Learning Biology Through Innovative Curricula: A Comparison of Game- and Nongame-Based Approaches

Abstract

This study explored student learning in the context of innovative biotechnology curricula and the effects of gaming as a central element of the learning experience. The quasi-experimentally designed study compared learning outcomes between two curricular approaches: One built around a computer-based game, and the other built around a narrative case. The research questions addressed student learning of basic biological principles, development of interest in learning science, and how a game-based approach compared to a nongame-based approach in terms of supporting learning. The study employed a pre-post design with 1,888 high school students nested within the classes of 36 biology teachers. Results indicated that students participating in both approaches demonstrated statistically and practically significant gains on both proximal and distal assessments of biological content knowledge. Neither group demonstrated gains in science interest. The curriculum by time interaction was not statistically different, indicating that students in both groups showed similar results. Implications for game-based science learning and future research include building better awareness of technological and professional development challenges associated with implementing educational games, the need for new strategies for understanding

What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes?

“…Regarding students, many studies show that science curriculum materials can have positive effects on student learning, including gains in students’ attitudes and motivation toward science (e.g., Häussler & Hoffmann, ; White & Frederiksen, ), gains in their understanding of key science concepts (e.g., Harris et al., ; Sadler, Romine, Menon, Ferdig, & Annetta, ), and gains in their abilities to engage in science practices. The latter include a range of abilities such as the development and use of models (e.g., Schwarz et al., ), the planning and carrying out of investigations (e.g., Rivet & Krajcik, ), the analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., Marx et al., ), the construction of scientific explanations (e.g., McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, ), the engagement in argument from evidence (e.g., Berland & Reiser, ), and the evaluation and communication of information (e.g., Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, ).…”

Multilevel Assessment of Middle School Students’ Interest in the Health Sciences: Development and Validation of a New Measurement Tool

“…Interest in STEM developed in middle school impacts motivation to learn and engage successfully in appropriate programs of study at the high school level, and previous research indicates that even relatively modest 2-wk interventions can make significant lasting impacts on middle school students’ interest in science ( Gibson and Chase, 2002 ). However, the difficulty of making significant changes in personal interest with short interventions has been documented in previous work ( Romine et al ., 2013 ; Sadler et al ., 2015 ) as has the success of more enduring efforts in evoking significant change ( Romine and Sadler, 2014 ). While these studies target high school and college students, respectively, our data suggest that a similar difficulty applies in the case of middle school students.…”

Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning science: A literature review

“…Students were provided with Android tablet computers with GPS technology and to collect virtual radiation data and conduct interviews with virtual characters. Sadler, Romine, Menon, Ferdig, and Annetta () used a computer‐based game with a biotechnology theme (Mission Biotech). As players, students had access to a large laboratory modeled after a biotech laboratory, being tasked with identifying the infectious agent causing a viral outbreak.…”