Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maximizing Authentic Learning and Real-World Problem-solving in Health Curricula Through Psychological Fidelity in a Game-Like Intervention: Development, Feasibility, and Pilot Studies

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High fidelity is regarded as a hallmark of educational games and simulations for health education. Mainly physical and functional fidelity are associated with authenticity, resulting in the pursuit of a true-to-life simulation and suggesting the imposition of a generally accepted and often unintentional design rationale that assumes that the greater the fidelity of a game or simulation to the real world, the more authentic the intervention is perceived as. Psychological fidelity receives significantly less attention, although it correlates strongly to credibility, suspension of disbelief, and engagement. The BABLR simulator reduces physical and functional fidelity to a minimum and explores the use of psychological fidelity as the main carrier of an authentic learning experience. BABLR was assessed using 26 participants with varying backgrounds in health innovation and social work. In several pilot studies, we collected data on perceived realisticness and real-world relevance. Results show that experts, as well as participants, attest to BABLR’s engagement, immersiveness, and motivational qualities. Practical implications of these findings for future research into developing low-fidelity simulations with high psychological fidelity will be discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Durkin K. Videogames and young people with developmental disorders. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14(2):122–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kato PM. Video games in health care: closing the gap. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14(2):113–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kato PM, Cole SW, Bradlyn AS, Pollock BH. A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2008;122:e305–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fleming TM, Cheek C, Merry SN, Thabrew H, Bridgman H, Stasiak K, et al. Serious games for the treatment or prevention of depression: a systematic review. RPPC. 2014;19(3):227–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barry Issenberg S, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bagozzi RP, Davis FD, Warshaw PR. Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Hum Relat. 1992;45:659–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Norman DA, Draper SW. User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction. CRC Press; 1986.

  8. Badwan B, Bothara R, Latijnhouwers M, Smithies A, Sandars J. The importance of design thinking in medical education. Med Teach. 2018;40(4):425–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Trilling B, Fadel C. 21st century skills: learning for life in our times: Wiley; 2012.

  10. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klabbers JH. A framework for artifact assessment and theory testing. Simul Gaming. 2006;37(2):155–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hevner A, Chatterjee S. Design research in information systems: theory and practice. Springer Science & Business Media; 2010.

  14. Dorst K. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des Stud. 2011;32(6):521–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S. Design science in information systems research. Miss Q, vol. 28. Minneapolis: Society for Information Management and The Management Information Systems Research Center; 2004. p. 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Evans M. Empathizing with the future: creating next-next generation products and services. Des J. 2011;14:231–51.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Davis MH, Harden RM. Problem-based learning: a practical guide. AMEE; 1999.

  18. Taylor D, Miflin B. Problem-based learning: where are we now? Med Teach. 2008;30(8):742–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Savery JR, Duffy TM. Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educ Technol. 1995;35(5):31–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Savery JR. Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows 2015;9:5–15.

  21. Gwee MC. Problem-based learning: a strategic learning system design for the education of healthcare professionals in the 21st century. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25(5):231–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM. Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education. Springer Publishing Company; 1980.

  23. Herrington J, Oliver R, Reeves TC. Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australas J Educ Technol. 2003;19(1).

  24. Kuipers DA, Wartena BO, Dijkstra A, Prins JT, Pierie JP. Design for transfer. InInternational Conference on Serious Games Development and Applications, vol. 25. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 239–46.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Toups ZO, Kerne A, Hamilton WA. The team coordination game: zero-fidelity simulation abstracted from fire emergency response practice. ToCHI. 2011;18(4):23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huizinga J. Homo Ludens Ils 86. Routledge; 2014.

  27. Coleridge ST. Biographia literaria, or, biographical sketches of my literary life and opinions: Princeton University Press; 1985.

  28. Noble C. The relationship between fidelity and learning in aviation training and assessment. 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hays RT, Singer MJ. Simulation fidelity in training system design: bridging the gap between reality and training. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.

  30. Alexander AL, Brunyé T, Sidman J, Weil SA. From gaming to training: a review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects on transfer in pc-based simulations and games. DARWARS Training Impact Group 2005;5:1–4.

