EFFECT OF LEARNING SCIENCE THROUGH GAME BASED LEARNING (GBL) ON REFLECTIVE DEPTH SCORE OF UNDERGRADUATE NURSING STUDENTS

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Sport games play a significant role in maintaining the psychological wellbeing of learners (Liu et al, 2024). The 21st century skills as defined by the researchers is collaborative and cooperative interactive skills, communication and problem solving skills (Chung et al, 2017). The current study aims to implement Game Based Learning (GBL) entitled “Kinetic Minds” where students will be learning scientific concepts through sport games with a goal to work for the mental wellbeing of the nursing students who are considered to be the front line workers in the healthcare. Research Objective:

To assess the effect of learning science through Game Based Learning (GBL) on Reflective Depth Score of Undergraduate Nursing Students

Methodology: Following the approval from ERC and head of the department, the students providing informed consent will be included in the study. Students of BSN II were taught the chains of infection through a traditional lecture based method followed by a Game Based method using Ludo board game that involved physical activity in an open college area Same students from both groups (traditional versus GBL) were then asked to fill the Gibb’s reflective model to express their reflections on the teaching pedagogy.

Results: Results will be analyzed through Stata. Mean and standard deviation will be calculated for all numeric variables and means for reflective depth scores in control and experimental groups will be calculated through The paired t-test results indicate a statistically significant increase in Total Gibbs Scores from pre-test to post-test. For a sample size of 90 observations, the mean score rose from 21.54 to 26.20, yielding a mean difference of -4.66. The associated paired t-test produced a t-statistic of -8.2442 with 89 degrees of freedom, resulting in a two-tailed p-value of < 0.0001. The frequency of containing the true mean of -4.6 in an interval from -3.5 to -5.7 was 95 %. This confirms that the intervention or condition between the two testing periods led to a measurable, genuine improvement in scores rather than a change by random chance.