Employing Method for a Method: Design and Evaluation of the Proposed PDEduGame Process Method using Design Science Research Method

Full text

978-1-5090-6 255-3/17/$31 .00 ©2017 IEEE
PDEduGame: Towards Participatory Design Process
for Educational Game Design in Primary School
Rozana Ismail
Advance Informatics School
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
rozanaresearcher@gmail.com
Roslina Ibrahim
Advance Informatics School
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
iroslina.kl@utm.my
Abstract—While participatory design (PD) has always been
used in the context of community-based design, its application in
designing primary school educational games is quite unique and
requires total participation from children. Before applying PD in
primary schools for game design, there are processes that must
be identified. The selection of journal articles and papers are
based on rigorous systematic literature review method, with 386
papers and books on participatory design and educational game
topic identified, in which 21 were deemed relevant. An analysis
table was developed on these selected papers to uncover the series
of process and stages applied in the studies. Our analysis reveals
that while different fields applies the participatory design
process; most of the research share the same theme in the
process. Meta analysis technique was used to form a suitable PD
process framework from the theme gathered in the analysis. The
formed is called the PDEduGame Process Conceptual
Framework, which will act as a guide to educational game design.
We suggest that the PDEduGame to be used in the context of
primary schools in Malaysia.
Keywords—Participation Design Process, Digital Educational
Game, Systematic Literature Review, Meta Analysis.
I.
I
NTRODUCTION
In designing educational game, participatory design (PD)
addresses collaborative work between participants in
designing and sharing ideas [1]. Most of the researchers see
users as a designer for educational game;
[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] although most of educational games in
the market were designed by the professional or skilled game
designer. In the context of Malaysia, there are several studies
on educational games such as mathematical games and
learning Iban language. However, these studies are mainly
focused on identifying elements of the game. This shows that
these authors did not use PD as an approach to educational
game design for primary school. There were several studies
done with children as participants to game design
[2][3][4][5][6][8]. Some of these studies highlights the fact
that most children experienced problems with educational
games, due to unspecific guidelines of the game play [2].
These studies also showed that bad representation of game
play is one of the significant factors of the inefficiency of
educational games [34].
In this paper we will attempt to develop a conceptual
framework that utilizes the PD process to design educational
games. The result may show several studies of PD processes
merging into a singular concept framework. The PD method
was used to solve existing design problems. Our findings on
selected papers shows that while there are no process
complexity, the detailed process of the participatory design
was not well established [3][4][5][13]. While participatory
design process presented in the architectural study [7], it has
yet to be evaluated against the context of primary school
educational games in Malaysia. As of such, we will analyze
several selected papers that discussed the participatory design
process regardless of the field it was applied to.
The PD applied in other fields that are relevant on educational
game will avail an opportunity for us to further study its
processes. Refer to the context of digital game in education,
we have identified the evolution of educational games in three
generation. The early generation built the ideology of
educational games based on edutainment [8]. The design
theory was centered on the behavior of the learners on the
product of drill games. In the new global education of science
and technology, the second generation makes the designers
shift their perspective on learning environment and motivation
of learning. However, the advent of new technologies cannot
challenge the main factor of successful learning transfer,
which is good design. The maturity of technology during the
third generation created a new theory of constructivism that
focused heavily on learners. One of the fundamental property
of constructivism was widely used in diverse range of study is
participatory design [9].
The structure of this paper was done as follows. We further
the discussion in section 2 by employing the systematic
literature review (SLR) method to find relevant articles on PD
process and any PD processes that are relevant to educational
games. In section 3, we analyzed the relevant PD processes or
stages from different domains of study. This is done by
extracting the study domains and processes attributes from the
21 papers which have made the final cut of the SLR process.