  31. Lukosch H, van Bussel R, Meijer SA. Hybrid instructional design for serious gaming. JCC. 2013;10(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Argyris C. Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2002;1:206–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Green MC, Brock TC, Kaufman GF. Understanding media enjoyment: the role of transportation into narrative worlds. Commun Theory. 2004;14(4):311–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Laer T, De Ruyter K, Visconti LM, Wetzels M. The extended transportation-imagery model: a meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. J Consum Res. 2013;40(5):797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schon DA, DeSanctis V. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. J Contin High Educ. 1986;34:29–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hays RT, Singer MJ. Definitions and problems in training system design. In: Simulation fidelity in training system design. New York: Springer; 1989. p. 4–22.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Kozlowski SW, DeShon RP. A psychological fidelity approach to simulation-based training: theory, research and principles. In: Scaled worlds: Development, validation, and applications; 2004. p. 75–99.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kuipers DA, Terlouw G, Wartena BO, van’t Veer JT, Prins JT, Pierie JP. The role of transfer in designing games and simulations for health: systematic review. JMIR Serious Games. 2017;5(4):e23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Royer JM. Theories of the transfer of learning. Educ Psychol. 1979;14(1):53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr. 1994;4:295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Motowidlo SJ, Dunnette MD, Carter GW. An alternative selection procedure: the low-fidelity simulation. J Appl Psychol. 1990;75(6):640–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dankbaar ME, Alsma J, Jansen EE, van Merrienboer JJ, van Saase JL, Schuit SC. An experimental study on the effects of a simulation game on students’ clinical cognitive skills and motivation. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21(3):505–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rooney P. A theoretical framework for serious game design. Int J Game Base Learn. 2012;2:41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gopher D, Well M, Bareket T. Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to flight. Hum Factors. 1994;36(3):387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Salas E, Wilson KA, Burke CS, Priest HA. Using simulation-based training to improve patient safety: what does it take? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(7):363–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hochmitz I, Yuviler-Gavish N. Physical fidelity versus cognitive fidelity training in procedural skills acquisition. Hum Factors. 2011;53(5):489–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Carlile PR. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci. 2002;13:442–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kuipers DA, Wartena BO, Dijkstra BH, Terlouw G, van t Veer JT, van Dijk HW, et al. iLift: a health behavior change support system for lifting and transfer techniques to prevent lower-back injuries in healthcare. Int J Med Inform. 2016;96:11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tripp SD, Bichelmeyer B. Rapid prototyping: an alternative instructional design strategy. Educ Technol Res Dev. 1990;38(1):31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. MIT press; 1996.

  51. Freytag G. Freytag’s technique of the drama: an exposition of dramatic composition and art. Scholarly Press; 1896.

  52. Green MC, Brock TC. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79(5):701–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Akkerman SF, Bakker A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev Educ Res. 2011;81(2):132–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Verkerke GJ, van der Houwen EB, Broekhuis AA, Bursa J, Catapano G, McCullagh P, et al. Science versus design; comparable, contrastive or conducive? J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;21:195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out on behalf of the research groups iHuman and Serious Gaming, both research groups of the NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences. The BABLR artifact was developed for usage in a health innovation curriculum course for a master’s degree in digital innovation in health and social work. The authors express their thanks to Dr. Job van ’t Veer and Dr. Hylke van Dijk for support and funding. You rock.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Rengerslaan 10, 8917 DD, Leeuwarden, Netherlands

    Derek A. Kuipers, Gijs Terlouw & Bard O. Wartena

  2. Medical Faculty LEARN, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

    Derek A. Kuipers

  3. Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

    Bard O. Wartena

  4. MCL Academy, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands

    Jelle T. Prins

  5. Surgery Department, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands

    Jean Pierre E. N. Pierie

  6. Post Graduate School of Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

    Jean Pierre E. N. Pierie

Authors
  1. Derek A. Kuipers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gijs Terlouw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bard O. Wartena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jelle T. Prins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jean Pierre E. N. Pierie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek A. Kuipers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuipers, D.A., Terlouw, G., Wartena, B.O. et al. Maximizing Authentic Learning and Real-World Problem-solving in Health Curricula Through Psychological Fidelity in a Game-Like Intervention: Development, Feasibility, and Pilot Studies. Med.Sci.Educ. 29, 205–214 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-00670-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-00670-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation