Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations

Subjects

Gamified laboratory simulations motivate students and improve learning outcomes compared with traditional teaching methods.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3: Measurement of learning outcomes from 91 students.

References

  1. 1

    Business Higher Education Forum. The STEM Interest and Proficiency Challenge: Creating the Workforce of the Future (Washington, DC, 2011).

  2. 2

    Honey, M.A., et al. Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education. (National Research Council, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Gago, J.M. et al. Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. European Commission High Level Group report (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Lanahan, L., McGrath, D.J., McLaughlin, M., Burian-Fitzgeral, M. & Salganik, L. 1–32, Fundamental Problems in the Measurement of Instructional Processes: Estimating Reasonable Effect Sizes and Conceptualizing What is Important to Measure (American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Alexander, K., Natriello, G. & Pallas, A.M. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50, 409–420 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Natriello, G., Pallas, A. & Alexander, K. Sociol. Educ. 62, 109–118 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Ralph, J., Keller, D. & Crouse, J. Phi Delta Kappan 76, 144–150 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Keller, D. An Assessment of National Academic Achievement Growth (University of Delaware, 1995).

  9. 9

    The US Department of Education's National Education Technology Plan. Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology (2010).

  10. 10

    De Jong, T., Linn, M.C. & Zacharia, Z.C. Science 340, 305–308 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Zacharia, Z.C., Olympiou, G. & Papaevripidou, M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 1021–1035 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Mislevy, R.J. Evidence-centered design for simulation-based assessment. CRESST Report 800 (National Center For Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W.R. & van der Veen, J.T. Comput. Educ. 58, 136–153 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Kiboss, J.K., Ndirangu, M. & Wekesa, E.W. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 207–213 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Gelbart, H. & Yarden, A. J. Biol. Educ. 40, 107–112 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Toth, E.E., Morrow, B.L. & Ludvico, L.R. Innovative High. Educ. 33, 333–344 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Eastwood, J.L. & Sadler, T.D. Comput. Educ. 66, 11–24 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Höffler, T.N. & Leutner, D. Learn. Instr. 17, 722–738 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Mayer, R.E. Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, 2001).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Mayer, R.E. in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (ed. R.E. Mayer) (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B. & Armstrong, N. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 40, 45–52 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Anderson, R.D. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 13, 1–12 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J. & McGarr, O. Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 1571–1592 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. To Assess, to Teach, to Learn: a Vision for the Future (Princeton, NJ, 2013).

  25. 25

    Levin, H.M. Prospects 42, 269–284 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Heckman, J.J. Econ. Inq. 46, 289–324 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Singer, S.R. et al. America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    National Foundation for Educational Research. Exploring Young People's Views on Science Education. Report to the Wellcome Trust (http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/999901; 2011).

  29. 29

    Masters, G.N. Psykometrika 47, 149–174 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Embretson, S.E. & Reise, S.P. Item Response Theory for Psychologists (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Wainer, H., Bradlow, E.T. & Wang, X. Testlet Response Theory and its Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Birnbaum, A. in Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores (eds. F.M. Lord & M.R. Novick) 395–479 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. Change 27, 12–26 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Hays, R.T., Jacobs, J.W., Prince, C. & Eduardo, S. Mil. Psychol. 4, 63–74 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge H.J. Genee, P. Rugbjerg, J. Serritslev, A. Laustsen, D. Møller, L. Holst, S. Heilmann, O. Filtenborg, E.B. Hansen, S. Molin, O.D. Madsen, B. Nauntofte, R. Frandsen, O. Thastrup, H.H.Wang, P. Falholt, J. Vind, J.T. Andersen, T. Damhus, B.T. Simonsen, C.B. Jorgensen, C.V.S. Bruun, K. Spohr, P. Gibson, J. Keasling, G.M. Church, J. Nielsen and B. Palsson for fruitful discussions, support and advice. We would also like to thank the Labster team for co-development of the gamified laboratory simulations, H. Bonde, G. Nixon and E. Earls for critical reading of the manuscript, as well as K. Failor and M. Huang for collaboration regarding the tests at Stanford University OHS and Archbishop Williams High School. We would like to acknowledge the student organization Biotech Academy at DTU for its role in disseminating science education and awareness to the young. This research was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Market Development Fund, and the development of the laboratory simulations has been supported by The Danish Ministry of Science, the Danish Market Development Fund, The Lundbeck Foundation, The Danish Film Institute, Novo Nordisk A/S and Novozymes A/S.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mads T Bonde or Hanne Jarmer or Morten O A Sommer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

M.T.B. has a financial interest in Labster ApS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonde, M., Makransky, G., Wandall, J. et al. Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nat Biotechnol 32, 694–697 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2955

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing