Impact of Using a 3D Visual Metaphor Serious Game to Teach History-Taking Content to Medical Students: Longitudinal Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Abstract

BackgroundHistory taking is a key component of clinical practice; however, this skill is often poorly performed by students and doctors.ObjectiveThe study aimed to determine whether Metaphoria, a 3D serious game (SG), is superior to another electronic medium (PDF text file) in learning the history-taking content of a single organ system (cardiac).MethodsIn 2015, a longitudinal mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) pilot study was conducted over multiple sampling time points (10 weeks) on a group of undergraduate medical students at The University of Auckland Medical School, New Zealand. Assessors involved in the study were blinded to group allocation. From an initial sample of 83, a total of 46 medical students were recruited. Participants were assigned to either a PDF group (n=19) or a game group (n=27). In total, 1 participant left the PDF group after allocation was revealed and was excluded. A total of 24 students in the game group and 14 students in the PDF group completed follow-up 7 weeks later. Using an iterative design process for over a year, with input from a variety of clinical disciplines, a cardiac history-taking game and PDF file were designed and informed by Cognitive Load Theory. Each group completed its intervention in 40 min. A total of 3 levels of Kirkpatrick training evaluation model were examined using validated questionnaires: affective (perception and satisfaction), cognitive (knowledge gains and cognitive load), and behavioral attitudes (Objective Structured Clinical Exam) as well as qualitative assessment. A priori hypotheses were formulated before data collection.ResultsCompared with baseline, both groups showed significant improvement in knowledge and self-efficacy longitudinally (P<.001). Apart from the game group having a statistically significant difference in terms of satisfaction (P<.001), there were no significant differences between groups in knowledge gain, self-efficacy, cognitive load, ease of use, acceptability, or objective structured clinical examination scores. However, qualitative findings indicated that the game was more engaging and enjoyable, and it served as a visual aid compared with the PDF file.ConclusionsStudents favored learning through utilization of an SG with regard to cardiac history taking. This may be relevant to other areas of medicine, and this highlights the importance of innovative methods of teaching the next generation of medical students.

Impact of 3D Simulation Game as a Method to Learn Medication Administration Process: Intervention Research for Nursing Students

“…The study reinforces the use of games as a learning method but also demonstrates the need for more research into the pp 25-43 • Clinical Simulation in Nursing • Volume 66 usability of games. Similar results have been reported by Alyami et al (2019) and Qi et al (2020) . However, the 3D simulation game is a more attractive, and motivating learning method ( Chang et al, 2021 ;Verkuyl et al, 2022 ).…”

Knowledge and Perceptions of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Nursing Students About the Use of 3D Digital Printing in Healthcare

“…On the other hand, regarding the students' attitude towards 3D printing, gender, age, and educational level were found to be significantly important. According the international literature, other researchers have shown that medical students or physicians have developed a positive perception of the new education methodology [3,4] and show that there is great interest in the latest advances in 3D printing technology in clinical practice [5,6]. The increasing use of the internet for scientific purposes has been associated with more knowledge about the applications and uses of 3D printers.…”

Game Graphics and Effective Learning: A Reviewof Visual Communication Research in Serious Games

“…To better present the results, we created Table 2 that details the purposes of each visual communication related category and lists all the studies. (Alcivar et al, 2021), (Tuah et al, 2021, (Zhang et al, 2021), (Sarić et al, 2021), (Plass et al, 2020), (Pagano et al, 2020), (Gee and Dolah, 2020), (Alyami et al, 2019), (Gee and Dolah, 2018a), (Gee and Dolah, 2018b) (Javora et al, 2018), (Ontañón et al, 2017), (Gee and Dolah, 2016), (Selmbacherova et al, 2014), (Veinott et al, 2014), (Wang and Lee, 2014) , (Wattanasoontorn et al, 2013), (Bedi et al, 2011) , (Kartiko et al, 2010)…”