Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Community Medicine USM‑KLE International Medical Programme, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Game‑based education is fast becoming an innovative teaching approach in the field
of medical education. Traditional review sessions (tutorials) are mainly focused on instructor‑based
learning and they help to review concepts previously taught in the lecture class. The primary objective
was to evaluate the cognitive learning of students in game based learning (GBL) as compared to the
conventional review sessions. The secondary objectives were to assess the perception and feedback
of students regarding GBL and conventional review sessions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interventional GBL study was designed for 2nd year MBBS
students. The enrolled students were randomly assigned to either tutorial (Group A) or GBL (Group
B), and informed consent was obtained. Group B students were further divided into smaller groups,
and for Group A, the traditional tutorial method was followed. For both the groups, a multiple choice
question (MCQ) pre‑test and post‑test was conducted on the selected topics. A total of 15 MCQs with
gradually increasing difficulty were used in the GBL. For each group of students, one student would
be on hot seat by answering the questions and then continued the game. Lifelines were provided.
RESULTS: From the pretest and posttest scores, students performed better in Group B (39.53%)
than Group A (18.43%) with respect to the knowledge score, and the difference was statistically
significant. Students’ perception and feedback regarding GBL were very enthusiastic and promising
than the tutorial group. Largely, students commented that GBL was unique, active participation, fun,
and novel learning style.
CONCLUSIONS: GBL is a student‑centered learning and showed more effective than the traditional
tutorials in understanding the topic and was more enjoyable by students.
Keywords
evaluation. In: Bastable S, editor. Nurse as Educator: Principles
of Teaching and Learning. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 1997.
p. 261‑86.
2. de Dombal FT, Woods P, Hartley JR. Digoxin: A computer‑based
diagnostic game. Br J Surg 1969;56:625‑6.
3. HowardMG, CollinsHL, DiCarloSE. “Survivor” torches “Who Wants to
Be a Physician?” in the educational games ratings war. Adv Physiol
Educ 2002;26:30‑6.
4. MoyJR, RodenbaughDW, CollinsHL, DiCarloSE. Who wants to be a
physician? An educational tool for reviewing pulmonary physiology.
Adv Physiol Educ 2000;24:30‑7.
5. PedersenS, LiuM. Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation
of a student‑centered learning environment. Educ Technol Res Dev
2003;51:57‑76.
6. SchmitzBD, MacLeanSL, ShidlerHM. An emergency pursuit game:
A method for teaching emergency decision‑making skills. J Contin
Educ Nurs 1991;22:152‑8.
7. BoekerM, AndelP, VachW, FrankenschmidtA. Game‑based e‑learning
is more effective than a conventional instructional method:
Arandomized controlled trial with third‑year medical students. PLoS
One 2013;8:e82328.
8. Roubidoux MA, Chapman CM, Piontek ME. Development and
evaluation of an interactive Web‑based breast imaging game for
medical students. Acad Radiol 2002;9:1169‑78.
9. Hess J, Shrum K. The new media and the acceleration of medical
education. On the Horizon 2011;19:331‑40.
10. Telner D, Bujas‑Bobanovic M, Chan D, Chester B, Marlow B,
MeuserJ, et al. Game‑based versus traditional case‑based learning:
Comparing effectiveness in stroke continuing medical education.
Can Fam Physician 2010;56:e345‑51.
11. Elliott DD. Promoting critical thinking in the classroom. Nurse
Educ 1996;21:49‑52.
12. Alfarah Z, Schünemann HJ, Akl EA. Educational games in
geriatric medicine education: A systematic review. BMC Geriatr
2010;10:19.
13. Blakely G, Skirton H, Cooper S, Allum P, Nelmes P. Use of
educational games in the health professions: A mixed‐methods
study of educators’ perspectives in the UK. Nurs Health Sci
2010;12:27‑32.
14. Rondon S, Sassi FC, de Andrade CR. Computer game‑based and
traditional learning method: a comparison regarding students’
knowledge retention. BMC Med Educ 2013;13:30.
15. Kerfoot BP, Baker H, Pangaro L, Agarwal K, Taffet G,
Mechaber AJ, et al. An online spaced‑education game to teach
and assess medical students: A multi‑institutional prospective
trial. Acad Med 2012;87:1443‑9.
16. Lin CC, Li YC, Bai YM, Chen JY, Hsu CY Wang CH, et al. The
evaluation of game‑based e‑learning for medical education:
A preliminary survey. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005;2005:1032.
17. Tietze KJ. A bingo game motivates students to interact with course
material. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:79.
18. Hudson JN, Bristow DR. Formative assessment can be fun as well
as educational. Adv Physiol Educ 2006;30:33‑7.
19. O’Leary S, Diepenhorst L, Churley‑Strom R, Magrane D.
Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core
curriculum. Am J ObstetGynecol 2005;193:1848‑51.
20. Akl EA, Pretorius RW, Sackett K, Erdley WS, Bhoopathi PS,
Alfarah Z, Schünemann HJ. The effect of educational games on
medical students’ learning outcomes: A systematic review: BEME
Guide No 14. Med Teach 2010;32:16‑27.
21. Howarth‑Hockey G, Stride P. Can medical education be fun as
well as educational? BMJ 2002;325:1453‑4.
22. Patel J. Using game format in small group classes for
pharmacotherapeutics case studies. Am J Pharm Educ 2008;72:21.
23. Roche VF, Alsharif NZ, Ogunbadeniyi AM. Reinforcing the
relevance of chemistry to the practice of pharmacy through the
who wants to be a med chem millionaire? Learning game. Am J
Pharm Educ 2004;68 (5) Article 116. 1‑7.
24. Aburahma MH, Mohamed HM. Educational games as a teaching
tool in pharmacy curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ 2015;79:59.
25. Persky AM, Stegall‑Zanation J, Dupuis RE. Students perceptions
of the incorporation of games into classroom instruction for basic
and clinical pharmacokinetics. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:21.
26. Rose TM. A board game to assist pharmacy students in learning
metabolic pathways. Am J Pharm Educ 2011;75:183.
)