Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 E. Marshall Street, Box 980662, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA.
Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), 330 Brookline Avenue, Shapiro 8, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
BMC Med Educ. 2023 Dec 14;23(1):959. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04951-5.
Medical educators seek innovative ways to engage learners efficiently and effectively. Gamification has been explored as one way to accomplish this feat; however, questions remain about which contexts gamification would be most useful. Time constraints and student interest present major barriers for teaching laboratory medicine to students. This study aims to compare two versions of an interactive online module, one gamified and one not, for teaching laboratory medicine concepts to pre-clinical medical students.
First-year medical students reviewed either a gamified or non-gamified version of an interactive online module in preparation for an in-person flipped classroom session on Laboratory Medicine. Learning theory guided the design of the modules and both contained identical content, objectives, and structure. The "gamified" module included the additional elements of personalization, progress meters, points, badges, and story/role play. After reviewing the module, students completed an anonymous knowledge check and optional survey.
One hundred seventy-one students completed the post module knowledge check as assigned (82 gamified, 89 non-gamified). Knowledge check scores were higher for the students who reviewed the gamified module (p < 0.02), corresponding to an effect size of 0.4 for the gamified module. Eighty-one students completed optional post-module surveys (46 gamified, 35 non-gamified). Instructional efficiency was calculated using task difficulty questions and knowledge check scores, and the resulting instructional efficiency was higher for the gamified module. There was no significant difference in the student-reported time required to complete the modules. Additionally, both versions of the module were well received and led to positive ratings related to motivation and confidence. Finally, examination of open-ended survey results suggested that the addition of game elements added value to the gamified module and enhanced engagement and enjoyment.
In this setting, the addition of gamification to an interactive online module enhanced learning outcome, instructional efficiency, student engagement and enjoyment. These results should inspire further exploration of gamification for teaching Laboratory Medicine concepts to pre-clinical medical students.
医学教育者寻求高效、有效地吸引学习者的创新方法。游戏化已被探索为实现这一目标的一种方式；然而，对于游戏化在哪些情况下最有用，仍存在一些问题。时间限制和学生兴趣是向医学生教授医学实验室课程的主要障碍。本研究旨在比较两种交互式在线模块版本，一种是游戏化的，另一种是非游戏化的，用于向医预学生教授医学实验室概念。
一年级医学生在准备实验室医学翻转课堂之前，复习了游戏化或非游戏化的交互式在线模块。学习理论指导了模块的设计，两个模块都包含相同的内容、目标和结构。“游戏化”模块包含个性化、进度条、积分、徽章和故事/角色扮演等附加元素。在复习完模块后，学生完成了匿名知识检查和可选调查。
171 名学生按照分配完成了模块后的知识检查（82 名游戏化，89 名非游戏化）。复习游戏化模块的学生知识检查得分更高（p<0.02），对应于游戏化模块的效应量为 0.4。81 名学生完成了可选的模块后调查（46 名游戏化，35 名非游戏化）。使用任务难度问题和知识检查分数计算教学效率，游戏化模块的教学效率更高。游戏化和非游戏化模块的学生报告完成模块所需时间没有显著差异。此外，两个版本的模块都受到好评，并与激励和信心相关的积极评价相关。最后，对开放式调查结果的分析表明，游戏元素的加入为游戏化模块增加了价值，并提高了参与度和趣味性。
在这种情况下，在交互式在线模块中添加游戏化增强了学习效果、教学效率、学生参与度和趣味性。这些结果应该激发进一步探索游戏化在向医预学生教授医学实验室概念方面的应用。
