International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) – eISSN: 1865-7923 – Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction Industry https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i02.27405 Khew Kai Ren, Norhazren Izatie Mohd(*), Kherun Nita Ali, Shamsulhadi Bandi, Fuziah Ismail Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia norhazren@utm.my Abstract—Game has been proven an effective approach tool to improve learning and has become a new tool for training delivery. The development of the gamification framework involves integrating design processes which are input, process, and output. The design phase is considered essential to guide the flow of the gamification framework. It offers a safer, interactive, and entertaining learning environment for construction-related workers. This paper aims to report on the approach to design a gamification framework for hazard identification training in Construction using Garris’s Input-Process-Outcome game model as the basis. It focuses on the three main design elements: instructional design, game character- istic, and user characteristic. The study outlines two objectives: (1) to identify the game’s attributes and Gagne’s Nine Events Instructional Methods Design which supports effective learning, and (2) to determine the user’s characteristics of self-directed learning. This study focused on designing the Design phase, which consists of instructional design, game characteristics and user characteristics. Mixed methods were used to extract the attributes and elements of the Design phase. Content analysis was carried out to determine the instructional design model and game attributes, 12 attributes have been identified, and Gagne’s Nine Events Instructional Methods Design can support effective learning. Meanwhile, a questionnaire survey is used to determine the user’s self-directed learning and decision-making style, where 319 construction-related workers responded. The results showed that construction-related workers belong to the independent learn- ers’ category and are inclined to ‘vigilant’ and ‘brooding’ types of decision-mak- ing style. Following the aim of this paper, these findings were incorporated into the design phase of the game framework. Keywords—game, safety training, hazard, framework 1 Introduction Construction workers are constantly exposed to numerous occupational hazards of different kinds and levels of complexity in every project they engage in. Besides that, the working environment on the construction site exposed construction-related workers to the hazard. Therefore, they must have the knowledge and the ability to handle hazards on a construction site. Therefore, there is a need for training modules that can provide the knowledge to construction workers to acquire the skills necessary for occupational iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 113 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i02.27405 mailto:norhazren@utm.my Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… and environmental safety on-site. However, current safety training still lacks hands-on approaches, which is theory-oriented [1]. This is due to the nature of the construc- tion environment itself. Hands-on approaches are irrelevant to be applied for certain types of hazards. Hence, the need for training assisted technology is indispensable. The game approach can offer visual training, an immersive and safer learning environ- ment, hands-on training with scenario-based flexibility, and affordable training deliv- ery [2], [3]. This can be beneficial in training construction-related workers. With this approach, hazard training becomes more flexible in time, cost and health [1], [4], [5]. The approach also enables the construction-related workers to practice their skills using the “trial and error” exercise with their existing knowledge and experience [6]. This is where the games can become the missing link between knowledge and hands-on train- ing. This study has adopted the Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) model as the basis for developing the game framework. 2 Input-process-output model IPO game model was developed by Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002). [7] The aim is to develop a self-directed and self-motivated learner through exciting activities in achieving the outcome. The traditional IPO learning model emphasises single-trial learning, where a learner performs a task over a single trial [8]. Although the current model adopts the input-process-output framework, the critical component is the game cycle triggered by specific game features. The primary purpose of gameplay is not about how users play a game but to draw users into playing a game repeatedly. For instance, a young person engaged in a com- puter game may often have to be told to turn off the game or stop playing. Besides that, the game cycle can be viewed as repeating steps, which indicates that the gameplay involves repeated judgement-behaviour-feedback loops. The gameplay cycle can lead to user judgements or reactions such as increased interest, enjoyment, involvement, or confidence. These reactions lead to more remarkable persistence or intensity of effort. In addition, these behaviours result in system feedback on performance in the game context [9]–[11]. Thus, the game cycle defines a computer gameplay characteristic that engages users in repetitive play and continually returns to the game activity. It is