Problem-based learning (PBL) is currently being emphasised in NUS teaching in order to have students apply what they learn in a practical situation. In the Faculty of Law, PBL has always been part of the teaching process. Students in the various law subjects are usually provided with hypotheticals (what other Faculties may refer to as case studies) as tutorial problems. They are then asked to analyse the factual situation, to discuss the rights of the various parties involved and to advise them.

PBL was taken one step further in the Law Faculty’s Cross Faculty Module, “Introduction to Commercial Law”, that covered contract law and company law. The problem with traditional PBL as used in most law schools is that the hypotheticals often seem distant and students find it hard to relate to the facts.

A new approach to teaching the module—the Contract Game—was introduced. The aim of this game was to get the students actively involved in making their own contracts and bearing the consequences of making poor contracts. Students were divided into teams and asked to negotiate with each other. The setting was the early 1800s when South East Asia was being colonised by the East India Company. Some of the teams were designated as ship-owning teams while other teams were cargo-owning teams. In order for the teams to make money, they would have to co-operate with each other so that cargo could be shipped to various parts of Asia. A small prize of Borders book vouchers was offered to the winning team. Teams would be judged on the profit they made as well as how well they learnt the lessons taught.

The evening lessons went on as normal, but usually ended slightly earlier to allow students to make contracts with each other. However, many teams did not need this extra time to deal with each other. Some teams commented that they got carried away with the game and were spending hours discussing deals first with their team-mates by handphone and the Internet, and then negotiating with other teams.

Apart from the main aim of teaching them skills in relation to contract law, students reported that they learnt a wide variety of skills from the exercise (e.g. teamwork and negotiation skills). They learnt how to read contracts carefully, how to draft them, and how to define terms and provide for unforeseen contingencies. The cargo owning and ship owning teams discovered that they could enter into a wide variety of arrangements. For example, some ship owners merely purchased cargo, some borrowed money from other teams in order to meet expenses, some entered into joint ventures with cargo owners with profits being shared in a variety of ways. To reward students who actively participated, one of the examination questions required them to either discuss what they had learnt from the Contract Game or to discuss its bad and good aspects.

The winning team won $90 worth of Borders vouchers donated by myself. They wrote an excellent report on why they deserved to win the game. Besides being the most profitable team, all its members also participated actively and played roles that showed a good division of labour in the team (e.g. one member in the team played the accountant to keep track of income and expenditure while another was in charge of market and competitor intelligence to keep track of what other teams were doing).

All in all, most of the students found the exercise extremely interesting and useful. However, a few commented that there were some downsides (e.g. some teams were not as active as the others, and some felt that the game dragged on for too long).

Suggestions and comments

Without wishing to sound as if I know how teaching in other law subjects and faculties can be best conducted, I would like to suggest how games could be used to teach a wide variety of subjects in the following ways:

• Banking law
  
  Some students could assume the role of bankers while others play the role of borrowers. The game could be carried out with a simple economic model attached so that bankers will have to juggle default protection against customer acquisition, while borrowers would like to provide as little collateral as possible.
  
  
• Building and construction subjects
  
  Students could be divided into teams representing the government planning authorities, developers, financiers and contractors.
  
  
• Political science subjects
  
  Students could be divided into teams representing different countries, with the power to make treaties with each other including free trade agreements, mutual defence treaties or even military co-operation treaties to attack a common enemy!

Gaming is a good way to teach because it tries to simulate a realistic environment where students can learn and practice their skills. Also, games suggest fun, while studies may imply tedium and boredom. Combining both helps to keep teaching exciting and lively.

However, gaming is not without its drawbacks from the teaching perspective. Gaming often puts students in direct competition with each other (i.e. interaction is required). Bitter feelings can sometimes be generated when students feel that others have not played fair or have deceived them. Running a game also requires a substantial amount of work in designing the game and administering it (feeding information to the students, recording their actions, and keeping track of the game situation). It is often not possible to introduce gaming situations strictly at the same pace as the subject is taught. Thus students may have to deal with problems for which they have not been taught the solution. Some students may be unhappy with such a situation.

Finally, in games, random events, which may affect different teams in different ways, are often introduced. For example, if storms occur, some teams might lose their ships. Students may claim that this is not fair, but “Welcome to the real world!” would be my reply. Bearing this possible inequality in mind, lecturers should consider how performance during gaming would affect the students’ final grade for the subject.