In the next phase, we will meta analyze to synthesize the final
conceptual framework. We will further elaborate the findings
of the analysis in section 4 on the PDEduGame Process
Conceptual Framework. The findings and contributions
stemming from this paper can be used for future educational
game design research in primary schools.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on June 11,2021 at 02:32:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

II. L
ITERATURE
R
EVIEW
A. Participation Design
In the 1970s, participatory design was known as co-operative
design or referred as co-design by the Scandinavians [10]. The
co-operative design by the Scandinavian countries was rooted
in works with trade unions. When Cooperative design work
process was introduced in the US by 1980s, the industry and
academician translated the term into participatory design to
avoid direct cooperation between workers and management.
The term participatory design is widely use in the fields of;
software design, urban-design, architecture, product design,
sustainability, graphic design, planning and even medicine, to
create environments that are more responsive and appropriate
to their inhabitants and the user's cultural, emotional, spiritual
and practical needs. Participatory design can bridge users and
designers to create a product/services that are the sum of all
the elements needed by both parties. Different area of study
constitutes different issues highlighted and different
participant’s motivation. Understanding the stages of
participatory design process is vitally important if researchers
intend to use PD for designing educational games. Several
benefits of participatory design was highlighted for the
purpose of enhancing work place quality, democracy, mutual
learning, empowerment and better product deliverance by
engaging users [11]. The paper of PD the third space in HCI,
cited several task commonly done in PD, which are,
workshops, story-collecting and story-telling through text,
photography, and drama, using games to analyze and design;
and the co-creation and functional prototypes [12].
As suggested by [1], in order to come up with a possible
solution, a designer is asked to go through a process of
exploration, which is a process of discovery of alternatives.
While traditional methods of research design focus primarily
on observational research and questionnaires, participatory
design focuses on the things people make in order to elicit
what they think, feel and dream [13]. It is important to explore
particular processes and features of design-based learning in a
study so it can engage students in making meaningful
integration between the targeted content knowledge and the
products designed [14].
B. Systematic Literature Review Method
The aim of this paper is to identify the suitable participatory
design process for educational game design in primary
schools. The terms used will be similar with process, stages or
activities in the paper relevant to participatory design study.
We will then merge the detailed process with the technique
used in each detailed process into a complete conceptual
model which can act as a guide for PD process in educational
game design. We will use fundamental aspects to analyze each
of the selected papers. The fundamental aspects is by
identifying key PD text in each PD paper [4]. The systematic
literature review (SLR) method was used to synthesize and
find the relevant process in PD [15]. There are four stages to
the SLR process which are identification, screening, eligibility
and inclusion.
Fig. 1. Systematic Literature Review for Participation Design Process
In the first phase of identification of the SLR methods (Figure
1), we found a total of 386 papers and books using these four
search strings: participatory design; participatory design
process, participatory design AND educational game;
participatory design AND mobile educational game. The use
of AND string, which was added as a Boolean advance search
is to expand the search into a specific study of “educational
game” and also “mobile educational game”. We used open
access journal and UTM Library e-Journal, whereby the
database range from Science Direct, ACM, Emerald, IEEE,
Springer, Sage, Taylor and Francis, and Web of Science. In
screening phase, the first action is to eliminate any redundant
paper, which leaves a total of 382 papers to be filtered. The
second action in this phase is to select the papers relevant to
PD study, thus excluding 168 of the aforementioned - 382
papers. The third Eligibility phase is, where we analyze the
214 papers by its title and abstract analysis. This resulted in
the exclusion of 128 papers leaving us with 86 papers with a
shared common use of PD by its abstract and title. The final
resort of this SLR is to include the most relevant paper that
contains PD process regardless of the field that was applied to.
A thorough process was done on the final selection, resulting
with 21 papers that represent the PD processes conceptual
models as well as representation of framework. They are
interconnected by the tools used, workshops, interview and
etc. The next section of this paper will summarize each
process used in each papers by analyzing the PD by its study
domain and its process.