this feature of computer gameplay that train professionals to capture and incorpo- rate instructional applications. Figure 1 shows the composition of the Input-Process- Outcome framework. Fig. 1. Input-process-outcome model (Garris et al. 2002) 114 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… 3 Methodology This research was conducted using two research techniques which are content analysis and a survey. In the first phase of the study, content analysis was conducted to determine the suitability of Gagne’s Instruction design method in balancing the design of the profound game framework. Besides that, these methods also fulfil the necessity to determine and categorise existing serious game attributes according to educational perspectives. For this study’s first objective, the deductive content analysis study was carried out to check the suitability of Gagne’s nine instructional events to be incorpo- rated into the serious game framework. The keywords and the benefit from both were generated in the analysis of the study’s content. Besides that, attributes of the serious game were ascertained through the review of previous studies. These attributes needed to be categorised according to the educational view as a feature in the serious game framework. Subsequently, the content analysis approach was administered to convey the implicit messages from the analysis. In the second objective, a survey approach was adopted. A set of questionnaires was designed and used to determine the level of self-directed learning and decision- making style among construction-related workers. This data collection aims to understand construction-related workers capability in planning and self-directness learning. Three hundred and nineteen (319) participants have taken part in this sur- vey, fifty-two (52) respondents participated in the online survey, and the rest were participating during training organised by NIOSH Johor. 4 Design phase component for gamification framework In designing the design phase, three main elements must be included: (1) game attributes, (2) user characteristics, and (3) instructional learning design. Each element included in the design phase will cause a change in the process and the outcome. Hence, the design phase is essential to guide the flow of the gamification framework. 4.1 Instructional content One of the essential elements in the design phase is the instructional learning design. This element becomes the essence of structuring the cycle of learning in the game framework. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted on five instruc- tional design models: ADDIE, Hanaffin and Peck, ASSURE, The Dick and Carey (DC) model, and Gagne’s nine events. The target group for this research is the adult and the behaviour taken by construction-related workers in handling hazards on con- struction sites. According to Kruse, (2008), [12] Gagné’s nine events of instruction model focus on the outcomes or behaviours from training. Besides, this model has contributed significantly to instructional technology, especially in designing web-based instruction [13]. Hence, Gagne’s nine instructional events are considered compati- ble with adult behaviours and adult learning styles (Kruse 2008; Jono et al., 2012; Gökdemir et al., 2013). iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 115 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… Ference & Vockell (1994) [14] agreed that Gagne’s events of instruction are compat- ible with adult learners characteristics. They have developed instructional software for an adult using Gagne’s events of instruction. Adult learners are mature and responsible learners who only want to learn what they want to know. They already have a mindset to learn something that can give benefit them. This can be supported by Gagne’s nine instructional instruction event number one, which is gaining attention and informing learners of the objectives. The third instruction is to stimulate recall of prior learn- ing. It is related to the cumulative knowledge and experience that have been collected previously by the adult learner. Table 1. Summary of merging between the adult characteristic and Gagne’s event of instruction N ee d to K no w Se lf -D ir ec te d E xp er ie nc e R ea dy to L ea rn P ro bl em -S ol vi ng In te rn al M ot iv at io n Gagne’s nine events of instruction Adult learning criteria Gaining Attention x Inform learners of the objectives x Stimulating recall of prior learning x x Present the stimulus x Provide learner guidance x Elicit student performance Provide feedback Assess Performance x Enhance retention and transfer x For the rest of Gagne’s nine event instructions, events are related to the cycle of the learning process. This entire event provides the instructor with guidance for learning. Therefore, they need to keep up the trainee’s both internal and external motivation. Giving motivation is the essential problem-solving skill that will ensure the continuity of the learning cycle. Therefore, according to Knowles (1980), Merriam (2010) and Dzeng & Wang (2017), [15–17] the adult learner have a high motivation to learn. They are self-direct learners who only need guidance, and they also seek problem-based learning, not direct learning. As a result, the merging between the adult characteris- tic and Gagne’s events of instruction is a good balance. Table 1 summarises how the characteristics of adult learners merge with Gagne’s events of instruction. Hence, deductive