Gamified laboratory simulations motivate students and improve learning outcomes compared with traditional teaching methods.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Business Higher Education Forum. The STEM Interest and Proficiency Challenge: Creating the Workforce of the Future (Washington, DC, 2011).
Honey, M.A., et al. Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education. (National Research Council, 2011).
Gago, J.M. et al. Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. European Commission High Level Group report (2004).
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).
Alexander, K., Natriello, G. & Pallas, A.M. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50, 409–420 (1985).
Natriello, G., Pallas, A. & Alexander, K. Sociol. Educ. 62, 109–118 (1989).
Ralph, J., Keller, D. & Crouse, J. Phi Delta Kappan 76, 144–150 (1994).
Keller, D. An Assessment of National Academic Achievement Growth (University of Delaware, 1995).
The US Department of Education's National Education Technology Plan. Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology (2010).
De Jong, T., Linn, M.C. & Zacharia, Z.C. Science 340, 305–308 (2013).
Zacharia, Z.C., Olympiou, G. & Papaevripidou, M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 1021–1035 (2008).
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).
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W.R. & van der Veen, J.T. Comput. Educ. 58, 136–153 (2012).
Kiboss, J.K., Ndirangu, M. & Wekesa, E.W. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 207–213 (2004).
Gelbart, H. & Yarden, A. J. Biol. Educ. 40, 107–112 (2006).
Toth, E.E., Morrow, B.L. & Ludvico, L.R. Innovative High. Educ. 33, 333–344 (2009).
Eastwood, J.L. & Sadler, T.D. Comput. Educ. 66, 11–24 (2013).
Höffler, T.N. & Leutner, D. Learn. Instr. 17, 722–738 (2007).
Mayer, R.E. Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Mayer, R.E. in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (ed. R.E. Mayer) (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B. & Armstrong, N. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 40, 45–52 (2011).
Anderson, R.D. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 13, 1–12 (2002).
Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J. & McGarr, O. Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 1571–1592 (2012).
The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. To Assess, to Teach, to Learn: a Vision for the Future (Princeton, NJ, 2013).
Levin, H.M. Prospects 42, 269–284 (2012).
Heckman, J.J. Econ. Inq. 46, 289–324 (2008).
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).
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).
Masters, G.N. Psykometrika 47, 149–174 (1982).
Embretson, S.E. & Reise, S.P. Item Response Theory for Psychologists (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2000).
Wainer, H., Bradlow, E.T. & Wang, X. Testlet Response Theory and its Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Birnbaum, A. in Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores (eds. F.M. Lord & M.R. Novick) 395–479 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968).
Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. Change 27, 12–26 (1995).
Hays, R.T., Jacobs, J.W., Prince, C. & Eduardo, S. Mil. Psychol. 4, 63–74 (1992).
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.
M.T.B. has a financial interest in Labster ApS.
About this article
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
Evolution: Education and Outreach (2021)
Nature Biotechnology (2021)
SN Computer Science (2021)
Educational Psychology Review (2020)
Investigating the feasibility of using assessment and explanatory feedback in desktop virtual reality simulations
Educational Technology Research and Development (2020)