When I first learnt about Serious Games (SG) back in 2017, I was fascinated by how it could be used in healthcare, especially exergames. So, I gathered a few colleagues and formed a voluntary unit within TTSH called Serious Games Unit (SGU). We obtained funding and even tied up with some local polytechnics to co-create some serious games for healthcare. Despite successfully piloting some SG and even sharing our findings at SHBC 2018, the SG project ultimately was not sustainable and fizzled out. The biggest challenges we faced then were:
Who (& How) to validate the efficacy of these serious games?
How can we set up a marketplace to incentivize indie developers / commercial partners to venture into SG?
How can we set up an IT infrastructure that allows all healthcare institutions to host these SGs they create so as to leverage economies of scale (looking at you IHIS...)? (Last I recall, we were still short of a national level, scalable IT platform. We need something similar to SGTAP but more inclusive and open access to all healthcare institutions.)
Fast forward a few years, I found myself in a new position at NUS which advocates life long learning and continuous improvements. In the process of signing up for the Technology-enhanced Learning course offered by AMEI, I chanced upon a serious game elective “GMS5313 Serious Games: Application in Healthcare” and could not pass on it.
GMS5313 would eventually come to an end, and similar to all other courses, I find myself reflecting on yet another learning experience. This reflection though, I will be using Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle to reflect on past SG projects that either went well or didn’t go well.
One of the GMS5313 requirements was to submit a plan for a SG for Learning in Healthcare. Knowing full well the incredible amount of work involved to start from scratch, I decided to revisit a previous SG project rather than recreate a new one. Armed with new insights from GMS5313 & GMS5312, I re-examined how I would have done things differently.
While the frameworks shared by Prof Fernando Bell provided good structure, I very much doubt the practicality of applying it in real life. Reason simply that the clinicians I worked with simply do not have enough time to deep dive into such heavy theoretical frameworks. My water cooler chats during tea breaks confirmed my suspicions. Many of the participants were full time clinicians who felt that it would take too much out of their schedule to document a SG things using an approach like “conceptual model of educational serious games (CMESG)”. To make matters worse, this CMESG documentation does not even cover the content itself!
What they feel is more practical would be to leverage their time as subject matter experts and leave the coordination and development of the SG to a project manager and vendor. Someone who understands the nuts and bolts of designing and developing a SG would better manage the timeline and deliverables commensurate with the available funding. A qualified person that comes to mind is Prof Lu Weiquan (instructor for GMS5312), but he is too expensive to be deployed as a project manager. So how? Where to find such people?
At this point, I felt a surge of gratitude towards my ex-colleague at TTSH and polytechnic interns who were part of the SGU pilot. I had a fun experience co-creating games with clinician educators like Dr Yong Joo, Dr Myint Oo, ADON Siew Geok, mentors like Ms Eunice Toh and many other passionate colleagues. But despite all these favorable circumstances, SGU was still a short-lived experiment. Goes to show it literally takes a village to raise a child.
Some silver linings; I found the “Four dimension framework” a useful tool to evaluate the efficacy of SGs and also liked the GDD template introduced in session 2. It had a better structure compared to the old GDD I cobbled up with my student interns. However, despite an inferior GDD, we still succeeded in creating a fully working SG. In hindsight, we benefited from having good project management, strong management support and dedicated clinicians and student interns working on the project. Imagine if back then (in 2019) we also had proper training in SG, as well as Gen AI (e.g., ChatGPT, DAll.e) capabilities?
In conclusion, I feel that the GMS5313 course is useful to a certain extent. It may not have addressed 2 of the 3 problems highlighted above, but still it's a good crash course to introduce educators into the world of SG. Warning: It can get a little dry and theoretically heavy, so arm yourself with a flask of hot coffee. Yes, a flask, not a cup.
Aside from aligning the theoretical portions to real existing games available in the market, I also hope that future runs will look at SG from a STEEP perspective. Many other factors can make or break the success of a SG. And to introduce a segment on the “project management” aspect of coordinating a SG from inception to launch. Without proper coordination, any SG project is unlikely to ever meet the desired deadline or deliverables.
Moving forward, I will adopt this new GDD template and “Four-dimension framework” but I will refrain from starting a new SG project if it fails the STEEP analysis. Too many factors can derail the project, so unless the key components (project sponsor, stakeholders, funding, etc.) are in place, I would rather not start. One less white elephant. Nonetheless, as an educator, I remain open to discussing, exploring ideas and collaborations.
To avoid ending on such a somber note, I will continue to convince all educators to look at developing a SG as a fun activity. After all, it's because games are fun that captivated us in the first place. So, why so serious?
Benedict Chia
02 Dec 2023
Comments