III. A
NALYSIS
The first stage of this analysis phase is to identify the
processes in participatory design. As there are many types of
design, the selection on the paper must be based on
participatory design themes only. Papers that explain design
processes that not employ participatory design terms are
considered ineligible for this analysis phase, which are user-
centered design, interaction design, experience design,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on June 11,2021 at 02:32:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

empathic design or processed centered design. As of such, any
paper that focus on besides the PD process will be eliminated.
A. PD Processes Analysis
In this section, we will discuss in detail the participatory
design process. The processes indicated are also referred as
phases, stages, or activities. 21 papers were referenced to
identify the common attributes shared among all PD
processes. Besides the attributes, it is also crucial to identify
the sequence of stages in PD. The domain of study is
important to highlight the PD process need to be flexible and
fit to certain research situation such as educational game
design. Based on Table 1 below, there were only three studies
done using PD [15][21][26]. However, to further analyze the
PD process, other study domains were taken into consideration
to get a full understanding and justification for the
PDEduGame Process construction. Each process was
extracted and listed in Table 1 before commencing meta
analysis.
TABLE I. A
NALYSIS OF
PD
P
ROCESS
A
TTRIBUTES BY
P
APER
/B
OOK
Author (s) Process Attribute
Study Domain Process
(Ahn 2007) [7] Community
mobilization
design
1) Public information
2) Design workshop
3) Feedback
(Baek and Lee
2016) [16]
Information
architecture
design
1) Pilot test; 2) Workshop
(a)Setup; (b) Orientation; (c) Info-
structure; (d)Discuss; (e)Wrap-up
(Beer 1989) [17] School
landscape
design
1) Design Briefin
g
; 2) Design
Solution - (a) Pre-questionnaires
(b) Design workshop (c) Post-
questionnaires
(Brandt 2006) [18]
Exploratory
design game
1) Observe and interview, select
and invite; 2) Design Lab;
3) Future workshops; 4) Landscape
game; 5) Enacted
(Buttigieg and
Gauci 2015) [19] Health care
management
1) Briefing 2) Workshop: (a)
warm-up and ideal workplace;
(b) individual model (c) collective
model
(Cárdenas-Claros
and Gruba 2010)
[20]
Listenin g
Based design
1) Initial phase; 2) Workshop 1;
3) Workshop 2: collaboration;
4) Workshop 3: iteration process
(Chan et al. 2008)
[21]
Health game
design
1)
W
orkshop - game concept ideas
(a) Interview and Discussion
(b) Generate toolkit
(c) Group of student create game
concept model
2) Play Testing Workshop
(Chen 2009) [22]
e-Tutor
materials
design
1) Orientation program
2) Online collaboration
3) Workshop - collaborative
materials development/ mock-ups
ideas; 4) Research support
(Culén et al. 2013)
[23] Museum
space design
1) Form a design tea
m
; 2) Develop
tools design team (a) Explore
content & concept; 3) Workshop 1;
4) Evaluate and Iterate until
satisfy; 5) Resulting design
(Haraldseid et al.
2016) [24] Clinical
learning
design
1) Initial phase; 2) Investigative
phase (focus group); 3) Revision
phase; 4) Exploratory test phase-
focus group interview;
5) Finalization phase - revision
meeting
Author (s) Process Attribute
Study Domain Process
(Israel et al. 2013)
[25] Learning
application
design
1) Form a group;
2) Data collection;
3) Design paper prototypes;
4) Comparing field notes;
5) Analyze;
(Iversen et al.
2013) [6]
Social
technology
application
1) Debriefing session
2) Design workshop - Prepare
refreshments, prepare setting
3) Storytelling - Prepare storyboard
4) Participants record story
5) Upload input into Facebook
(storyboarding, mock-up sessions,
and collaborative prototyping)
6) Decision making
(Khaled and
Vasalou 2014)
[26] Serious game
design
(1) Brainstorming create new ideas
from scratch (key concepts) created
game characters with play dough
(2) Brainstorming on specific game
elements
(3) Storyboarding - using comics
(4) Comic printout to children
(Lessard and
Torres 2013) [27] Community
design project
1) Participant selectio
n
;
2) Training; 3) Getting familiar
4) Drawings; 5) Interviews;
6) One-day bus Tours & picture;
7) Brainstorming; 8) Design
charrette; 9) Exhibition
(Nunes et al.
