a Economics and Management School , Pontificia Universidad Javeriana , Bogotá , Colombia.
b Public Health Institute , Pontificia Universidad Javeriana , Bogotá , Colombia.
Med Educ Online. 2018 Dec;23(1):1438718. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2018.1438718.
The literature shows an optimistic landscape for the effectiveness of games in medical education. Nevertheless, games are not considered mainstream material in medical teaching. Two research questions that arise are the following: What pedagogical strategies do developers use when creating games for medical education? And what is the quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of games?
A systematic review was made by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers following the Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines. We included peer-reviewed journal articles which described or assessed the use of serious games or gamified apps in medical education. We used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to assess the quality of evidence in the use of games. We also evaluated the pedagogical perspectives of such articles.
Even though game developers claim that games are useful pedagogical tools, the evidence on their effectiveness is moderate, as assessed by the MERSQI score. Behaviourism and cognitivism continue to be the predominant pedagogical strategies, and games are complementary devices that do not replace traditional medical teaching tools. Medical educators prefer simulations and quizzes focused on knowledge retention and skill development through repetition and do not demand the use of sophisticated games in their classrooms. Moreover, public access to medical games is limited.
Our aim was to put the pedagogical strategy into dialogue with the evidence on the effectiveness of the use of medical games. This makes sense since the practical use of games depends on the quality of the evidence about their effectiveness. Moreover, recognition of said pedagogical strategy would allow game developers to design more robust games which would greatly contribute to the learning process.
文献表明,游戏在医学教育中的有效性前景乐观。然而,游戏在医学教学中并不被视为主流材料。由此产生了两个研究问题:游戏开发者在为医学教育创作游戏时使用了哪些教学策略?以及游戏有效性的证据质量如何?
一个多学科研究团队按照 Cochrane 协作指南进行了系统评价。我们纳入了描述或评估医学教育中使用严肃游戏或游戏化应用的同行评审期刊文章。我们使用医学教育研究研究质量工具(MERSQI)来评估游戏使用中的证据质量。我们还评估了这些文章的教学观点。
尽管游戏开发者声称游戏是有用的教学工具,但根据 MERSQI 评分,其有效性的证据是中等的。行为主义和认知主义仍然是主要的教学策略,游戏是补充性的工具,不能替代传统的医学教学工具。医学教育者更喜欢侧重于通过重复来保留知识和发展技能的模拟和测验,并且不要求在课堂上使用复杂的游戏。此外,公众获取医学游戏的途径有限。
我们的目的是将教学策略与医学游戏使用效果的证据进行对话。这是有意义的,因为游戏的实际使用取决于其有效性的证据质量。此外,对这种教学策略的认可将使游戏开发者能够设计出更强大的游戏,这将极大地促进学习过程。