instructional systems design (ISD) for the deconstruction, and game design and development (GDD) knowledge and skills for the reconstruction. In other words, this involves two fields of studies.

Once the game is ready for playing, then it can either be used for teacher-less GBL practice or teacher-led GBL practice. And GBL would be a field of study that combines ISD and GDD.

Matt in Knowledge Nation Inc. introduced me to a fantastic gadget for gamification--the FitBit, in which it claims to be able to fit (read as gamify here) fitness into your day.

Prior my trip to San Francisco, I've signed up for a free online Gamification course, offered by Prof Kevin Werbach from University of Pennsylvania. The course will be started on 27 Aug 2012. I am eager to learn about Werbach's views on gamification.



Let our children benefit from the advancement of e-learning and game-based learning

(Adapted and translated from my article published by Sin Chew Daily on 23 July 2012)

The Malaysian Ministry of Education (MOE) might amend the Ordinance to allow students to bring computers and mobile phones to school. To scholars who actively promote e-learning as well as game-based teaching and learning, this is a positive matter, because this would provide a platform for academics who engage in research related to technology-enabled learning to practice the outcome of their studies. When tablet PCs, laptops and smart phones are appropriately used in schools, they can be powerful tools  for students to gain instant information and interactive media that will facilitate autonomous remedial and discovery learning activities. To teachers who are capable of using the electronic devices to promote efficient and effective teaching, teaching would become relaxed and fun. There are voluminous empirical research findings that illustrate the use of e-learning and other technology-enabled teaching and learning strategy in schools. Unfortunately, due to the absence of proper channels to obtain such evidence, the general public could only see the disadvantages instead of potentials of the use of these electronic devices.

In recent years, it would be fairly common to see lecturers and professions in tertiary institutions at home and abroad who can make good use of the blog, Twitter, Youtube video, Facebook and other online social media in conducting their classes. Under the promotion of paperless teaching and learning, college and university students can set up study groups of various subject matters, and submit their assignment to tutors or lecturers through Facebook; while the lecturers could provide learning feedback through such study groups anywhere anytime. In addition, the electronic game-based teaching initiative advocated by the Sultan Idris Education University (UPSI), is showing positive progress, so that future teachers who are undergoing teacher training programmes would know how to make the best use of electronic technology, thereby allowing a new generation of students to achieve learning outcomes efficiently. Nineteen primary and secondary schools which are adopted by UPSI will be invited to participate in a series of game-based learning activities. Once the reaction and effect of the initiative are proven positive via scientific validation, the programme will be rolled out to the whole country.

The Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) is actively promoting student-centered learning (SCL) among public institutions of higher education (IPTAs) to enable students to plan their own learning progress: they choose the courses they intend to take each semester, and decide their learning methodology, which include the use of electronic technology. This, to some extent, guides the students to be responsible for their own decisions, leading to become Malaysian with the sense of responsibility. As a prelude to entering university, the MOE has began to promote SCL in primary and secondary schools, and the amendment of the relevant regulations is just an initiative set to achieve this goal.

Teachers who have negative attitude towards this proposed amendment of Ordinance might be those who have not grasped the knowledge, skills and attitudes of electronic teaching and learning. The Educational Technology Department of MOE is planning and preparing in-service teacher training courses on e-learning and GBL now. Of course, since the strategic plan would have significant impact upon the national educational policies, guidelines and expenses, it would not be appropriate to announce the plan to the public before its completion. 

Malaysian parents might not be familiar with the use of electronic technology in teaching, which lead to the nonacceptance of allowing the electronic devices to entre schools. In fact, parents can try to think from a positive perspective, and take advantage of the modification of this Ordinance, making the teaching methods in our primary and secondary schools keep abreast with the advancement of electronic technology. For example, parents may use some of the existing parenting and homeschooling apps to monitor their children's academic performance and school activities. This would promote a new generation of parent-child relationship, and the establishment of a harmonious family that is based on the use of electronic technology. 


Technological products per se are not good or bad; the good or bad is determined by how people use them. What the parents and teachers who are well-verse in using electronic technologies should pursue is 'how to form favorable learning situations for children', rather than demanding the children to give up technology. Situations that is beneficial to children's learning are not formed by constraining children's learning methods; instead the situations are formed through the creation of a conducive momentum for learning, and active facilitation of autonomous learning. 

Money matters

I found the info on the salary in Singapore (see Salary.sg), and I pick some game production related jobs to share with  my students here (in SGD):


1. Managing director/ Chief executive officer – $29,102 [This is what I want my students to earn to be my boss]

7. Chief operating officer/ General manager – $15,005 [including those in game studios?]

10. Creative director (advertising) – $14,750

11. University lecturer – $14,000 [minimum qualification is PhD, this is what I probably will get]

13. Software and applications manager – $12,280 [digital games are software in a broader sense!]

26. Marketing and sales representative (ICT) – $9,396 [those who sell games]

34. Customer service manager – $8,462 [Online game customer service manager??]

37. Sales and marketing manager – $8,125

38. Management and business consultant – $7,982

39. Quality assurance manager – $7,848

45. Information technology project manager – $7,570

51. Education manager – $6,998

52. Producer (stage, film, television, computer games, video and radio) – $6,970

74. Software, web and multimedia developer – $6,065

76. Artistic director (stage, film, television and radio) – $5,834

99. Information technology testing/ quality assurance specialist – $4,800

For us Malaysian designers to beat these figures, we need to have global mindset. Our clients should no longer be limited to Malaysian. US, China, Japan, Korea and Middle East countries could be our main source of clients. Once the idea of glocalisation becomes a reality, getting salary higher salary than those working in Singapore is no a problem. When this happens, our brothers and sisters who are working in Singapore will return to us--after all, money really matters.