2016) [15] Serious game
design
1) Apply contextual in
q
uiry -
brainstorm and interview;
2) Mock-ups technique -
prototyping in different detail
(Osman et al.
2009) [28]
Online
community
design
1) Introductory briefing
2) List a set of question on
functionality, navigation and
terminologies to be used in the
prototype.
3) Write their tasks in the template
provided.
4) Design prototype, and
walkthrough
5) Usability test
6) Refining the prototypes, a
second walkthrough was done.
(Schuler et al.
1993) [33] PD Book
1) Learning at workplace;
2) Future Workshop;
3) Organizational Games;
4) Embodying Ideas
(Simonsen et al.
2013) [32] PD Book
1) Origin and Approval;
2) Planning and Scheduling;
3) Design, Prototyping and
Testing; 4) Documentation;
5) Follow-up
(Teli et al. 2016)
[29] Community
network
design
Process Planning Data Gathering:
1) Interview
2)Personas/scenario
3)Mind map
4)Focus group
5)Call Procedures
(Yalman and
Yavuzcan 2015)
[30] Industrial
design
1) Problem definition session:
Exploring the problems;
2) Idea generation session:
Generating concepts
3) Design detailing & finalizing
session: Developing the concept
into a detailed design solution
(Yasuoka et al.
2013) [31]
ICT service
design game
1) The user game - image,
personas, construct personal story
2) The service game - design ICT
services using future technology;
3) The scenario game - create use-
scenarios where the persona uses
the ICT service in a future home.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on June 11,2021 at 02:32:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

B. Meta Analysis on PD Process
As illustrated in Table 1, while each paper and book represent
different number of processes, there are some attributes with
similar themes and activities. As an example from [27],
suggest to organize design exhibition, which in this context of
primary schools study will consume more time and resources.
However, some of the activities are not suitable to be included
for the educational game PD Process in primary school. As of
such, we have done meta analysis to identify suitable phases
based on the primary processes found in the Table 1.
• STEP 1: The first step is to identify the first process
suited for this PDEduGame. Based on Table 1, the
[7][16][18][19][20][21][22][24][6][26][28][32][29]
[30] suggest similar attributes for their initial phase of
the PD processes. Based on [32] the highest level of
PD should begin with origin and approval. This is
where the initiation of game design study begin.
Therefore we label the first process as Initial Study.
The activities in this phase was selected based on most
frequent initial activities occurred in the Table 1
Processes attributes.
• STEP 2: The next process is the Educational Game
Workshop Setting. This label was coined when we
identified that several studies in Table 1, have most
often used the workshop setting for the PD event after
the initial study was done. Some of the studies
[16][22][23][25][6][27] and [32] gain similar theme on
workshop setting process. The setting of workshop
should commence once the initial study was done. The
input in the first phase will be useful in game workshop
setting with the preparation of candidates seating equal
to the number of participants selected in the first PD
Process.
• STEP 3: The major process among all the PD Process
is the workshop. In Table 1, all 21 papers and books
suggested that for the workshop the main aim is to get
the game designed and collaborated. This major
process is labeled as Educational Game Design
Workshop, due to its specific referring to the study of
game design. Based on the sample availability of the
students, their age, and workshop activities suggested
in Table 1, the design workshop was staggered into
three phases. The first design workshop phase is Initial
Game Concept Model. The second design workshop
phase is Game Storyboard and the final design
workshop phase is Finalize Game Mock-Ups. These
three workshop events will be run in different event's
day.
• STEP 4: The fourth process is Prototyping Educational
Game. As suggested by [21][15][28][32] and [30], this
phase will focus on turning the game design mock-ups
into live prototypes. The prototype is based on the
educational game preferences which can be based on
web or mobile application platform.