content analysis has been carried out to determine whether Gagne’s instructional design methods are suitable instructional methods for this frame- work. Hence, fourteen documents which consist of articles and a technical report, were analysed. These articles were scrutinised and grouped based on the pre-determined codes. As a result, four principal codes have been determined, i.e. [1] target group, 116 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… [2] application, [3] purpose and [4] outcome. Table 2 shows the finding of deductive content analysis for Gagne’s Instructional design. Table 2. Content analysis Gagne’s instructional design Key Point Journal and Publication Frequency 1 Target group a School learning [18], [19], [20] and [21] 4 b Higher learning [18], [22], [23], [24], [25], [21] and [26] 7 c Adult learning [14], [27], [28], [29] and [30] 5 2 Application a Learning/Training [20], [21], [28] and [30] 4 b Online learning—website [27], [22], [25] and [26] 4 c Game [18], [29], [31] and [19] 4 d Multimedia [24] 1 e Learning software [14], [23] 2 3 Focus a User characters [14], [28], [22], [24], [20] and [21] 6 b Provide feedback [14], [27], [28], [22], [29], [31], [23], [24], [25], [20], [21] and [30] 12 c Motivation [14], [18], [22], [31], [19] and [26] 6 d Entertainment [18], [22], [31], [23] and [19] 5 4 Outcome a Transfer skills—motor skills [14], [20], [24], [20] and [30] 5 b Transfer knowledge [14], [18], [22], [27], [29], [31], [23], [24], [25], [19], [26] and [30] 12 c Behaviour/attitudes [28], [22], [29] and [21] 4 This instructional design method will improve the learning instruction with a system- atic approach for problem-solving, feedback characteristics and improve instructional design and development management by monitoring/controlling function. Besides that, instructional development is a systematic process that focuses on improving learning and instruction effectiveness in various educational environments. All the nine events of instructions will guide the learning process in the game training module. The learning cycle starts by gaining attention from the learner after informing them about the study’s objectives and, next, recalling the prior learning by extract- ing the existing knowledge. After that, activities or learning will begin. During this stage, learning guidance, eliciting performance, and providing feedback were enclosed together. Finally, learning performance will be assessed at the end of the learning cycle to enhance retention and transfer knowledge and skills. The findings of this study acknowledge that this instructional design method can be applied to the various level of learners such as school learners, higher learners and adult learners. Besides that, it can also be implemented in various learning approaches conventional learning, online learning, game, multimedia, and learning software [32]. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 117 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… This flexibility of the instructional will be able to generate a diverse approach in training delivery. Furthermore, Gagne’s nine events instructional design methods will allow the designer to design a training module according to the purpose of the study. For exam- ple, it can enhance learners’ motivation, provide feedback to the learner, change user characteristics or behaviours, and entertainment [20]. This study is designed to train hazard identification and decision-making skills in handling hazards on the construc- tion site. What is more that, this instructional design method also offers learning outcomes according to the learning goal. Transferring skills, transferring knowledge, and chang- ing attitudes or behaviours is the most expected learning outcome generated from this instructional [33]. Consequently, it is expected that this framework will enhance the construction-related worker’s ability to identify the hazard and take wise action in han- dling hazards on the construction site. Besides that, it will also lift their motivation to keep learning and boost their self-confidence in facing hazards on the construction site. For this reason, Gagne’s nine events instructional design method was adopted to design the game framework for hazard identification. 4.2 Game characteristics While the instructional design is to guide the cycle of the learning process, the game attributes are the coordinator to deliver the learning process effectively. Hence, the second element was to determine the game attributes to support the practical game training module. From the systematic literature studies, it has been found that twen- ty-six game attributes are commonly used in game development (refer to Table 2). However, in their study, Bedwell et al. (2012) indicated that Wilson et al. (2009) new attributes are a fraction of Malone characteristics. Hence, those attributes have been modified according to Malone characteristics, reducing game attributes into only nine- teen. The affected attributes are the optimal level of difficulty (Wilson: adaption), per- formance feedback (Wilson: assessment), challenge (Wilson: Conflict) and control (Wilson: interaction equipment/inter-personal/social). However, this framework aims to train users in making safer decision-making in handling hazards on the construction site. Thus, these attributes need to be categorised according to educational perspectives. Therefore, to create a practical training module, all these game