Display options
Cite
Castro MJ, López M, Cao MJ, et al. Impact of educational games on academic outcomes of students in the Degree in Nursing. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0220388doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220388.
Castro, M. J., López, M., Cao, M. J., Fernández-Castro, M., García, S., Frutos, M., & Jiménez, J. M. (2019). Impact of educational games on academic outcomes of students in the Degree in Nursing. PloS one, 14(7), e0220388. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220388
Castro, María-José, et al. "Impact of educational games on academic outcomes of students in the Degree in Nursing." PloS one vol. 14,7 (2019): e0220388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220388
Castro MJ, López M, Cao MJ, Fernández-Castro M, García S, Frutos M, Jiménez JM. Impact of educational games on academic outcomes of students in the Degree in Nursing. PLoS One. 2019 Jul 29;14(7):e0220388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220388. eCollection 2019. PMID: 31356621; PMCID: PMC6663014.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS One. 2019 Jul 29;14(7):e0220388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220388. eCollection 2019.

Impact of educational games on academic outcomes of students in the Degree in Nursing.

PloS one

María-José Castro, María López, María-José Cao, Mercedes Fernández-Castro, Sara García, Manuel Frutos, José-María Jiménez

Affiliations

  1. Nursing Faculty, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
  2. Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition Research Centre (ECNRC), University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
  3. University Hospital Clinic of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.

PMID: 31356621 PMCID: PMC6663014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220388

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of using the game-based tool Kahoot! was to evaluate and reinforce the contents taught in the subject of Management and Administration of Nursing, Ethics and Health Legislation Services included in the Degree in Nursing, during the 2016-2017 academic year.

METHODS: A prospective quasi-experimental study was carried out on a sample of 116 students. 10 multiple-choice questions were designed, with only one possible correct answer and a 20-second-limited response time for each of the questions. Four of these questions previously answered in the classroom using this game were chosen (20% of the exam). Each one of them corresponded to one unit of the topics taught in the subject. In order to participate in the educational game, students needed their smartphones or electronic devices. After completing the game, the students' satisfaction level derived from its use was assessed.

RESULTS: The correct answer rate in the educational game was greater than 50% for all questions except for one, in which the rate was 28.8% (P<0.05). Response time as related to score presented statistically significant differences, and higher scores for those questions with lower response time (P<0.001). The questions included in the final test which had been previously answered using Kahoot! showed a significantly higher difficulty index than the rest of the final exam questions (P<0.05). Question 3 was the easiest, while being the one in which the highest-scoring students obtained more wrong answers. For the students this tool was easy to use (89.6%) and they positively valued the content acquisition and comprehension, as well as the teacher-student interaction (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION: The implementation of educational games which consider response time and correct answers favors competitiveness and motivates students to actively participate in their learning process.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. J Prof Nurs. 2017 Mar - Apr;33(2):133-144 - PubMed
  2. Nurse Educ Today. 2011 Nov;31(8):e34-40 - PubMed
  3. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017 Nov;27:101-106 - PubMed
  4. J Prof Nurs. 2016 Sep-Oct;32(5S):S37-S41 - PubMed
  5. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017 Dec;22(5):1151-1167 - PubMed
  6. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Aug;13(4):285-93 - PubMed
  7. Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Jan;35(1):38-43 - PubMed
  8. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2016 Sep 22;13:33 - PubMed
  9. J Prof Nurs. 2017 Jan - Feb;33(1):27-37 - PubMed
  10. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Oct;45:22-8 - PubMed
  11. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016 Mar;40(1):26-31 - PubMed
  12. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Mar;62:62-68 - PubMed
  13. J Nurs Educ. 2018 May 1;57(5):320 - PubMed
  14. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018 Jan;28:168-174 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Nurs. 2018 Feb;27(3-4):e569-e577 - PubMed
  16. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 May;40:209-18 - PubMed
  17. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Mar;62:80-84 - PubMed
  18. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Mar;38:15-21 - PubMed
  19. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Aug;43:40-8 - PubMed
  20. Nurse Educ Pract. 2013 Mar;13(2):96-100 - PubMed
  21. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 May;40:101-3 - PubMed
  22. Nurse Educ Today. 2013 Nov;33(11):1440-7 - PubMed
  23. PLoS One. 2018 Mar 8;13(3):e0194096 - PubMed
  24. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Aug;43:50-9 - PubMed
  25. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016 Oct 10;24:e2808 - PubMed
  26. Nurse Educ Today. 2012 Nov;32(8):930-3 - PubMed
  27. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Nov;46:81-85 - PubMed
  28. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018 Apr 23;11:211-221 - PubMed
  29. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016 Jul;19:63-9 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types