• STEP 5: The final phase is Prototype Testing. Based on
[28] and [32], once the prototype completed, pilot
testing was done with the participation of both students
and teachers. After getting some input and
recommendations, the prototype may be revised and re-
test the final prototype before it can be published.
These five high level PD processes which is suitable for the
game design will be an axis to chart the detailed stages
forming the next of conceptual framework of PD Process for
educational game design.
IV. C
ONCEPTUAL
F
RAMEWORK OF
PDE
DU
G
AME
P
ROCESS
Based on the meta analysis done in previous section, there
are five main processes contribute for the PDEduGame
framework presented in Fig. 2. The five main processes in the
PDEduGame Process are: 1) Initial Study, 2) Educational
Game Workshop Setting, 3) Educational Game Design
Workshop, 4) Prototyping Educational Game, 5) Prototype
Testing. Based on the framework, process 1 - Initial study,
consists of five activities. Each stage is mentioned by several
papers from the Table 1, in PD Process attribute's column. In
the second phase, the process is Educational Game Workshop
Setting. There are four activities in the second phase. The
second phase relies on the input obtained from the first phase.
Activities such as preparing participants reward and design
materials for the game are suggested to be an important
elements [6][16][23][26]. The input from the interviews and
questionnaires set in the first process, will be of much help to
identify the seating of the participants who agreed to attend
the workshop. Some other input that can support the second
phase is the preparation of the materials. Based on
observations and interviews, we will be able to identify the
game-play types that is preferred by the students, and to
prepare prototype materials so they can enjoy building the
model and creating their own game platform.
The third process consists a series of processes as it
encapsulates three major activities: game concept, game
storyboard, and game mock-ups. The first game design
workshop is to generate idea and concept [21][23][26][30] for
the future educational game design. The student's will be
briefed and elaborated on their tasks [6][16][19]. What are the
student's preferences and expectations will be dissected and
documented for the second workshop preparation. The second
educational game design workshop will be more focused on
storyboarding and designing the initial game mock-ups. The
game-play elements theory will be used to enhance the game
experience. The third educational game design workshop will
finalize the storyboarding with collective mock-ups works
from the groups [19][24][15][30][33]. The fourth
PDEduGame Process is Prototyping Educational Game,
whereby the mock-ups and details documentation will be
transformed into live educational game prototype. The
deployment is based on the students preferences in the Initial
Phase of the PDEduGame Process. The final process is the
Prototype Testing. This process will take the same participant
from the same PD workshop to test the prototype. The
recommendations and suggestions will be used to revise the
prototype design. The final re-test will be done prior to the
final stage, which is publishing the game.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on June 11,2021 at 02:32:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

The main process in this PDEduGame is the third process
- the Educational Game Design Workshop. As this phase
provides critical contributions to the overall design outcome, it
is divided into three sub-processes. The activities within these
three sub-processes will be on preferred educational game
design by the students. As it is a critical process, it is further
divided into three design workshops which bear different
events in different days. The division of the design workshop
into three sub-processes will reduce the student's distraction
and stress in designing the educational game. The crucial part
of game design is dependent on the activities constructed by
the researcher so that the students are able to clearly
comprehend the instructions given while contributing their
own ideas. Assistance from a game designer from either the
electronic gaming industry or academic field is required
during the initial and final workshop. Some of the activities in
the second workshop is a continuation from the initial
workshop. This is to ensure the design are compatible for both
the prototype design and deployment. This PDEduGame will
act a roadmap for the practitioner in PD specified for
cooperative game design in primary schools. The activities
done are based on the meta analysis done in the previous
sections discussed, and most of the PD activities in the
PDEduGame Workshops below were done with children as
participants [6][16][17][18][21][23][26][27]. As of such, the
compatibility of this framework with game design in primary
schools are practical.
