skip to main content
10.1145/3486011.3486526acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Critical thinking, empathy and problem solving using a modern board game: A learning experience valued by physical therapy students

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 December 2021Publication History
First page image

References

  1. Priscilla K Gazarian, Constance R C Morrison, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, Orly Tamir, David W Bates and Ronen Rozenblum. 2021. Patients' and Care Partners' Perspectives on Dignity and Respect During Acute Care Hospitalization. Journal of patient safety, 17(5): 392-397. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000353.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Marko Urh, Goran Vukovic, Eva Jereb, and Rok Pintar. 2015. The Model for Introduction of Gamification into E-learning in Higher Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197, 388–397. DOI:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Maja Pivec and Olga Dziabenko. 2004. Game-Based Learning in Universities and Lifelong Learning: “UniGame: Social Skills and Knowledge Training.” Journal of Universal Computer Science 10(1), 14–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Verónica Estrada-Plana, Roger Montanera, Ana Ibarz-Estruga, Jaume March-Llanes, Núria Vita-Barrull, Núria Guzmán, Agnès Ros-Morente, Rosa Ayesa, and Jorge Moya-Higueras. 2020. Cognitive Training with Modern Board and Card Games in Healthy Older Adults: Two Randomized Controlled Trials. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Laura Ribeiro, Milton Severo, Maria A. Ferreira. 2016. Performance of a core of transversal skills: self-perceptions of undergraduate medical students. BMC Medical Education, 16(18). doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0527-2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Óscar Rodríguez-Nogueira, Antonio R. Moreno-Poyato, María José Álvarez-Álvarez, Arrate Pinto-Carral. 2020. Significant socio-emotional learning and improvement of empathy in physiotherapy students through service-learning methodology: A mixed methods research. Nurse Education Today, 90, 104437. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104437.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Murat A. Çınar, Elif D. Dinler and Yavuz Yakut. (2019). The Effect of creative drama on empathic tendencies, communication skills and critical thinking of physiotherapy students. In CBU International Conference Proceedings,7: 711-716.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Brandy Weidman and Helen Salisbury. 2020. Critical thinking in health sciences and how it pertains to sonography education: A review of the literature. SAGE Journals, 36 (3): 244-250. doi: 10.1177/8756479320908216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Maria Moudatsou, Areti Stavropoulou, Anastas Philalithis, and Sofia Koukouli. 2020. The Role of Empathy in Health and Social Care Professionals. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 8(1), 26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010026.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Adolfo Peña. 2010. The Dreyfus model of clinical problem-solving skills acquisition: a critical perspective. Medical education online, 15(1). doi: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.4846.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sara Shahbazi, Mohammad Heidari, Ehsan H. Sureshjani and Parvi Rezaei. 2018. Effects of problem-solving skill training on emotional intelligence of nursing students: An experimental study. Journal of education and health promotion, 7, 156. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_50_18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Eric Molleman, Manda Broekhuis, Renee Stoffels, and Frans Jaspers. 2008. How Health Care Complexity Leads to Cooperation and Affects the Autonomy of Health Care Professionals. Health Care Analysis 16, 4, 329–341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Alicia M Zavala, Gary E Day, David Plummer, and Anita Bamford-Wade. 2018. Decision-making under pressure: medical errors in uncertain and dynamic environments. Australian health review: a publication of the Australian Hospital Association 42 (4), 395–402.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Timothy A Judge, Daniel Heller, and Michael K Mount. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. The Journal of applied psychology 87 (3), 530–541. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Geoffrey Engelstein and Isaac halev. 2019. Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design: An Encyclopedia of Mechanisms. CRC Press LLC. doi: 10.1201/9780429430701.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kasper Lapp. 2017. Magic Maze [Gameboard]. Sit Down !Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Daisy Abbott. 2018. Modding tabletop games for education. In International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance, 318–329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Edward Castronova and Isaac Knowles. 2015. Modding board games into serious games: The case of Climate Policy. International Journal of Serious Games, 2(3), 41–62. doi: 10.17083/ijsg.v2i3.77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Micael Sousa. 2020. Modern Serious Board Games: modding games to teach and train civil engineering students. 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 197–201. doi: 10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.912526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Micael Sousa and Joana Dias. 2020. From learning mechanics to tabletop mechanisms: modding steam board game to be a serious game. 21st Annual European GAMEON® Conference, GAME‐ON®’2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Crookall. 2010. Serious Games, Debriefing, and Simulation/Gaming as a Discipline. Simulation & Gaming 41(6), 898-920.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Micael Sousa and Edgar Bernardo. 2019. Back in the Game. In International Conference on Videogame Sciences and Arts (pp. 72-85). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Igor Mayer, Geertje Bekebrede, Casper Harteveld, Haral J. G. Warmelink, Qiqi Zhou, Theo van Ruijven, Julia Lo, Rens Kortmann and Ivo Wenzler. 2014. The research and evaluation of serious games: Toward a comprehensive methodology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 502–527. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12067.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Albert Bandura. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(307-337). In: Psychology: 307–37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Aiko Sato and Jonathan de Haan. 2016. Applying an Experiential Learning Model to the Teaching of Gateway Strategy Board Games. International Journal of Instruction, 9, 3–16. ISSN: 1694-609X.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Lena Gustin .2017. Compassion for self and others as key aspects of well-being in changing times. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 31: 427–433. doi: 10.1111/scs.12536.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Louis S. Jeevanantham. 2005. Why Teach Critical Thinking? Africa Education Review, 2(1): 118-129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Shazaitul A. Rodzala and Maisarah M. Saatb. 2015. The Perception of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skill among Malaysian Undergraduate Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 172: 725 – 732. doi: 10.1080/18146620508566295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Krsiten Purcell, Lee Rainie, Alan Heaps, Judy Buchanan, Linda Friedrich, Amanda Jacklin, Clara Chen and Kathryn Zickuhr. 2012. How Teens Do Research in the Digital World: Pew Research Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    TEEM'21: Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21)
    October 2021
    823 pages
    ISBN:9781450390668
    DOI:10.1145/3486011
    • Editors:
    • Marc Alier,
    • David Fonseca

    Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 20 December 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format