目的：PBLなどのアクティブラーニングは学生の学修態度等の向上に寄与してきたが，新規学修内容の習得を主目的とする授業への導入には課題がある．本研究では，当該授業での学修意欲や知識習得等の向上を目的とし，シリアスゲームを導入した．方法：Kahoot!を用いたシリアスゲームを薬学部3年生に実施した．学生を対照群（従来型講義）とゲーム群（シリアスゲーム）に分け，授業前後にテストとアンケートを実施し，学修効果を評価した．結果：新規学修内容に関するポストテストにおいて，ゲーム群は対照群より有意に高い平均点を示した．また，ゲーム群の全学生が楽しさと集中を実感し，学修意欲等の向上が示唆された．考察：シリアスゲームは新規学修内容の習得を主目的とする授業における手法として有効となり得ることが示された．今後，協働的要素を強化することで，学修効果と長期的な知識定着の向上が期待される．
Objective: Active learning approaches such as Team-based Learning and Problem-based Learning have contributed to improvements in students’ learning attitudes and teamwork skills in pharmaceutical education. However, their implementation in classes primarily aimed at the acquisition of new learning content faces challenges due to differences in educational goals, as well as cost and personnel constraints. Therefore, this study aimed to introduce a serious game on a trial basis to enhance students’ motivation and knowledge acquisition through collaborative learning, particularly in such classes. Methods: A serious game was created using Kahoot! and applied in a class of third-year pharmacy students. Students were divided into a control group (traditional lectures) and a game group (serious game). A pre-test was conducted before the class; a questionnaire and post-test followed. Learning effect and educational usefulness were evaluated. Results: In the post-test on new learning content, the game group had a significantly higher average score than the control group. Moreover, all students in the game group reported having fun and being able to concentrate, suggesting increased motivation to learn. Conclusion: Serious games resulted in statistically significantly better learning outcomes and were well received by students, indicating their potential as an active learning method in classes primarily aimed at the acquisition of new learning content. This approach can serve as a model for future curriculum design. Moving forward, incorporating more collaborative elements, such as team discussions, may further improve learning effects and long-term retention.
The national guidelines for pharmaceutical education in Japan indicated that “it is ideal to foster a learning environment that allows students to independently formulate solutions to pharmaceutical problems, which includes real-life issues, through active learning.” With this in mind, the introduction of active learning into classes is strongly encouraged1) . Studies have reported that Team-based Learning (TBL) and Problem-based Learning (PBL) among other active learning methods improve students’ active learning attitudes and teamwork skills, suggesting that such collaborative learning environments may deepen students’ involvement in the learning content and improve their learning effectiveness2–4) . Nevertheless, the primary aim of these two methods is to cultivate knowledge application and problem-solving skills. This means that due to their different educational goals, TBL and PBL are more conducive to application-based courses than those for which the main purpose is simply knowledge acquisition or something along those lines5) . Moreover, the introduction of these methods entails financial and time costs designing instructional materials and tasks that are shouldered by teachers, as well as securing and training appropriate facilitators6,7) . Therefore, this study examined the introduction of serious games as a form of active learning methods in classes whose main purpose is knowledge acquisition.
The term “serious games” traces its origin to “Serious Games,” published in 1970 by social scientist Clark C. Abt8) . The term was first used to refer to games designed for learning, which started the discussion on the use of games in education. In the 2000s, the term “serious game” gained traction when the Serious Game Initiative was launched by Ben Sawyer and David Rejeski. The initiative popularized the definition of “serious game” as a “Any meaningful use of computerized game/game industry resources whose chief mission is not entertainment”9) . Recent years have seen the application of serious games to medical education, including medical and pharmaceutical education. Studies have reported that serious games improve knowledge retention and motivation to learn, as well as promote collaborative learning10–12) . In particular, although the life-saving curriculum varies depending on each faculty’s specialty, fundamental knowledge such as basic life support (BLS) is common, and serious games are used to teach at various faculties13,14) . In pharmaceutical education, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) has encouraged the use of serious games in the learning and professional development of pharmacy students, and many research papers have been reported15) . Furthermore, several studies have reported that the introduction of serious games contributes to improved motivation to learn, etc16) . However, when compared to traditional one-way knowledge transfer lectures (hereinafter, “traditional lectures”), the effects on knowledge retention and learning outcomes are inconsistent and vary from study to study17,18) . In addition, because learners tend to become engrossed in the fun of games, they are often used to review existing knowledge, rather than to acquire new learning content, and issues such as the time and financial costs involved in creating and implementing them have also been reported19–22) . In fact, empirical evidence clearly demonstrating the usefulness of serious games in acquiring new learning content remains extremely limited.