Fig. 2. PDEduGame Process Conceptual Framework
A documentation such as PDEduGame Process Module will
be developed to act as a practical guide for future research in
designing educational game in primary schools. The final
phase is a revise prototype activities which requires researcher
to do a quick follow-up on participants perspectives on the
finished prototype.
V. C
ONCLUSION
This paper focused on how to identify a suitable PD
Process for primary school educational game design. By using
the systematic literature review method, we were able to
identify 21 relevant papers and books that represented the PD
processes needed. Different study domains employs a variety
of different PD processes stages. After analyzing the processes
and then by using meta analysis, we have identified the main
processes and the detailed stages of each main process. All the
21 relevant papers and books contribute to the attributes that
can be used in the relevant phases. The PDEduGame Process
framework was finalized to be a guide for future researchers in
designing educational games for primary schools in Malaysia.
The outlined process in PDEduGame can be further analyzed
with the game design method to strengthen the PD Game
theory in future research for educational game design in
primary schools.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully thank to the Advance Informatics
School and Faculty of Computer Committee for organizing the
conference paper's workshop. A special thank to the
anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions. Thanks to
Nuraida Hamden for her tremendous work on proofreading
this paper.
References
[1] G. Triantafyllakos, G. Palaigeorgiou, and I. A. Tsoukalas,
“Designing educational software with students through collaborative
design games: The We!Design&Play framework,” Comput. Educ.,
vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 227–242, 2011.
[2] W. Barendregt and M. M. Bekker, “Towards a Framework for
Design Guidelines for Young Children’s Computer Games,”
Entertain. Comput. ICEC 2004, pp. 365–376, 2004.
[3] N. Ahmadi, M. Jazayeri, and M. Landoni, “Design on the Web,”
CDVE 2012, pp. 57–64, 2012.
[4] L. B. Andersen, P. Danholt, K. Halskov, N. B. Hansen, and P.
Lauritsen, “Participation as a matter of concern in participatory
design,” CoDesign, vol. 882, no. October, pp. 1–12, 2015.
[5] M. J. Anzanello, J. Luis, D. Ribeiro, L. Buarque, and D. M. Guimar,
“Participatory ergonomics intervention for improving human and
production outcomes of a Brazilian furniture company,” Int. J. Ind.
Ergon., vol. 49, pp. 97–107, 2015.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on June 11,2021 at 02:32:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

[6] O. S. Iversen, C. Dindler, and E. I. K. Hansen, “Understanding
teenagers’ motivation in participatory design,” Int. J. Child-
Computer Interact., vol. 1, no. 3–4, pp. 82–87, 2013.
[7] H. Ahn, “Design Tools and Three Steps in Participatory Design
Processes: A Proposal for Better Communications among Residents
and Experts, based on a Case,” 6th Conf. Pacific Rim Community
…, 2007.
[8] T. Wei and Y. Li, “Design of Educational Game : A Literature
Review,” Trans. Edutainment IV, pp. 266–276, 2010.
[9] L. Benton and H. Johnson, “Widening participation in technology
design: A review of the involvement of children with special
educational needs and disabilities,” Int. J. Child-Computer Interact.,
vol. 3–4, pp. 23–40, 2015.
[10] M. M. J. Muller and S. Kuhn, “Participatory design,” Commun.
ACM, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 24–28, 1993.
[11] C. Bossen, C. Dindler, and O. S. Iversen, “Evaluation in
Participatory Design : A Literature Survey,” Particip. Des. Conf.,
pp. 151–160, 2016.
[12] M. J. Muller, “Participatory design: The third space in HCI,”
Human-Computer Interact. Handb., vol. 4235, pp. 1051–1068,
2003.
[13] P. Ehn, “Participation in design things,” Conf. Particip. Des., pp.
92–101, 2008.
[14] F. Ke, “Computers & Education An implementation of design-based
learning through creating educational computer games : A case
study on mathematics learning during design and computing,”
Comput. Educ., vol. 73, pp. 26–39, 2014.
