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

Nature Biotechnology volume 32, pages 694–697 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

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

A large proportion of high school and college students indicate that they have little interest in science, and many students graduate with marginal science competencies1,2. It has been suggested that this results from an exaggerated focus on memorizing facts, listening passively to lectures and performing 'cookbook' laboratory exercises in science education, rather than stimulating students' natural curiosity, and highlighting the intricate connection between science and “real world problems”3. Although several studies have challenged the effectiveness of traditional teaching methods4,5,6,7,8, these methods continue to dominate science education. This is not only problematic for students but is a major challenge for the biotech industry, which depends on highly educated graduates with up-to-date knowledge and skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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

References

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

Author notes

  1. Hanne Jarmer and Morten O A Sommer: Hanne Jarmer and Morten O.A. Sommer have shared senior authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. and the Department of Systems Biology, Mads T. Bonde & Morten O.A. Sommer are at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Biosustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Technical University of Denmark,

    Mads T Bonde & Morten O A Sommer

  2. Department of Systems Biology, Mette V. Larsen & Hanne Jarmer are at the Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Technical University of Denmark,

    Mette V Larsen & Hanne Jarmer

  3. Guido Makransky is at the Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark,

    Guido Makransky

  4. Jakob Wandall is at NordicMetrics, Denmark,

    Jakob Wandall

  5. Mikkel Morsing is at the Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.,

    Mikkel Morsing

Authors
  1. Mads T Bonde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guido Makransky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jakob Wandall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mette V Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mikkel Morsing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hanne Jarmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Morten O A Sommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mads T Bonde, 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

Check for updates. 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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2955

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research