attributes complement learning theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism and experiential learning). The study conducted by Mohd, Ali, Faiz, et al., (2019) and Yusoff, Crowder, & Gilbert (2010a) [34–35] indicated twelve game attributes determined to support Gagne’s instructional design in designing a practical 118 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… game framework. Table 3 and Table 4 show the game attributes and the extraction of game attributes from each learning theory. There are three game attributes derived from behaviours theory, which focuses on improving user behaviour, especially in designing the aim and activity. From this theory, three main attributes are Interaction, Reward, and Practice and Drill. Based on the concept behind this theory, all these attributes can enhance skills and motivate the user to keep playing the game. For example, the interaction attribute role ensures the user’s ability to adapt and manipulate elements that allow game changes in response to learner actions. Besides, it will ensure that each game level will match the learner’s skills level, especially in attaining challenges with possible solutions. The second attribute is practice and drill, which provides repetition and constant rehearsal during the learning process. This attribute enables the user to reinforce memory and support with rewards elements to motivate the learning process. The second theory, which Cognitivism theory, is related to how to deliver the learning process. There are four attributes related to this theory: incremental learning, linearity, attention span, and transfer of learning skills. All these attributes act as guidance in designing the learning process. For example, designing the learning plot should start from the novice to the master level and specific rules and goals. Besides that, it also will direct the flow of knowledge delivery, especially in the arrangement of learning content. Well, design learning content enables the user to focus throughout the whole game learning process. After plot and learning content has been appropriately designed, the Constructivism theory will help users construct knowledge from their experiences. Hence, scaffolding attributes will encourage learners in constructing knowledge using the trial-and-error approach. This approach can create re-examine and re-assess learning approach, which allows them to learn through experience. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 119 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… Ta bl e 3. G am e at tr ib ut es 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Curiosity Challenge Control Level of Player Control Task Nature Role of the Player Rules Goals Context Motivation Conflict Adaptation Assessment Fantasy Suprises Interaction (Equipment) Interaction (Interpersonal) Interaction (Social) Language/Communication Location Mystery Progress Sensory Stimuli Representation Safety Suprises [3 6] x x x [3 7] x x x [3 8] x x x [3 9] x x [4 0] x x x x x x [4 1] x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x [4 2] x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x [9 ] x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x [4 3] x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x [4 4] x x x x x x x x x x 120 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… Table 4. Game attributes based on learning theory [34], [45] Theory Attributes Description Behaviourism Interaction Engagement in learning Reward Incentives for the learner Practice and drill Learning activities and exercises within the game Cognitivism Incremental learning The learning material is delivered in an incremental way Linearity Learning is arranged sequentially Attention span Duration for learning concentration Transfer of learnt Skilled Applying Skills to new learning based on previous learning Constructivism Scaffolding Support and help during the learning Learner control Self-learning and active learning based on learner pace Experiential Learning Accommodating the learner’s style Learning process to suit learner preferences Scenario-based learning Learning where the learner can relate what is being learnt within the game to the outside world. Intermittent feedback Just-in-time feedback for learning Similar to constructivism theory, experiential learning theory also proposes learning through experience but needs to accommodate the learner’s style, using scenario-based learning and providing intermittent feedback. Accommodating the learner’s style attri- bute will enrich the game design based on user preferences, incorporated with the learn- ing environment designed similar to the real-life situation. This attribute will adequate users to experience a similar feeling when dealing with the actual situation in the natural working environment. Besides that, the user also will get prompt feedback by checking their progress of learning through the intermittent feedback attributes. The learning activities can be designed according to Gagne’s instructional design guideline from the game attributes. Table 5 shows the learning activities extracted from Gagne’s nine events instructional integration with the game attributes in designing the gamification framework. