Buijs-Spanjers Kiki R, Hegge Harianne Hm, Cnossen Fokie, Jaarsma Debbie Adc, de Rooij Sophia E
Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Center for Education Development and Research in Health Professions, LEARN, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
JMIR Serious Games. 2020 Jul 29;8(3):e18479. doi: 10.2196/18479.
Although many studies have recently been published on the value of serious games for medical education, little attention has been given to the role of dark play (choosing unacceptable actions in games).
This study aimed to investigate potential differences in the characteristics of medical students who have the opportunity to choose normal or dark play in a serious game. This study also aimed to compare their reasons for choosing a play strategy and their perceptions of what they learned from their game play.
We asked undergraduate medical students to play a serious game in which they had to take care of a patient with delirium (The Delirium Experience). After getting acquainted with the game, students could opt for normal or dark play. Student characteristics (age, gender, experience with caring for older or delirious patients, and number of completed clerkships) were collected, and the Delirium Attitude Scale and Learning Motivation and Engagement Questionnaire were administered. Reasons for choosing normal or dark play were evaluated with an open-ended question. Information on lessons they had learned from the game was collected using an open-ended question and self-reported knowledge on delirium.
This study had 160 participants (89 normal play, 71 dark play). Male students (26/160, 56.5%) chose dark play significantly more often than female students (45/160, 39.5%; P=.049). We did not find significant differences in student characteristics or measurement outcomes between play strategies. Participants' main reason for choosing normal play was to learn how to provide care to delirious patients, and the main reason for dark play was to gain insight into what a delirious patient has to endure during delirious episodes. All participants learned what to do when taking care of a delirious patient and gained insight into how a patient experiences delirium. We found no differences in self-reported knowledge.
When medical students have the opportunity to choose dark play in a serious game, half of them will probably choose this play strategy. Male students will more likely opt for dark play than female students. Choice of play strategy is not affected by any other student characteristic or measurement outcome. All students learned the same lessons from playing the game, irrespective of their learning strategy.
尽管最近有许多关于严肃游戏在医学教育中的价值的研究发表，但对于黑暗玩法（在游戏中选择不可接受的行为）的作用却很少受到关注。
本研究旨在调查在严肃游戏中有机会选择正常玩法或黑暗玩法的医学生在特征上的潜在差异。本研究还旨在比较他们选择游戏策略的原因以及他们对从游戏中学到的东西的看法。
我们让本科医学生玩一款严肃游戏，在游戏中他们必须照顾一名谵妄患者（《谵妄体验》）。在熟悉游戏后，学生可以选择正常玩法或黑暗玩法。收集学生的特征（年龄、性别、照顾老年或谵妄患者的经验以及完成的临床实习次数），并进行谵妄态度量表以及学习动机与参与度问卷调查。通过一个开放式问题评估选择正常玩法或黑暗玩法的原因。使用一个开放式问题收集他们从游戏中学到的经验教训的信息以及自我报告的关于谵妄的知识。
本研究有160名参与者（89名选择正常玩法，71名选择黑暗玩法）。男生（26/160，56.5%）选择黑暗玩法的频率显著高于女生（45/160，39.5%；P = 0.049）。我们没有发现游戏策略在学生特征或测量结果上存在显著差异。参与者选择正常玩法的主要原因是学习如何照顾谵妄患者，而选择黑暗玩法的主要原因是深入了解谵妄患者在谵妄发作期间所遭受的痛苦。所有参与者都学到了照顾谵妄患者时该怎么做，并深入了解了患者如何体验谵妄。我们没有发现自我报告的知识方面存在差异。
当医学生有机会在严肃游戏中选择黑暗玩法时，他们中有一半人可能会选择这种游戏策略。男生比女生更有可能选择黑暗玩法。游戏策略的选择不受任何其他学生特征或测量结果的影响。所有学生无论学习策略如何，从玩游戏中学到的经验教训都是相同的。
