| Literature DB >> 35531347 |
Jeremey Walker1, Jose Pablo Heudebert2, Mukesh Patel1,3, John D Cleveland4, Andrew O Westfall4, Donald M Dempsey5, Alfredo Guzman1, Anne Zinski6, Monica Agarwal1, Dustin Long4, James Willig1, Rachael Lee1,3.
Abstract
Background: Microbiology is a critical and expansive topic that many medical schools' curriculum must teach in a constrained time frame. We implemented a microbiology question bank smart phone app enhanced with game elements and clinical pearls during a microbiology course for first-year medical students. We hypothesized that these enhancements and clinical pearls would engage the students meaningfully and increase their knowledge base.Entities:
Keywords: Curriculum; Gamification; Microbiology; Undergraduate medical education (UME)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35531347 PMCID: PMC9066992 DOI: 10.1007/s40670-022-01552-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Educ ISSN: 2156-8650
Game demographics
| Characteristic | Result |
|---|---|
| Students who logged into game (% total class) | 181/189 (95.8%) |
| Days played (median (Q1, Q3)) | 6 (4, 9) |
| Total questions answered | 96.4% |
| Available questions answered before exam 1 | 83.5% |
| Available questions answered before exam 2 | 79.6% |
| Badges earned (median (Q1, Q3)) | 9 (8, 10) |
| Number of Daily Average User before exam 1 | 65.00 |
| Number of Daily Average User before exam 2 | 60.29 |
| Number of Daily Average User overall | 61.74 |
| Overall question accuracy | 82.59% |
| Vignette questions accuracy | 83.66%* |
| Recall questions accuracy | 80.98%* |
| Timed questions accuracy** | 77.20%* |
| Non-timed questions accuracy | 84.66%* |
| Player efficiency rating (median, (Q1, Q3) interquartile range) | 84.75 (67.75, 90.00) |
*A significant difference was found between vignette and recall question accuracy (p = 0.0006) and timed and untimed question accuracy (p ≤ 0.0001); **Timed questions were awarded double points if answered within 120 s
Fig. 1Game timeline with questions answered overlay
Survey responses
| Survey question ( | SA | A | N | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
My performance in the class was improved by Kaizen | 25 (41%) | 25 (41%) | 9 (15%) | 2 (3%) |
Kaizen helped me prioritize concepts for review | 28 (46%) | 22 (36%) | 9 (15%) | 2 (3%) |
Kaizen helped me prepare for quizzes | 29 (48%) | 21 (34%) | 9 (15%) | 3 (5%) |
Kaizen helped me identify gaps in my knowledge | 32 (51%) | 25 (41%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (6%) |
Kaizen forced me to apply theoretical knowledge to clinical scenarios | 33 (54%) | 24 (39%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (6%) |
The competitive aspects of Kaizen were beneficial to my learning | 19 (31%) | 18 (30%) | 16 (26%) | 8 (13%) |
The team engagement increased my participation in Kaizen | 20 (33%) | 15 (25%) | 16 (26%) | 10 (16%) |
Fig. 2Overall exam average by PER tertile