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 121 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… Table 5. The game attributes are based on learning theory [34], [45] Game Attributes (Based on Educational Perspective) Learning Activities Game Get learner’s attention Scenario-based learning Incremental learning Inform learner of the learning outcome Linearity Extract some information the learner already knows Learner control Game activity and lesson to be learnt Accommodating the learner’s style Attention span Help and support learners. Scaffolding Ask the learner to do what has been taught by acting within the game. Interaction Transfer of learnt skills Inform learner of his performance Intermittent feedback Evaluate the learner on his knowledge of the subject matter. Reward Assist learners in remembering and applying new skills. Practice and drill 4.3 User characteristic Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) in Figure 1 shows only two essential elements in the design phase: the instructional design and the game attributes. However, to design a practical training module that fulfils the user’s needs and requirements, the characteris- tic user element also needs to be infused into the Design phase. Hence, the purpose of the third element is to determine the user’s characteristics in understanding their ability in self-directed learning and decision-making styles. Both elements will be mixed to ensure the user can learn by themselves and make a safer decision in handling hazards in the gaming environment. According to Candy & Brookfield (1991), [46] individuals who enjoyed self-directed learning have high moral, emotional, and intellectual autonomy. They further asserted that an individual ready to learn by himself is a context-free person. This individual already masters technical skills and consists of three major components: identifying learning purposes, locating learning resources, and managing learning endeavours. Thus, to determine the capability and ability among construction-related workers regarding the level of self-directed learning, five broad areas (awareness, learning strategies, learning activities, evaluation and interpersonal skills) were adopted [47]. From the findings, the construction-related workers have a high level of self-directed learning, which implies that all workers can learn by themselves. Besides that, they also have the know-how skills to take the initiative to determine their learning needs, formulate learning goals, and choose resources for learning. Moreover, using existing experience, they can decide on suitable learning strategies and assess the learning out- come according to their needs. These findings show the construction-related workers can choose their own need of learning and learn by themselves. 122 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… The second element is to determine the decision-making style among the construction-related worker. This is because the decisions taken are significantly differ- ent. However, many experts have proven that every individual has the same tendency to solve problems [48]. Since the focus of this study is to understand the construc- tion-related worker’s decision-making style, eight styles were adopted from Leykin and DeRubeis (2010) study [49]. The findings indicate that five groups are skill workers, supervisors, Consultants, the Management Team, and Trainees vigilant in making deci- sions. Meanwhile, general workers and semi-skill workers are categorised under the brooding style for making a decision. Unexpected findings have given a new perspective on construction-related workers, General Worker in particular. General workers are categorised as brooding style, defined as a thinker who is always worried about making a decision. This style means that they are aware of their capability and responsibility. However, they are always worried about making a decision [50]. Hence, this finding is surprisingly different from their role on the site. Usually, at the construction site, they are followers who take orders from the top management. Therefore, they are not required in making a big deci- sion and have a limited scope of work [50]. Nevertheless, ironically, this group is the riskiest group involved in accidents on construction sites. Meanwhile, skills workers, supervisors, consultants, management teams, and safety trainees are more vigilant in deciding. This group are independent people who have insights and are very careful in protecting their interests. Nevertheless, they are loyal and always alert to criticism (Mohd et al., 2019). However, both styles need to be improved and changed because time is the essence in handling hazards. Therefore, the construction-related workers must take immediate action to prevent accident occur- rences on the construction site. 5 Conclusion The Design phase of a game framework is essential in understanding the construction-related worker’s self-directed learning and decision-making styles. There are three main elements in the Design phase, i.e. instructional design, game character- istic and user characteristic. The study identified 12 attributes and verified Gagne’s nine events instructional methods design to support effective learning. As for user charac- teristics, the construction-related workers belong to the independent learners’ category and are inclined to ‘vigilant’ and ‘brooding’ types of decision-making style. Figure 2 below shows the integration between all three elements in the Design phase: Gagne’s nine events Instructional Method design, the game attributes, and user characteristics. This entire element will become the guideline in designing the game training module for hazard identification. Hence, it is essential to integrate all the elements in designing the design phases of the game. