MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Innovating pathology learning via Kahoot! game-based tool: a quantitative study of students` perceptions and academic performance

2021· article· en· W6939394229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentPerceptionTest (biology)Academic achievementGraduate studentsMultiple choiceCurriculumQuarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pathology learning for medical undergraduate students is a challenging task. Kahoot! is a mobile game-based online digital formative assessment tool that can engage students in its learning. This study is the first to assess the effect of Kahoot! use on Pathology learning outside classroom using a comparative group with assessment done at the end of the course. The study was carried out on the first-year Pathology students at Helwan University, Faculty of Medicine, after ending a basic Pathology course. The study is a retrospective quasi-experimental quantitative study. Academic performance of students in Pathology was compared between Kahoot! and non-Kahoot! users (55 students each). In addition, an online survey was introduced to the 55 Kahoot! user students to investigate their perceptions on it. Survey and test score data were analyzed by appropriate tests using IBM-SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). The level of significance was P < 0.05. Kahoot! enhanced Pathology understanding (83.6%), retaining knowledge (87.3%), made learning fun and motivating (89.1%). Other mentioned advantages of Kahoot! were practicing for exam (40%), simple and easy to use (36.4%), competitive (18.2%), self confidence booster (10.9%), forming a comprehensive image of the lecture (9%), quick (9%), and imagining skills booster (5.5%). Mentioned disadvantages included no explanation for the answers to questions (20%). A quarter of the students stated that the time limit for the questions was short (27.3%). Kahoot! use was significantly associated with better Pathology academic performance (P = 0.001), and it was not related to the general academic performance of the students (P = 0.06). Most users (85.4%) recommended its continuous future use. The study offers an endorsement to the use of Kahoot! for gamifying formative assessment of Pathology and can provide a basis for the design of an online Kahoot! -based continuous formative assessment plans implemented outside-classroom in the Pathology curricula.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207