Gamification of health professions education: a systematic review.

Gamification refers to using game attributes in a non-gaming context. Health professions educators increasingly turn to gamification to optimize students' learning outcomes. However, little is known about the concept of gamification and its possible working mechanisms. This review focused on empirical evidence for the effectiveness of gamification approaches and theoretical rationales for applying the chosen game attributes. We systematically searched multiple databases, and included all empirical studies evaluating the use of game attributes in health professions education. Of 5044 articles initially identified, 44 met the inclusion criteria. Negative outcomes for using gamification were not reported. Almost all studies included assessment attributes (n = 40), mostly in combination with conflict/challenge attributes (n = 27). Eight studies revealed that this specific combination had increased the use of the learning material, sometimes leading to improved learning outcomes. A relatively small number of studies was performed to explain mechanisms underlying the use of game attributes (n = 7). Our findings suggest that it is possible to improve learning outcomes in health professions education by using gamification, especially when employing game attributes that improve learning behaviours and attitudes towards learning. However, most studies lacked well-defined control groups and did not apply and/or report theory to understand underlying processes. Future research should clarify mechanisms underlying gamified educational interventions and explore theories that could explain the effects of these interventions on learning outcomes, using well-defined control groups, in a longitudinal way. In doing so, we can build on existing theories and gain a practical and comprehensive understanding of how to select the right game elements for the right educational context and the right type of student.

Identifying Player Types to Tailor Game-Based Learning Design to Learners: Cross-sectional Survey using Q Methodology.

BACKGROUND: Game-based learning appears to be a promising instructional method because of its engaging properties and positive effects on motivation and learning. There are numerous options to design game-based learning; however, there is little data-informed knowledge to guide the choice of the most effective game-based learning design for a given educational context. The effectiveness of game-based learning appears to be dependent on the degree to which players like the game. Hence, individual differences in game preferences should be taken into account when selecting a specific game-based learning design. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify patterns in students' perceptions of play and games-player types and their most important characteristics. METHODS: We used Q methodology to identify patterns in opinions on game preferences. We recruited undergraduate medical and dental students to participate in our study and asked participants to sort and rank 49 statements on game preferences. These statements were derived from a prior focus group study and literature on game preferences. We used by-person factor analysis and varimax rotation to identify common viewpoints. Both factors and participants' comments were used to interpret and describe patterns in game preferences. RESULTS: From participants' (n=102) responses, we identified 5 distinct patterns in game preferences: the social achiever, the explorer, the socializer, the competitor, and the troll. These patterns revolved around 2 salient themes: sociability and achievement. The 5 patterns differed regarding cheating, playing alone, story-telling, and the complexity of winning. CONCLUSIONS: The patterns were clearly interpretable, distinct, and showed that medical and dental students ranged widely in how they perceive play. Such patterns may suggest that it is important to take students' game preferences into account when designing game-based learning and demonstrate that not every game-based learning-strategy fits all students. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use a scientifically sound approach to identify player types. This can help future researchers and educators select effective game-based learning game elements purposefully and in a student-centered way.

Medical Students' Perceptions of Play and Learning: Qualitative Study With Focus Groups and Thematic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In times where distance learning is becoming the norm, game-based learning (GBL) is increasingly applied to health profession education. Yet, decisions for if, when, how, and for whom GBL should be designed cannot be made on a solid empirical basis. Though the act of play seems to be intertwined with GBL, it is generally ignored in the current scientific literature. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to explore students' perceptions of play in leisure time and of GBL as part of a mechanistic, bottom-up approach towards evidence-informed design and implementation of GBL in health profession education. METHODS: We conducted 6 focus group discussions with medical and dentistry students, which were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 58 students participated. We identified 4 major themes based on the students' perception of play in leisure time and on the combination of play and learning. Our results indicate that, while play preferences were highly various in our health profession student cohort, pleasure was the common ground reported for playing. Crucially, play and the serious act of learning seemed paradoxical, indicating that the value and meaning of play are strongly context-dependent for students. CONCLUSIONS: Four key points can be constructed from our study. First, students play for pleasure. Perceptions of pleasure vary considerably among students. Second, students consider play as inefficient. Inefficiency will only be justified when it increases learning. Third, play should be balanced with the serious and only be used for difficult or tedious courses. Fourth, GBL activities should not be made compulsory for students. We provide practical implications and directions for future research.