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 123 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… Fig. 2. Input in the game framework 6 Acknowledgement This article is part of ongoing research titled “Gamification Framework as a Train- ing Approach to Enhance Construction Workers Skills, Safety and Wellness”, funded under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme—FRGS 2018/2019 by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia. 7 References [1] N. I. Mohd and K. N. Ali, “Addressing the Needs of Gaming Approach in Hazard Identifi- cation Training,” in 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, 2014, pp. 212–215. https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.48 [2] J. Díaz-Ramírez, “Gamification in Engineering Education—An Empirical Assessment on Learning and Game Performance,” Heliyon, vol. 6, no. 9, p. e04972, 2020. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04972 [3] C. Crawford, “Serious Games: Improving Public Policy Subjectivity and Simulation,” Pennsylvania Avenu, Washington, DC, 2003. [4] C. Girard, J. Ecalle, A. Magnan, and A. Magnant, “Serious Games as New Educational Tools: How Effective are They? A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 29, no. 3, p. 12, Jun. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x [5] J. Wall and V. Ahmed, “Use of a Simulation Game in Delivering Blended Lifelong Learning in the Construction Industry—Opportunities and Challenges,” Comput. Educ., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1383–1393, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.012 124 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04972 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.012 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… [6] A. Uysal, “Commitment to Multiplayer Online Games: An Investment Model Approach,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 61, pp. 357–363, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2016.03.028 [7] R. Garris, R. Ahlers, and J. E. Driskell, “Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practice Model,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 441–467, 2002. https://doi. org/10.1177/1046878102238607 [8] R. Garris and R. Ahlers, “A Research and Practice Model,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 441–467, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607 [9] W. L. Bedwell, D. Pavlas, K. Heyne, E. H. Lazzara, and E. Salas, “Toward a Taxonomy Linking Game Attributes to Learning: An Empirical Study,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 729–760, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878112439444 [10] M. Sailer, J. U. Hense, S. K. Mayr, and H. Mandl, “Computers in Human Behavior How Gamification Motivates: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Specific Game Design Elements on Psychological Need Satisfaction,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 69, pp. 371– 380, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033 [11] G. Petri and C. G. von Wangenheim, “How Games for Computing Education are Evaluated? A Systematic Literature Review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 107, pp. 68–90, 2017. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.004 [12] K. Kruse, “Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction,” Star. pp. 2–5, 2008. [13] B. H. Thomas, “A Survey of Visual, Mixed, and Augmented Reality Gaming,” Comput. Entertain., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–33, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1145/2381876.2381879 [14] P. Ference and E. Vockell, “Adult Learning Characteristics and Effective Software Instruc- tion,” Educ. Technol. Brook …, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 25–31, 1994. [15] M. S. Knowles, “The Modern Practice of Adult Education, from Pedagogy to Andragogy What is Andragogy ?,” in The Modern Practice Of Adult Education, From Pedagogy to Andragogy What Is Andragogy?, Revised an., Cambridge Adult Education, 1980, pp. 40–59. [16] S. B. Merriam, “Adult Education—Adult Learning, Instruction and Program Planning,” Adult Learn., pp. 12–17, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00003-8 [17] R.-J. Dzeng and P.-R. Wang, “C-Negotiation Game: An Educational Game Model for Con- struction Procurement and Negotiation,” Autom. Constr., vol. 75, pp. 10–21, 2017. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.010 [18] K. Amr, “Constructing Knowledge through Games: Essential Factors for an Effective Edu- cational Game,” World Conf. Educ. Multimedia, Hypermedia Telecommun. 2007, vol. 2007, no. 1, pp. 1601–1609, 2001. [19] J. L. Tan, D. H. L. Goh, R. P. Ang, and V. S. Huan, “Participatory Evaluation of an Educa- tional Game for Social Skills Acquisition,” Comput. Educ., vol. 64, pp. 70–80, 2013. