| Literature DB >> 30227642 |
Hussein Haruna1, Xiao Hu2, Samuel Kai Wah Chu3, Robin R Mellecker4, Goodluck Gabriel5, Patrick Siril Ndekao6.
Abstract
An effective innovative pedagogy for sexual health education is required to meet the demands of technology savvy digital natives. This study investigates the extent to which game-based learning (GBL) and gamification could improve the sexual health education of adolescent students. We conducted a randomized control trial of GBL and gamification experimental conditions. We made a comparison with traditional teaching as a control condition in order to establish differences between the three teaching conditions. The sexual health education topics were delivered in a masked fashion, 40-min a week for five weeks. A mixed-method research approach was uses to assess and analyze the results for 120 students from a secondary school in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Students were divided into groups of 40 for each of the three teaching methods: GBL, gamification, and the control group (the traditional teaching method). The average post-test scores for GBL (Mean = 79.94, SD = 11.169) and gamification (Mean = 79.23, SD = 9.186) were significantly higher than the control group Mean = 51.93, SD = 18.705 (F (2, 117) = 54.75, p = 0.001). Overall, statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found for the constructs of Motivation, Attitude, Knowledge, and Engagement (MAKE). This study suggests that the two innovative teaching approaches can be used to improve the sexual health education of adolescent students. The methods can potentially contribute socially, particularly in improving sexual health behaviour and adolescents' knowledge in regions plagued by years of sexual health problems, including HIV/AIDS.Entities:
Keywords: MAKE framework; adolescent students; digital health technologies; game-based learning; gamification; prevention STIs and HIV/AIDS; randomized controlled trial; reduction unhealthy sexual behaviour; sexual health education; sexual well-being
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30227642 PMCID: PMC6163657 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15092027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The expanded game activity system framework suggested by Engeström [50].
Randomized control trial for this study.
| 120 students from three classes were randomly selected to participated in the study | 40 students randomly assigned to experiment condition | |||
| 40 students randomly assigned to experiment condition | ||||
| 40 students randomly assigned to control condition |
Notes: ASHLT = Adolescent Sexual Health Literacy Test.
Figure 2GBL condition game structure. (A) Scenario: teacher presenting the topic; (B) Scenario: students attending the class; (C) Questions; (D) Activity time, topic, and scores.
Figure 3Game mechanics used in the gamification condition. (A) Leaderboards; (B) Badges; (C) Badges counter; (D) Quiz.
Figure 4Evaluation of three teaching methods using the MAKE framework.
Descriptive statistics of the students and SES and media usage characteristics (N = 120).
|
|
|
| Male | 63 (52.5%) |
| Female | 57 (47.5%) |
|
|
|
| Male | 14.2 (0.924) |
| Female | 13.9 (0.963) |
|
|
|
| With both parents | 80 (66.7%) |
| With father only | 7 (5.8%) |
| With mother only | 21 (17.5%) |
| With guardian only | 12 (10%) |
|
|
|
| We are among the well-off in the area | 24 (20%) |
| We are not rich, but we manage to live well | 62 (51.7%) |
| We are neither rich nor poor, but just about average | 34 (28.3%) |
| We struggle with the strict minimum required to make ends meet | 0 (0%) |
|
|
|
| Yes | 82 (68.3%) |
| No | 38 (31.7%) |
|
|
|
| Yes | 66 (55%) |
| No | 54 (45%) |
|
|
|
| Yes | 77 (64.2%) |
| No | 43 (35.8%) |
Note: SES: Social Economic Status.
Figure 5Mean (SD) test scores for the three teaching groups. Notes: The mean difference indicates significance at the p < 0.05 level (TT: Traditional Teaching method; GBL: Game-Based Learning; and GM: Gamification).
Descriptive statistics (with means of the experimental groups in bold) and pairwise comparison of teaching methods for the Motivation constructs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||||||
| Attention | Mean | 2.55 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GM | 0.001 | |
| SD | 1.16 | 0.37 | 0.40 | GBL | 0.001 | ||||
| Relevance | Mean | 2.76 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GBL | 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.73 | 0.32 | 0.41 | GM | 0.001 | ||||
| Confidence | Mean | 3.65 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GM | 0.004 | |
| SD | 1.12 | 0.32 | 0.52 | GBL | 0.001 | ||||
| Satisfaction | Mean | 3.67 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GBL | 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.82 | 0.38 | 0.30 | GM | 0.001 | ||||
Notes: Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). TM: Teaching Method.
Descriptive statistics (with means of the experimental groups in bold) and pairwise comparison of teaching methods for the Attitude constructs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||||||
| Affective Attitude | Mean | 3.64 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GBL | 0.001 | |
| SD | 1.03 | 0.35 | 0.19 | GM | 0.001 | ||||
| Cognitive Attitude | Mean | 3.51 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GM | 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.94 | 0.25 | 0.22 | GBL | 0.001 | ||||
Notes: Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). TM: Teaching Method.
Descriptive statistics (with means of the experimental groups in bold) and pairwise comparison of teaching methods for the Knowledge constructs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||||||
| Importance of knowledge | Mean | 3.13 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GBL | 0.001 | |
| SD | 1.13 | 0.23 | 0.20 | GM | 0.001 | ||||
| Effectiveness of knowledge | Mean | 2.85 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GBL | 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.95 | 0.34 | 0.26 | GM | 0.001 | ||||
| Application of knowledge | Mean | 3.97 |
|
| 0.001 | TT | GBL | 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.85 | 0.35 | 0.28 | GM | 0.001 | ||||
Notes: Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Mean (SD) of teaching methods for the Engagement constructs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||||||||
| Emotional engagement | Mean | 2.77 | 4.63 | 4.67 | 0.001 | TT | GBL | 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.96 | 0.33 | 0.28 | GM | 0.001 | ||||
| Cognitive engagement | Mean | 2.98 | 4.67 | 4.64 | 0.001 | TT | GM | 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.79 | 0.40 | 0.37 | GBL | 0.001 | ||||
Notes: Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).