Given these challenges, the present study aimed to clarify the effectiveness of serious games specifically in the acquisition of new learning content. The serious game developed in this study was based on basic life support (BLS), which can be easily incorporated into existing classes, is free and simple to use, and promotes collaboration among learners. With this in mind, the game was introduced into classes on a trial basis. In Japanese universities, long-term practical hospital and pharmacy training starts in the fourth year. For this reason, students ideally acquire fundamental knowledge of BLS, as well as knowledge useful in the clinical field, beforehand. Therefore, tests were administered before and after classes to third-year students in the School of Pharmacy at Showa Medical University (hereinafter, “our school”), and a questionnaire survey was also conducted after the classes.
In order to improve students’ acquisition of new knowledge and retention as well as motivation to learn, this study aims to create a cost-free and time-efficient serious game incorporating collaborative elements that will be introduced into classes on a trial basis. Specifically, we will examine its educational usefulness as a form of active learning method that can be easily introduced even in classes where acquiring new fundamental knowledge is the primary objective.
In this study, we used Kahoot! (https://kahoot.com/ja/) to develop the serious game. Kahoot! is an online software that allows users to answer questions they created in the form of quizzes using smartphones, PCs, tablets, etc. Kahoot! has more than 70 million monthly active users, and in the United States, approximately 50% of children and students in kindergarten to high school use it23) . Teachers can create slides with true/false questions, multiple-choice questions, and images and videos. Students can participate by scanning a QR code without user registration. Furthermore, students’ answers are automatically saved in the teacher’s account, allowing for immediate feedback based on their level of understanding. Recent studies have reported that using Kahoot! for serious games can improve memory retention and motivation to learn24–26) . We used Kahoot! to create a serious game in the form of a quiz on the learning content (Fig. 1). The advanced content of the quiz included fundamental content on BLS, as well as knowledge relevant to clinical practice (e.g., fracture rate of patients due to chest compressions and the annual use rate of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) nationwide). There were 11 questions in total: 4 true/false questions and 7 multiple-choice questions each requiring selection of a correct answer from four options. Explanatory slides were created that would flash after answering each question. Kahoot! has several game modes, but in this study, we used the “team mode,” in which the points earned when answering a quiz correctly are tallied by team and the score is displayed for each team. Incorrect answers did not result in any deduction of points.
Screenshots of the serious game implemented using Kahoot! Screenshots of the serious game implemented using Kahoot! are shown, illustrating the quiz-based learning interface with immediate feedback after each question, the team-based scoring and ranking displayed at the end of the session, and the individual performance summary provided after the class, which allows instructors to review students’ overall scores and correct answer rates.
The participants were third-year students in the school of Pharmacy. After its purpose was explained, 141 students consented to participating in the study. Two students who subsequently missed classes were excluded from the results. This study was approved by the Showa Medical University Research Ethics Review Board for Research Involving Human Subjects and was conducted according to ethical considerations, such as proper management of personal information and voluntary participation in the study (2023-261-A).
3. Study DesignThe classes started after the administration of the pre-test (Fig. 2). All students first attended a 10-minute traditional lecture ①. This initial lecture focused on reviewing fundamental BLS procedures and concepts, including chest compression techniques and recognition of agonal breathing, which had already been covered in the university curriculum by the end of the second academic year. Subsequently, students were randomly divided into two groups and received a 40-minute class session. This subsequent 40-minute session focused on introducing new learning content, with an emphasis on clinically relevant BLS-related knowledge, including fracture rates associated with chest compressions, survival outcomes, and automated external defibrillator utilization rates. During this session, one group learned the content through a team-based Kahoot (hereinafter, “the game group”), while the other group received an additional traditional lecture ② (hereinafter, “the control group”). In the control group, a traditional lecture was conducted using the same materials as in the game group, but without the game elements. In the game group, students were randomly divided into teams of 5–6 people. The teams were given ample time to meet, and a quiz was subsequently conducted. The teacher presented each question to the students, and after each question was answered, the correct answer and the correct answer rate were displayed, and the question was explained. After each team had answered all questions, total scores were compared, and the top teams were given awards. A questionnaire survey was administered to all students at the end of the class. Both groups were randomly divided into short-term (after two days), medium-term (after two weeks), and long-term (after four weeks) groups, and the same post-test was administered at the end of each interval to evaluate the tendency for knowledge acquisition and retention at each time point and collectively as a whole. All students completed standardized assessments for both the pre-test and post-test and were not permitted to view class materials or serious game questions between the end of the class and the post-test.