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.006 [20] İ. Çalışkan, “A Case Study about Using Instructional Design Models in Science Educa- tion,” Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 116, pp. 394–396, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.01.228 [21] M. D. Ilie, “An Adaption of Gagne’s Instructional Model to Increase the Teaching Effective- ness in the Classroom: The Impact in Romanian Universities,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 767–794, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9353-6 [22] B. Teoh and T. Neo, “Interactive Multimedia Learning: Students’ Attitudes and Learning Impact in an Animation Course,” Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 28–37, 2007. [23] L. R. Gano, “Fitting Technology to the Mathematics Pedagogy: Its Effect on Students’ Academic Achievement,” J. Coll. Teach. Learn., vol. 8, no. 11, p. 29, 2011. https://doi. org/10.19030/tlc.v8i11.6505 iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.028 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878112439444 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.004 https://doi.org/10.1145/2381876.2381879 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00003-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.228 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.228 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9353-6 https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i11.6505 https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i11.6505 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… [24] M. N. H. H. Jono, A. A. Aziz, M. Ibrahim, and N. M. Noh, “Instructional Design and Learn- ing Theory on the Development of C++ Programming Multimedia Content,” Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 67, no. 0, pp. 335–344, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.336 [25] A. Gökdemir, Ö. Akdemir, and Ö. F. Vural, “Using Gagne’s Nine Events in Learning Man- agement Systems,” Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 106, pp. 3268–3272, 2013. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.376 [26] F.-T. Leow and M. Neo, “Redesigning for Collaborative Learning Environment: Study on Students’ Perception and Interaction in Web 2.0 Tools,” Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 176, pp. 186–193, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.460 [27] P. A. Hannon et al., “Gagne and Laurillard’s Models of Instruction Applied to Distance Edu- cation: A Theoretically Driven Evaluation of an Online Curriculum in Public Health,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 140–154, 2002. https://doi.org/10.19173/ irrodl.v3i2.105 [28] M. B. Kinzie, “Instructional Design Strategies for Health Behavior Change,” Patient Educ. Couns., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 3–15, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.005 [29] A. Subaih, S. Maddock, and D. Romano, “Developing a Serious Game for Police Training,” Handb. Res. Eff. Electron. Gaming Educ., pp. 451–477, 2009. https://doi.org/10.4018/978- 1-59904-808-6.ch026 [30] L. Cheung, “Using an Instructional Design Model to Teach Medical Procedures,” Med. Sci. Educ., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 175–180, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0228-9 [31] A. Hirumi, B. Appelman, L. Rieber, and R. Van Eck, “Game Design as a Collaborative Process,” TechTrends, vol. 54, no. 5, 2010. [32] R. R. Bhavani, “A Novel Approach for Training Crane Operators,” pp. 10–13, 2016. [33] M. G. Brown, “Blended Instructional Practice: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Instructors’ Adoption and Use of Online Tools in Face-to-Face Teaching,” Internet High. Educ., vol. 31, pp. 1–10, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001 [34] N. I. Mohd, K. N. Ali, A. Faiz, A. Ahmad, S. Shafiei, and J. Bahru, “Serious Game Attributes for the Construction of a Hazard Identification Framework,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 12, no. 7, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i7.9647 [35] A. Yusoff, R. Crowder, and L. Gilbert, “Validation of Serious Games Attributes using the Technology Acceptance Model,” 2nd Int. Conf. Games Virtual Worlds Serious Appl. VS-GAMES 2010, pp. 45–51, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.7 [36] T. W. Malone, “Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Instruction Motivating,” Cogn. Sci., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 333–369, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2 [37] M. E. Gredler, “Educational Games and Simulations: A technology in Search a (research) Paradigm,” in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996, pp. 521–540. [38] H. Leemkuil, T. De Jong, and S. Ootes, “Review of Educational Use of Games and Simula- tions,” 2000. [39] J. Juul, “The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness,” Proc. Lev. Up Digit. Games Res. Conf., pp. 30–45, 2002. [40] R. Garris, R. Ahlers, and J. E. J. Driskell, “Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practice Model,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 441–467, Dec. 2002. https://doi. org/10.1177/1046878102238607 [41] K. A. Wilson et al., “Relationships between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals,” Simul. Gaming, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 217–266, 2009. