Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 46, Issue 13, pp 1787–1796 | Cite as

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 Courtier
  • Emily M. Webb
  • Andrew S. Phelps
  • David M. Naeger
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Didactic lecture Education Gaming Medical students Pediatric radiology 

References

  1. 1.
    Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL (2002) Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med 77:S86–S93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark D (2002) Psychological myths in e-learning. Med Teach 24:598–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steinman RA, Blastos MT (2002) A trading-card game teaching about host defence. Med Educ 36:1201–1208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldor RA, Field TS, Gurwitz JH (2001) Using the “Question of Scruples” game to teach managed care ethics to students. Acad Med 76:510–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howard MG, Collins HL, DiCarlo SE (2002) “Survivor” torches “Who Wants to Be a Physician?” in the educational games ratings war. Adv Physiol Educ 26:30–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Leary S, Diepenhorst L, Churley-Strom R et al (2005) Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1848–1851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kron FW, Gjerde CL, Sen A et al (2010) Medical student attitudes toward video games and related new media technologies in medical education. BMC Med Educ 10:50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serre T, Wolf L, Poggio T (2005) Object recognition with features inspired by visual cortex. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05). doi: 10.1109/cvpr.2005.254
  9. 9.
    Thatcher DC (1990) Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simul Gaming 21:262–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abe M, Schambra H, Wassermann EM et al (2011) Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains. Curr Biol 21:557–562CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galea JM, Mallia E, Rothwell J et al (2015) The dissociable effects of punishment and reward on motor learning. Nat Neurosci 18:597–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burguillo JC (2010) Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Comput Educ 55:566–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akl EA, Pretorius RW, Sackett K et al (2010) The effect of educational games on medical students’ learning outcomes: a systematic review: BEME Guide No 14. Med Teach 32:16–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM (2006) The impact of e-learning in medical education. Acad Med 81:207–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanthan R, Senger J-L (2011) The impact of specially designed digital games-based learning in undergraduate pathology and medical education. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:135–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rondon S, Silmara R, Sassi FC et al (2013) Computer game-based and traditional learning method: a comparison regarding students’ knowledge retention. BMC Med Educ. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-30 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCoy L, Pettit RK, Lewis JH et al (2015) Developing technology-enhanced active learning for medical education: challenges, solutions, and future directions. J Am Osteopath Assoc 115:202–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poirier CR, Feldman RS (2012) Educating the net generation: using technology to enhance teaching and learning. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e653752011-001 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    King A (1993) From sage on the stage to guide on the side. Coll Teach 41:30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andrews JDW (1981) Teaching format and student style: their interactive effects on learning. Res High Educ 14:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zou L, King A, Soman S et al (2011) Medical students’ preferences in radiology education a comparison between the Socratic and didactic methods utilizing powerpoint features in radiology education. Acad Radiol 18:253–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deshpande S, Suhas D, Preeti D (2015) Evaluation of impact of interactive lectures on learning in terms of cognitive outcomes and student satisfaction. J Evol Med Dent Sci 1:7269–7274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clayden GS, Wilson B (1988) Computer-assisted learning in medical education. Med Educ 22:456–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henry JB (1990) Computers in medical education: information and knowledge management, understanding, and learning. Hum Pathol 21:998–1002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cartier RA 3rd, Skinner C, Laselle B (2014) Perceived effectiveness of teaching methods for point of care ultrasound. J Emerg Med 47:86–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lieberman G, Abramson R, Volkan K et al (2002) Tutor versus computer: a prospective comparison of interactive tutorial and computer-assisted instruction in radiology education. Acad Radiol 9:40–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Straus CM, Webb EM, Kondo KL et al (2014) Medical student radiology education: summary and recommendations from a national survey of medical school and radiology department leadership. J Am Coll Radiol 11:606–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gunderman RB, Gasparis PT, Rahman T (2012) Educating medical students about radiologists’ contributions to patient care. Acad Radiol 19:908–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Webb EM, Naeger DM, McNulty NJ et al (2015) Needs assessment for standardized medical student imaging education: review of the literature and a survey of deans and chairs. Acad Radiol 22:1214–1220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosato JL (1995) All I ever needed to know about teaching law school I learned teaching kindergarten: Introducing gaming techniques into the law school classroom. J Leg Educ 45:568–581Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Westphal P (1991) “‘Hollywood squares’” comes to the physics room. Phys Teach 29:208CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Biomedical ImagingUniversity of California, San, Francisco UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital,San FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Biomedical ImagingUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations