Gamified versus non-gamified online educational modules for teaching clinical laboratory medicine to first-year medical students at a large allopathic medical school in the United States

• Published in: BMC medical education Vol. 23; no. 1; p. 959
• Main Authors: Do, Marie, Sanford, Kimberly, Roseff, Susan, Hovaguimian, Alexandra, Besche, Henrike, Fischer, Krisztina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 14.12.2023; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Behavioral Objectives; Comparative analysis; Control Groups; Design; Educational Innovation; Educational Theories; Educational theory; Feedback; Flipped classroom; Gamification; Knowledge; Laboratory Medicine; Learning activities; Medical Education; Medical laboratories; Medical schools; Medical students; Medicine; Methods; Motivation; Multimedia; Online education; Online Preparatory Material; Pathology; Science Curriculum; Software; Student Interests; Student Motivation; Student organizations; Study and teaching; Teachers; Teaching Methods; Virtual reality; United States; United States > US; Medical Education; Laboratory Medicine; Gamification; Online Preparatory Material
• ISSN: 1472-6920; 1472-6920
• 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.