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321866 [42] D. Pavlas, W. Bedwell, S. R. Wooten, K. Heyne, and E. Salas, “Investigating the Attri- butes in Serious Games that Contribute to Learning,” Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. Proc., vol. 53, no. 27, pp. 1999–2003, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905302705 126 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.336 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.376 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.376 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.460 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i2.105 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i2.105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.005 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch026 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch026 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0228-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i7.9647 https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.7 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321866 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321866 https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905302705 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… [43] S. Heintz and E. L. Law, “Game Elements-Attributes Model: a First Step towards a Struc- tured Comparison of Educational Games,” DiGRA 2015 Divers. Play, 2015. [44] S. L. Marlow, E. Salas, L. B. Landon, and B. Presnell, “Eliciting Teamwork with Game Attributes: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 55, pp. 413–423, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.028 [45] A. Yusoff, R. Crowder, and L. Gilbert, “Validation of Serious Games Attributes using the Technology Acceptance Model,” in 2nd International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, VS-GAMES 2010, 2010, pp. 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/ VS-GAMES.2010.7 [46] P. Candy and S. Brookfield, “Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice,” p. 567, 1991. [47] R. T. Owen, “Self-Directed Learning in Adulthood: A Literature Review,” p. 57, 2002. [48] B. L. Johnson, Jr., and S. D. Kruse, “Introduction: Leadership, Decision Making, and Under- explored Issues in Decision Making,” in Decision Making for Educational Leaders: Under- examined Dimensions and Issues, New York: State University of New York Press, Albany, 2012, pp. 3–22. [49] Y. Leykin and R. J. DeRubeis, “Decision-Making Styles and Depressive Symptomatology: Development of the Decision Styles Questionnaire,” Judgm. Decis. Mak., vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 506–515, 2010. [50] N. I. Mohd, K. N. Ali, S. S. Ebrahimi, and A. F. Azizi, “Understanding the Level of Self- Directed Learning and Decision-Making Style of Construction-Related Workers,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 44–53, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim. v13i07.10749 8 Authors Khew Kai Ren is a 1st Year postgraduate student from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. He is currently pursuing his PhD under the department of Quantity Survey- ing, Faculty of Built Environment and Surveying. Prior to this, he received his bache- lor’s degree in Quantity Surveying from UTM. His primary research interests are in the field of Gamification, and Construction related fields. Norhazren Izatie Mohd is a senior lecturer at Quantity Surveying Department, Faculty of Built Environment in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. She is the member of Royal Institution Surveyor Malaysia (RISM) and Building Information Modelling Research Group (BIMRG). Her research interests are gamification, destructive technol- ogy, construction safety, and adult training. Kherun Nita Ali is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. She is the Head of Building Information Center for Digital Innovations and Solutions (BIMCDIS), Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru. Having been also the Head of BIM Research Group in UTM, she is currently active in researches and publications related to Building Infor- mation Modelling (BIM). Her recent works with her research team are Enhancing Cost Planning and Control through 5D BIM, BIM Deployment Plan for QS Firms, Facilities Management (7D) BIM, Managing Safety through BIM and GIS BIM. Other research works also include 4.0 IR in higher education and Mobile Augmented Reality for teach- ing and learning Quantity Surveying courses. She is a member of Royal Institutions of Surveyors Malaysia (RISM) BIM Technical Committee since its establishment in 2011. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 02, 2022 127 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.028 https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.7 https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.7 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i07.10749 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i07.10749 Paper—Design Phase of Gamification Framework for Hazard Identification Training in Construction… Shamsulhadi Bandi is a senior lecturer at Quantity Surveying Department, Faculty of Built Environment in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. He is the member of Royal Institution Surveyor Malaysia (RISM) and Building Information Modelling Research Group (BIMRG). His research interests are gamification, destructive technology, quantification, economic and quantity surveying practices. Fuziah Ismail is a senior lecturer at Quantity Surveying Department, Faculty of Built Environment in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. She is the member of Royal Insti- tution Surveyor Malaysia (RISM) and Building Information Modelling Research Group (BIMRG). Her research interests are gamification, destructive technology, contruction technology, and sustainability. Article submitted 2021-10-07. Resubmitted 2021-11-21. Final acceptance 2021-11-25. Final version published as submitted by the authors. 128 http://www.i-jim.org