Flowchart of this study. A pre-test was conducted on consenting third-year students (141 students) from the Faculty of Pharmacy. After a traditional one-way knowledge transfer lecture (Traditional lecture ①) was given to all participants, the participants were randomly divided into two groups. The control group received a traditional one-way knowledge transfer lecture (Traditional lecture ②), and the game group received a class that introduced serious games. A questionnaire survey was conducted after each class. Both groups were randomly divided into short-term (two days), medium-term (two weeks), and long-term (four weeks) groups, and a post-test was administered at the end of each of the three intervals.
In order to examine the difference in academic ability between the control group and the game group, a pre-test was conducted that included 10 questions, consisting of 5 true/false questions and 5 multiple-choice questions each requiring selection of a correct answer from four options, based on fundamental knowledge of BLS. In the post-test to confirm the degree of learning after the study, a total of 15 questions were asked, including 6 multiple-choice questions each requiring selection of two correct answers from five options, based on the learning content of the traditional lecture ①. The remaining nine questions, including four multiple-choice questions and five true/false questions, were based on the learning content after participants were divided into the control group and the game group; of these nine questions, two addressed previously learned content as review items, while the remaining seven assessed new learning content. Each question was worth one point, and total scores were calculated and used for statistical analysis. For all test results, a t-test was conducted based on the results of the F-test, assuming equal variance, and P < .05 was considered significant. Furthermore, a self-evaluation questionnaire about motivation to learn, consisting of six quantitative questions using a four-point Likert scale and two qualitative questions in free-response form, was administered to all students. Moreover, text mining was performed to analyze the free-text portion using the quantitative text analysis software “KH Coder 3”27) . This allowed us to extract frequently occurring vocabulary, construct qualitative themes based on them, and select and record free-form responses that correspond to each theme.
First, the results of the pre-test were compared between the control and game groups (Table 1). No significant difference was observed in the average scores of the two groups in any interval. Next, the results of the post-test were compared between the control group and the game group. In the six questions based on the content learned in the traditional lecture ①, there was no significant difference in the average scores between the two groups in any interval (Table 1b). On the other hand, in the nine questions based on the content learned after the group was split into the control and game groups, the average score of the game group (5.3 ± 1.5 points) was significantly higher than that of the control group (4.3 ± 1.8 points) (P < .01) (Table 1c). In addition, when the average scores of the two groups were compared for each interval, the average score of the game group tended to be higher than that of the control group in both intervals. Especially, for the mid-term, the average score of the game group (5.5 ± 1.4 points) was significantly higher than that of the control group (4.0 ± 1.5 points) (P < .01). The learning outcomes of reviewing existing knowledge and acquiring new learning content were also evaluated. For this purpose, the nine questions based on the content learned after the two groups were divided into two review questions and seven new learning questions, and were compared between the two groups. The average score of the game group was significantly higher than that of the control group not only for review content but also for new learning content (P < .05) (Table 2). In particular, the average score of the game group (3.9 ± 1.2 points) was significantly higher than that of the control group (3.0 ± 1.3 points) at the mid-term (P < .01).
Average scores between the two groups on the pre-test and post-test
| 1a. Results of 10 questions based on fundamental knowledge of basic life support, administered as a pre-test. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Interval until post-test | Control group | Game group | P valuea |
| Overall | 7.5 ± 1.6 [69] | 7.6 ± 1.7 [72] | .97 |
| Short-term | 7.9 ± 1.6 [23] | 7.9 ± 1.5 [24] | .93 |
| Medium-term | 7.5 ± 1.7 [23] | 7.3 ± 1.9 [24] | .66 |
| Long-term | 7.2 ± 1.5 [23] | 7.5 ± 1.7 [24] | .61 |
| 1b. Results of 6 questions based on the content of the lecture given to both groups, administered as a post-test. | |||
| Interval until post-test | Control group | Game group | P valuea |
| Overall | 5.9 ± 0.4 [68] | 5.9 ± 0.5 [71] | .91 |
| Short-term | 5.9 ± 0.4 [23] | 5.8 ± 0.6 [24] | .59 |
| Medium-term | 5.7 ± 0.6 [22] | 5.8 ± 0.5 [23] | .53 |
| Long-term | 6.0 ± 0.2 [23] | 5.9 ± 0.3 [24] | .59 |
| 1c. Results of questions based on the content of the class given to the two groups after they were divided, administered as a post-test. | |||
| Interval until post-test | Control group | Game group | P valuea |
| Overall | 4.3 ± 1.8 [68] | 5.3 ± 1.5 [71] | .01 |
| Short-term | 4.8 ± 1.8 [23] | 5.3 ± 1.6 [24] | .27 |
| Medium-term | 4.0 ± 1.5 [22] | 5.5 ± 1.4 [23] | <.01 |
| Long-term | 4.2 ± 1.9 [23] | 5.0 ± 1.5 [24] | .09 |
a A t-test was used to determine significance (P < .05). Numbers in brackets indicate the number of participants.
