Comparative study of “scavenger hunt” active methodology between face‑to‑face and distance learning in Pharmacy undergraduate course

Main Article Content

Agnes Nogueira Gossenheimer
Mára Lúcia Fernandes Carneiro
Mauro Silveira de Castro

Abstract

Introduction: The growth of distance education (DE) in Brazil has been increasingly intense, including in health courses. Objective: To do a comparative analysis between the modalities about assessment of activity and academic performance. “Scavenger Hunt” was developed in Distance Learning (DL) mode in 2012, called “Virtual Scavenger Hunt”. Methods: The “Scavenger Hunt” was applied in DL mode in the first 2012 semester (n=40) and face‑to‑face in the second semester (n=42). The class was divided into two teams, for the first time the teams formulated tasks and the second time the tasks were exchanged between them. The students answered a final discipline assessment survey, considering Methodology, Collateral, Tasks and Considerations. Yet was assessed the academic performance between the two modes. Results: “Scavenger Hunt”, as the Methodology and the Task was a significant difference, with a preference for the face‑to‑face kind. As for the comments of the students, the use of synchronous Forum as a means of interaction is innovative, but can cause confusion and slow to update, hindering the interaction and dynamism of activity. On the other hand, it makes the Class participation higher because DL reduces exposure of the student. There was a better academic performance, on average, in the face‑to‑face mode. Conclusion: The educational games promotes increasing students’ attention and concentration because of the competition, so the interaction tool “Virtual Scavenger Hunt” should be interactive and dynamic, as well as in the face‑to‑face class.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Gossenheimer, A. N., Carneiro, M. L. F., & Castro, M. S. de. (2015). Comparative study of “scavenger hunt” active methodology between face‑to‑face and distance learning in Pharmacy undergraduate course. ABCS Health Sciences, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.7322/abcshs.v40i3.801
Section
Original Articles

References

1. Anastasiou LGC. Ensinar, aprender, apreender e o processo de ensinagem. In: Anastasiou LGC, Alves LP. Processos de Ensinagem na Universidade. Joinvile: Univale; 2012; p. 17‑40.

2. Mitre SM, Siqueira‑Batista R, Girardi‑de‑Mendonça JM, Morais‑Pinto NM, Meirelles CAB, Pinto‑Porto C, et al. Metodologias ativas de ensino‑aprendizagem na formação profissional em saúde: debates atuais. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2008;13(Suppl 2):2133‑44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413‑81232008000900018

3. Vygotsky L. A formação social da mente. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 1989.

4. Oliveira N. Atividades de experimentação investigativas lúdicas no ensino de química: um estudo de caso. Tese (Doutorado) – Universidade Federal de Goiás. Goiânia: 2009; p. 52.

5. Dohme V. Atividades lúdicas na educação: o caminho de tijolos amarelos do aprendizado. 4ed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2008.

6. Mitchell A. The use of computer and video games for learning: a review of the literature. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency; 2004.

7. Schwartzman R. Gaming serves as a model for improving learning. Education. 1997;118(1):9‑17.

8. Akl EA, Sackett K, Pretorius R, Erdley S, Bhoopathi PS, Mustafa R, et al. Educational games for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;23(1):CD006411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006411.pub2

9. Blakely G, Skirton H, Cooper S, Allum P, Nelmes P. Educational gaming in the health sciences: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(2):259‑69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‑2648.2008.04843.x

10. Akl EA, Pretorius RW, Sackett K, Erdley WS, Bhoopathi PS, Alfarah Z, et al. The effect of educational games on medical students’
learning outcomes: A systematic review: BEME Guide no 14. Med Teach. 2010;32(1):16‑27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01421590903473969

11. Rondon S, Sassi FC, Furquim de Andrade CR. Computer game‑based and traditional learning method: a comparison regarding students’ knowledge retention. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472‑6920‑13‑30

12. Guillén‑Nieto V, Aleson‑Carbonell M. Serious games and learning effectiveness: the case of it’s a deal! Comput Educ. 2012;58(1):435‑48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.015

13. Cavanagh M. Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning Higher Educ. 2011;12(1):23‑33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387724

14. Patel J. Using game format in small group classes for pharmacotherapeutics case studies. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(1):21.

15. Barclay SM, Jeffres MN, Bhakta R. Educational card games to teach pharmacotherapeutics in an advanced pharmacy practice experience. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(2):33.

16. Oliver CH, Hurd PD, Beavers M, Gibbs E, Goeckner B, Miller K. Experiential learning about the elderly: the geriatric medication game. Am J Pharm Educ. 1995;59(2):155‑8.

17. Evans S, Lombardo M, Belgeri M, Fontane P. The geriatric medication game in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2005;69(3):46.

18. Chen AMH, Plake KS, Yehle KS, Kiersma ME. Impact of the geriatric medication game on pharmacy students ‘attitudes toward older adults. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(8):158. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe758158

19. Kennedy DH, Fanning KD, Thornton PL. The Age Game: An interactive tool to supplement course material in a geriatrics elective. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(5):115.

20. Roche VF, Alsharif NZ, Ogunbadeniyi AM. Reinforcing the relevance of chemistry to the practice of pharmacy through the who wants to be a med chem millionaire? Learning game. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(5):116.

21. Grady SE, Vest KM, Todd TJ. Student attitudes toward the use of games to promote learning in the large classroom setting. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2013;5(4):263‑8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2013.01.008

22. Shah S, Lynch LMJ, Macias‑Moriarity LZ. Crossword puzzles as a tool to enhance learning about anti‑ulcer agents. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(7):117.

23. Rose TM. A board game to assist pharmacy students in learning metabolic pathways. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(9):183. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe759183

24. Sando KR, Elliott J, Stanton ML, Doty R. An educational tool for teaching medication history taking to pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(5):105. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe775105

25. Tietze KJ. A bingo game motivates students to interact with course material. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(4):79. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/aj710479

26. Persky AM, Stegall‑Zanation J, Dupuis RE. Students’ perceptions of the incorporation of games into classroom instruction for basic and clinical pharmacokinetics. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(2):21.

27. Aburahma MH, Mohamed HM. Educational games as a teaching tool in pharmacy curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015;79(4):59. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe79459

28. Brasil. Ministério da Educação. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Resolução CNE/CES nº 2, de 19 de fevereiro de 2002: Institui Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais do Curso de Graduação em Farmácia. Diário Oficial da União. Brasília: MEC; 2002.

29. Sabbatini RME. Ambiente de ensino e aprendizagem via internet a plataforma moodle. Instituto EduMed; 2007.

30. Bardin L. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70; 1977.

31. Graafland M, Schraagen JM, Schijven MP. Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training. Br J Surg. 2012;99(10):1322‑30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8819

32. Marsh T, Nickole LZ, Klopfer E, Xuejin C, Haas J, Osterweil S. Fun and Learning: blending design and development dimensions in serious games through narrative and characters. Serious Games Edutainment Applic. 2011;273‑88.

33. Lenz TL, Monaghan MS, Wilson AF, Tilleman JA, Jones RM, Hayes MM. Using performance‑based assessments to evaluate parity between a campus and distance education pathway. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006;70(4):90.