Literature DB >> 27580908

Assessing the learning potential of an interactive digital game versus an interactive-style didactic lecture: the continued importance of didactic teaching in medical student education.

Jesse Courtier1, Emily M Webb2, Andrew S Phelps3, David M Naeger2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Games with educational intent offer a possible advantage of being more interactive and increasing learner satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a two-armed experiment to evaluate student satisfaction and content mastery for an introductory pediatric radiology topic, taught by either an interactive digital game or with a traditional didactic lecture.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical students participating in a fourth-year radiology elective were invited to participate. Student cohorts were alternatively given a faculty-supervised 1h session playing a simple interactive digital Tic-tac-toe quiz module on pediatric gastrointestinal radiology or a 1h didactic introductory lecture on the same topic. Survey questions assessed the learners' perceived ability to recall the material as well as their satisfaction with the educational experience. Results of an end-of-rotation exam were reviewed to evaluate a quantitative measure of learning between groups. Survey responses were analyzed with a chi-squared test. Exam results for both groups were analyzed with a paired Student's t-test.
RESULTS: Students in the lecture group had higher test scores compared to students in the game group (4.0/5 versus 3.6/5, P = 0.045). Students in the lecture group reported greater understanding and recall of the material than students in the game group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Students in the lecture group perceived the lecture to be more enjoyable and a better use of their time compared to those in the game group (P = 0.04 and P < 0.001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the lecture and game group in ability to maintain interest (P = 0.187). In comparison to pre-survey results, there was a statistically significant decrease in interest for further digital interactive materials reported by students in the game group (P = 0.146).
CONCLUSION: Our experience supported the use of a traditional lecture over a digital game module. While these results might be affected by the specific lecture and digital content in any given comparison, a digital module is not always the superior option.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Didactic lecture; Education; Gaming; Medical students; Pediatric radiology

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27580908     DOI: 10.1007/s00247-016-3692-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Radiol        ISSN: 0301-0449


  22 in total

1.  "Survivor" torches "Who Wants to Be a Physician?" in the educational games ratings war.

Authors:  Mary G Howard; Heidi L Collins; Stephen E DiCarlo
Journal:  Adv Physiol Educ       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.288

2.  A trading-card game teaching about host defence.

Authors:  Richard A Steinman; Mary T Blastos
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.251

3.  Educating medical students about radiologists' contributions to patient care.

Authors:  Richard B Gunderman; Pauley T Gasparis; Tania Rahman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Medical students' preferences in radiology education a comparison between the Socratic and didactic methods utilizing powerpoint features in radiology education.

Authors:  Lily Zou; Alexander King; Salil Soman; Andrew Lischuk; Benjamin Schneider; David Walor; Mark Bramwit; Judith K Amorosa
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 5.  Needs Assessment for Standardized Medical Student Imaging Education: Review of the Literature and a Survey of Deans and Chairs.

Authors:  Emily M Webb; David M Naeger; Nancy J McNulty; Christopher M Straus
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 6.  The effect of educational games on medical students' learning outcomes: a systematic review: BEME Guide No 14.

Authors:  Elie A Akl; Richard W Pretorius; Kay Sackett; W Scott Erdley; Paranthaman S Bhoopathi; Ziad Alfarah; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.650

7.  Computer-assisted learning in medical education.

Authors:  G S Clayden; B Wilson
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 6.251

8.  Medical student radiology education: summary and recommendations from a national survey of medical school and radiology department leadership.

Authors:  Christopher M Straus; Emily M Webb; Kimi L Kondo; Andrew W Phillips; David M Naeger; Caroline W Carrico; William Herring; Janet A Neutze; G Rebecca Haines; Gerald D Dodd
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-04-06       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains.

Authors:  Mitsunari Abe; Heidi Schambra; Eric M Wassermann; Dave Luckenbaugh; Nicolas Schweighofer; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  The dissociable effects of punishment and reward on motor learning.

Authors:  Joseph M Galea; Elizabeth Mallia; John Rothwell; Jörn Diedrichsen
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 24.884

View more
  3 in total

1.  A comparative study: do "clickers" increase student engagement in multidisciplinary clinical microbiology teaching?

Authors:  Niall T Stevens; Hélène McDermott; Fiona Boland; Teresa Pawlikowska; Hilary Humphreys
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 2.463

2.  Student-perceived exam difficulty may trump the effects of different quality improvement measures regarding the students' evaluation of a pediatric lecture series.

Authors:  Marco S Spehl; Christine Straub; Andrea Heinzmann; Sebastian F N Bode
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 2.463

3.  Involvement of End Users in the Development of Serious Games for Health Care Professions Education: Systematic Descriptive Review.

Authors:  Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte; Véronique Dubé; Sylvie Cossette; Alexandra Lapierre; Guillaume Fontaine; Marie-France Deschênes; Patrick Lavoie
Journal:  JMIR Serious Games       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 4.143

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.