The pre-test (10 questions in total, 1a) and post-test (15 questions in total, 1b and 1c) were conducted on a control group (a traditional one-way knowledge transfer lecture) and a game group (a class wherein a serious game was introduced). The average scores and standard deviations for each interval (overall, short-term [2 days], medium-term [2 weeks], long-term [4 weeks]), as well as statistically significant differences (P-values), are shown. 1a–1c: The results are presented as average scores ± standard deviation.
Average scores between the two groups by study area in the post-test
| 2a. Results for new learning content (7 questions). | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Interval until post-test | Control group | Game group | P valuea |
| Overall | 3.3 ± 1.4 [68] | 3.7 ± 1.2 [71] | .03 |
| Short-term | 3.7 ± 1.4 [23] | 3.6 ± 1.2 [24] | .94 |
| Medium-term | 3.0 ± 1.3 [22] | 3.9 ± 1.2 [23] | .02 |
| Long-term | 3.1 ± 1.4 [23] | 3.7 ± 1.2 [24] | .13 |
| 2b. Results for review content (2 questions ). | |||
| Interval until post-test | Control group | Game group | P valuea |
| Overall | 1.0 ± 0.8 [68] | 1.5 ± 0.8 [71] | <.01 |
| Short-term | 1.1 ± 0.8 [23] | 1.7 ± 0.7 [24] | .33 |
| Medium-term | 1.0 ± 0.7 [22] | 1.6 ± 0.7 [23] | <.01 |
| Long-term | 1.0 ± 0.8 [23] | 1.3 ± 0.8 [24] | .23 |
a A t-test was used to determine significance (P < .05). Numbers in brackets indicate the number of participants.
The post-test (9 questions in total) was conducted on two groups, a control group (a traditional one-way knowledge transfer lecture) and a game group (a class that introduced serious games), and the results were classified into review content (2 questions) and new learning content (7 questions). The average scores and standard deviations for each interval (whole, short term [2 days], medium term [2 weeks], long term [4 weeks]), as well as statistical significance (P value), are shown.
Next, the responses from the control group and the game group were summarized based on the questionnaire results (Table 3). For the item “I was able to learn while having fun,” all students in the game group gave positive answers (“Agree” and “Strongly agree”), while in the control group, only 60% of students gave positive answers. For the item “My motivation to study improved,” 99% of the game group answered positively, while only 67% of the control group answered positively. Furthermore, for the item “I would like to take a similar class format in other classes,” 96% of the game group answered positively, while only 63% of the control group answered positively. When asked other questions, both groups gave several positive responses, and overall similar trends were observed. However, for the item “I was able to concentrate,” all students in the game group answered positively.
Comparison of cognitive measures between the two groups
| Item | Group | Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | P valuea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I was able to have fun while learning | Control | 9 | 51 | 33 | 7 | <.01 |
| Game | 75 | 25 | 0 | 0 | ||
| I was able to concentrate on the class | Control | 16 | 62 | 22 | 0 | <.01 |
| Game | 68 | 32 | 0 | 0 | ||
| I was interested in the topic of the Lecture | Control | 27 | 62 | 11 | 0 | .01 |
| Game | 65 | 33 | 2 | 0 | ||
| My motivation to learn improved | Control | 11 | 56 | 31 | 2 | <.01 |
| Game | 54 | 44 | 1 | 0 | ||
| My level of understanding improved | Control | 16 | 69 | 12 | 3 | <.01 |
| Game | 63 | 36 | 1 | 0 | ||
| I would want to attend more classes with the same format | Control | 7 | 56 | 31 | 6 | <.01 |
| Game | 61 | 35 | 3 | 1 |
a A t-test was used to determine significance (P < .05).