[15] E. P. S. Nunes, A. R. Luz, and E. M. Lemos, “Approaches of
Participatory Design in the Design Process of a Serious Game to
Assist in the Learning of Hospitalized Children,” HCI, vol. 1, pp.
406–416, 2016.
[16] J. Baek and K. Lee, “A participatory design approach to information
architecture design for children,” vol. 882, no. November, 2016.
[17] L. G. S. and A. R. Beer, “Children’s Environments Quarterly,”
Child. Environ. Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 15–30, 1989.
[18] E. Brandt, “Designing Exploratory Design Games : A Framework
for Participation in Participatory Design ?,” Proc. ninth Particip.
Des. Conf. 2006, pp. 57–66, 2006.
[19] S. C. Buttigieg and D. Gauci, “Challenges and Opportunities in
Health Care Management,” Challenges Oppor. Heal. Care Manag.,
pp. 47–59, 2015.
[20] M. S. Cárdenas-Claros and P. A. Gruba, “Bridging CALL & HCI:
Input from participatory design,” CALICO J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp.
576–591, 2010.
[21] P. K. Chan, E. a Evensen, and E. B. Sanders, “Game Design for
Personal Health Management : An Emotional and Educational
Perspective,” 6th Des. Emot. Conf., no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2008.
[22] Z. Chen, “Researching the Participatory Design Process for e-Tutor
Training Material Design,” Malaysian J. Distance Educ., vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 9–23, 2009.
[23] A. L. Culén, T. Bratteteig, S. Pandey, and S. Srivastava, “the Child-
To-Child ( C2C ) Method : Participatory Design for , With and By
Children in a Childr En ’ S Museum,” IADIS Int. J. WWW/Internet,
vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 92–113, 2013.
[24] C. Haraldseid, F. Friberg, and K. Aase, “How can students
contribute? A qualitative study of active student involvement in
development of technological learning material for clinical skills
training,” BMC Nurs., vol. 15, no. October, p. 2, 2016.
[25] M. Israel, M. T. Marino, J. D. Basham, and W. Spivak, “Fifth
Graders as App Designers,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 46, no. 1,
pp. 53–80, 2013.
[26] R. Khaled and A. Vasalou, “Bridging serious games and
participatory design,” Int. J. Child-Computer Interact., vol. 2, no. 2,
pp. 93–100, 2014.
[27] M. Lessard and J. Torres, “Children and Design Students as Partners
in Community Design : The Growing Up in Cities Projects in
Montreal and Guadalajara,” Child. Youth Environ., vol. 17, no. 2,
pp. 527–540, 2013.
[28] A. Osman, H. Baharin, M. H. Ismail, and K. Jusoff, “Paper
Prototyping as a Rapid Participatory Design Technique,” Comput.
Inf. Sci., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 53–57, 2009.
[29] M. Teli, A. Di Fiore, and V. D’Andrea, “Computing and the
Common: An Empirical Case of Participatory Design Today,” Proc.
14th Particip. Des. Conf. Full Pap. - Vol. 1, pp. 1–10, 2016.
[30] Z. Yalman and H. G. Yavuzcan, “Co-Design Practice in Industrial
Design Education in Turkey A Participatory Design Project,”
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 197, no. February, pp. 2244–2250,
2015.
[31] M. Yasuoka, M. Nakatani, and T. Ohno, “Towards a culturally
independent participatory design method: Fusing game elements
into the design process,” Proc. - 2013 Int. Conf. Cult. Comput. Cult.
Comput. 2013, pp. 92–97, 2013.
[32] T. R. Jesper Simonsen, Routledge International Handbook of
Participatory Design. Routledge, 2013.
[33] A. N. Douglas Schuler, Participatory Design Principles and
Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, 1993.
[34] Cheng, I., Rodriguez, S., & Basu, A. Multimedia and Games
incorporating Student Modeling for Education †, pp. 91–94,2009.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on June 11,2021 at 02:32:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.