Use of a Web-Based Game to Teach Pediatric Content to Medical Students

References 

1. Slade PD, Onion CW. Depth of information processing and memory for medical facts. Med Teach. 1995;17:307–313
   • CrossRef
2. Conrad R, Donaldson JA. Engaging the Online Learner: Activities and Resources for Creative Instruction. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2004;
3. McKeachie WJ. McKeachie's Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. 11th ed. Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
4. Connolly T, Stansfield M. Using games-based eLearning technologies in overcoming difficulties in teaching information systems. JITE. 2006;5:459–476
5. Fall LH, Berman NB, Smith S, et al. Multi-institutional development and utilization of a computer-assisted learning program for the pediatrics clerkship: the CLIPP project. Acad Med. 2005;80:847–855
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
6. Butler TJ, Pinto-Zipp G. Students’ learning styles and their preferences for online instructional methods. J Educ Tech Syst. 2005;34:199–201
7. Vogel JJ, Vogel DS, Cannon-Bowers J, et al. Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: a meta-analysis. J Educ Comput Res. 2006;34:243–299
8. Lean J, Moizer J, Towler M, Abbey C. Simulations and games: use and barriers in higher education. Act Learn High Educ. 2006;7:227–242
9. Tam M. Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society. Educ Tech Soc. 2000;3:50–60
10. Kendrick J, Ogershok P, Maloney C. MEDGAME, the medical boardgame. Available at: http://www.medgame.org/. Accessed July 17, 2008.
11. Ogershok PR, Cottrell S. The pediatric board game. Med Teach. 2004;26:514–517
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
12. Wyckoff AS. Playing games in this pediatrics department can boost learning. AAP News. 2002;21:258–259
13. Kendrick J, Maloney C. MEDGAME flashcards. Available at: http://www.medgame.org/medflash.html. Accessed July 17, 2008.
14. University of Maryland. QUIS. Questionnaire for user interaction satisfaction. Version 7.0 (software, version 7.0). Available at: http://lap.umd.edu/QUIS/. Accessed July 17, 2008.
15. Chin J, Diehl V, Norman K. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: CHI ’88 Conference Proceedings: Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings of SIGCHI 1988 Conference. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery Press; 1988: 213–218. Available at: http://lap.umd.edu/quis/publications/chin1988.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2008.
16. Harper B, Norman K. Improving user satisfaction: the questionnaire for user interaction satisfaction version 5.5. In: Proceedings of Mid Atlantic Human Factors Conference, Virginia Beach, Va. 1993:224–228. Available at: http://lap.umd.edu/quis/publications/harper1993.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2008.
17. Harper B, Slaughter L, Norman K. Questionnaire administration via the WWW: a validation & reliability study for a user satisfaction questionnaire. Available at: http://www.lap.umd.edu/webnet/paper.html. Accessed May 1, 2008.
18. Slaughter L, Harper B, Norman K. Assessing the equivalence of the paper and on-line formats of the QUIS 5.5. Proceedings of Mid Atlantic Human Factors Conference. 1994:87–91.
19. Colaizzi P. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In:  Valle R,  King M editor. Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1978;p. 48–71
20. Glassick CE. Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med. 2000;75:877–880
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
21. McGrath D. The scholarship of application. J Ext. 2006;44:2FEA8. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006april/a8.shtml. Accessed July 17, 2008.
22. Anderson LW. Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Stud Educ Eval. 2005;31:102–113
23. Clark R. In: Learning From Media: Arguments, Analysis, and Evidence. Greenwich, Conn: Information Age Publishing; 2001;
24. Grechus M, Brown J. Comparison of individualized computer game reinforcement versus peer-interactive board game reinforcement on retention of nutrition label knowledge. J Health Educ. 2000;31:138–142