The results of a questionnaire survey on motivation to learn, etc., using a four-point Likert scale, administered to a control group (traditional one-way knowledge transfer lectures, n = 45) and a game group (classes that introduced serious games, n = 71) are shown below.
Finally, we extracted frequently occurring words from the responses of the control group and the game group, and created qualitative themes (Table 4). In terms of “good points about the class,” the control group most frequently mentioned the word “lecture” (13 times), and many participants commented that “I was able to concentrate on the lecture, so it was useful” (Table 4a). On the other hand, for the game group, the most frequently mentioned word was “fun,” which appeared 21 times (Table 4b, c). A student also mentioned that “ I really enjoyed the fact that we could play against each other in teams, that it was easy to express my opinions because it was played on my own mobile phone, and that it was a participatory game.” On the other hand, “areas for improvement about the class,” the most frequently mentioned word for the game group was “team,” which appeared 12 times. A student said that “I think it would have been better if we could have discussed and solved the problem in teams.”
Extraction of qualitative themes obtained from a questionnaire survey using free-form responses
| 4a. Text-mining results of free-form responses in the control group. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranking | Good points: Extracted words | Frequency of occurrence | Improvements: Extracted words | Frequency of occurrence |
| 1 | Lecture | 13 | Class | 16 |
| 2 | Concentration | 6 | Sleepy | 11 |
| 3 | Content | 5 | Think | 10 |
| 4 | Think | 4 | Fun | 5 |
| 5 | Receive | 4 | Feel | 5 |
| 4b. Text-mining results of free-form responses in the game group. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranking | Good points: Extracted words | Frequency of occurrence | Improvements: Extracted words | Frequency of occurrence |
| 1 | Fun | 21 | Team | 12 |
| 2 | Game | 14 | Think | 6 |
| 3 | Think | 13 | Time | 4 |
| 4 | Team | 11 | A little more | 3 |
| 5 | Oneself | 10 | Feel | 3 |
| 4c. Construction of qualitative themes based on extracted vocabulary and free-form comments corresponding to each theme. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Group | Theme | %a | Sample comment |
| Good points about the class | Control [17] | Able to concentrate on the lecture | 30 [5] | I concentrated on the lectures and found them useful. |
| Clear structure and emphasis of key points | 18 [3] | The important points were clearly emphasized, which made the content easy to understand. | ||
| Instructional design supporting attention | 18 [3] | The fast pace prevented me from getting bored. | ||
| Game [50] | I enjoyed learning. | 46 [23] | I really enjoyed the fact that we could play against each other in teams, that it was easy to express my opinions because it was played on my own mobile phone, and that it was a participatory game. | |
| Enhanced understanding and knowledge retention | 14 [28] | Rather than simply answering questions, the scoring system made both correct and incorrect answers stand out, which left a strong impression and was very effective for learning. | ||
| Team-based learning and motivation | 24 [12] | Working in teams made it fun, and I felt a sense of responsibility, which motivated me to try harder. | ||
| Improvements to the class | Control [25] | Falling asleep during lectures | 36 [9] | I get sleepy easily and can’t remember anything about the lecture. |
| Lack of engagement in lecture-based instruction | 28 [7] | It felt like an ordinary lecture, for better or worse. | ||
| Preference for active or game-based learning | 28 [7] | I think hands-on, experiential learning leads to better retention. | ||
| Game [17] | The class lacked team elements | 53 [9] | I think it would have been better if we could have discussed and solved the problem in teams. | |
| Design and pacing of the learning activity | 30 [5] | The activity progressed too quickly, so I wanted more time to reflect. | ||
| Echnical and environmental constraints | 18 [3] | I felt that it would be difficult to implement this activity in places without a stable internet connection. | ||
a Percentage of the total number of survey respondents. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of respondents.
From the responses to a free-form questionnaire survey administered to a control group (traditional one-way knowledge transfer lectures, n = 45) and a game group (classes that introduced serious games, n = 71), frequently appearing vocabulary was extracted, and qualitative themes were constructed based on these. When a single respondent mentioned multiple themes within one free-form response, each theme was counted independently, and the top three themes for each group were presented in the table. The results are presented here.
