Radiation Oncology Active Learning in Undergraduate Medical Education: The Usefulness of Kahoot and TikTok.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Irene Zapata-Martínez, Francisca Rius-Diaz, Rocío Lorenzo-Álvarez, Lourdes De la Peña-Fernández
{"title":"Radiation Oncology Active Learning in Undergraduate Medical Education: The Usefulness of Kahoot and TikTok.","authors":"Irene Zapata-Martínez, Francisca Rius-Diaz, Rocío Lorenzo-Álvarez, Lourdes De la Peña-Fernández","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02583-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gamification and social networking can be used as active learning tools, as they have been shown to increase learner motivation. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether they impact students' knowledge acquisition. This study aimed to share an educational experience for medical students using Kahoot and TikTok as active teaching/learning tools and assessed whether they improve academic performance. A retrospective quasi-experimental study was conducted with 176 students enrolled in radiation oncology in the 2021/22 academic year (control group), who received traditional teaching, and 166 students in the 2022/23 academic year (experimental group), where Kahoot and TikTok were added to traditional teaching. Final exam results of both groups were compared to assess learning differences, as well as those of the experimental group in terms of participation in Kahoot and TikTok and their relationship with the final grade. Comparing the average exam scores of the experimental group to the control group showed an increase of 12.9% in the first group compared to the traditional group (6.02 vs. 7.31 points, p = 0.0001). In the experimental group, students who participated in Kahoot or TikTok increased their mean score by 0.54 points (p = 0.021) and 1.57 points (p = 0.040), respectively, compared to those who did not. A correlated increase in mean test scores was observed based on tool usage: none, Kahoot or TikTok, or both (6.19, 6.88 ± 1.48, and 7.51 ± 1.20 points, p = 0.019). Using Kahoot and TikTok as active learning tools for medical students improved academic performance when integrated with traditional methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02583-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gamification and social networking can be used as active learning tools, as they have been shown to increase learner motivation. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether they impact students' knowledge acquisition. This study aimed to share an educational experience for medical students using Kahoot and TikTok as active teaching/learning tools and assessed whether they improve academic performance. A retrospective quasi-experimental study was conducted with 176 students enrolled in radiation oncology in the 2021/22 academic year (control group), who received traditional teaching, and 166 students in the 2022/23 academic year (experimental group), where Kahoot and TikTok were added to traditional teaching. Final exam results of both groups were compared to assess learning differences, as well as those of the experimental group in terms of participation in Kahoot and TikTok and their relationship with the final grade. Comparing the average exam scores of the experimental group to the control group showed an increase of 12.9% in the first group compared to the traditional group (6.02 vs. 7.31 points, p = 0.0001). In the experimental group, students who participated in Kahoot or TikTok increased their mean score by 0.54 points (p = 0.021) and 1.57 points (p = 0.040), respectively, compared to those who did not. A correlated increase in mean test scores was observed based on tool usage: none, Kahoot or TikTok, or both (6.19, 6.88 ± 1.48, and 7.51 ± 1.20 points, p = 0.019). Using Kahoot and TikTok as active learning tools for medical students improved academic performance when integrated with traditional methodology.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Education
Journal of Cancer Education 医学-医学:信息
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues. Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care. We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts. Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited. Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants. Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信