This study aimed to create a cost-free and time-efficient serious game, to introduce it into classes on a trial basis to improve the acquisition and retention of new knowledge and motivation to learn, and to examine its educational usefulness at multiple points in time. To achieve this purpose, the serious game was designed to encourage students to actively participate in their learning outcomes by displaying their team scores, encouraging them to participate in collaborative learning. The results of the post-test indicated a significant difference in the acquisition and retention of knowledge for about two weeks compared to traditional lectures, suggesting a certain learning outcome. Furthermore, when the usefulness of serious games for the acquisition and consolidation of knowledge in new learning content was examined, the average score of the game group was significantly higher than that of the control group. This suggests that serious games are an effective method for acquiring and retaining new knowledge, and are useful as a wide-ranging educational method. However, no significant difference was observed between the game group and the control group in the short-term. This suggests that the content remained fresh in students’ memories only two days after the class session, allowing both groups to retain the material equally well. Regarding the long-term results, the lack of sustained knowledge retention may be attributed to several factors. First, the emotional arousal (e.g., enjoyment) that enhances attention and memory may be temporary in nature. Second, students may have had limited opportunities to connect the learning content with related information or to reflect on it. Considering these points, the introduction of activities such as discussions, as one approach, and the incorporation of additional collaborative elements—such as requiring teams to reach a consensus and submit a single shared response—as another, which can stimulate new interest and engagement through interactions with others while providing perspectives and opportunities for connecting knowledge that are difficult to achieve through individual learning alone, may be an effective strategy for promoting long-term knowledge retention28,29) .
The survey results showed the serious games were well received by students, and they perceived the learning experience positively. In particular, all students in the game group answered positively for the items “I was able to learn while having fun” and “I was able to concentrate on the class.” The item “My motivation to study improved” also suggested serious games may have contributed to improving students’ motivation to study. In addition, many positive responses were given to the item “I would like to take a similar class format in other classes,” providing useful insights when considering how to expand the scope of classes.
According to the results of the free-form response, when asked “what was good about the class?” several students in the control group said that they were able to concentrate on the lecture. On the other hand, students in the game group said they enjoyed the collaborative element of the game. The results of the free-form responses, along with the post-test results mentioned above, are consistent with previous studies. These results provide further evidence that classes that incorporate serious games contribute to the retention of learning content and increased motivation to learn19–21) . On the other hand, when asked what could be improved in the game group, the frequency of vocabulary related to “team” was high, indicating that learners desired more collaborative elements in addition to the current game format. It should be noted, however, that in this study, opportunities for in-depth discussion among team members were intentionally not included in the game-based class design. This design aimed to encourage students to engage independently with the learning content and arrive at their own answers.
This questionnaire result also supports, from the learners’ perspective, the previously mentioned necessity of incorporating discussions to enhance long-term knowledge retention. Thus, from both the standpoint of improving long-term learning effects and meeting learners’ needs, it is expected that the learning effect of serious games will be further improved by adding ways to increase their collaborative elements.
The serious game created in this study was a very simple one that used a free application to the learning content into a quiz format. Consequently, the introduction of serious games required almost no changes to the learning content or any increase in time or financial costs, and the game could be easily incorporated into classes. During classes, two-way communication between students and teachers was constantly encouraged, which is believed to have contributed to drawing out students’ active learning attitudes. In addition, by providing immediate feedback to students according to their level of understanding for each question, it became possible to reflect students’ learning achievement in classes in real time, which is believed to have further strengthened their motivation to learn.
Our results thus suggest that introducing serious games into classes can achieve desired learning outcomes such as improving acquisition and retention of new knowledge and motivation to learn. In particular, the significantly higher scores observed in the game group than in the control group for newly learned content suggest the educational usefulness of the serious game as an effective active learning method even in general classes for which the main purpose is knowledge acquisition.
This study has several limitations. First, the medium-term educational effects of serious games were considered based on the results for each divided interval. Since individual students were not evaluated over time, the progress of the outcomes at the individual level is unknown. Furthermore, because a certain interval of time was set between the class and the post-test, it is impossible to eliminate the influence of the learners’ self-learning factors on the post-test results. In addition, because the serious game developed in this study incorporated collaborative elements, it was not possible to disentangle the effects of the game from those of the collaborative elements. However, the results are considered to be related to the educational effect of serious games implemented in a collaborative learning context.
The serious game introduced in this study resulted in statistically significant improvements in learning outcomes compared with traditional lectures and was well received by students. It may be useful for review and for the acquisition and retention of newly learned content, as well as for enhancing motivation to learn. Because it requires no special facilities or major changes to course content and involves minimal additional cost or time, it may serve as an effective active learning method that can be flexibly implemented in general classes primarily aimed at knowledge acquisition. Incorporating additional collaborative elements, such as team discussions, may further enhance learning outcomes and long-term retention.
There is no conflict of interest to be disclosed in relation to the contents of this paper.
