Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 32, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 694-697

  Bonde, Mads T ^a   Makransky, Guido ^b   Wandall, Jakob ^c   Larsen, Mette V ^a   Morsing, Mikkel ^d   Jarmer, Hanne ^a   Sommer, Morten O A ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c Department of Psychology University of Southern Denmark ^*  (Denmark)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOINFORMATICS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CAREER; COURSE CONTENT; CURRICULUM; DNA SEQUENCE; EDUCATION; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; GEL ELECTROPHORESIS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; KNOWLEDGE; LABORATORY; LABORATORY TEST; LEARNING; MOLECULAR CLONING; MOTIVATION; PHYSICAL PHENOMENA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF CONCEPT; SIMULATION; SKILL; STUDENT; TEACHING; UNIVERSITY;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; DENMARK; LABORATORIES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; TEACHING; VIDEO GAMES;

EID: 84903983624     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2955     Document Type: Article

References (34)

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).
3. Gago, J.M. et al. Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. European Commission High Level Group report (2004).
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).
5. Alexander, K., Natriello, G. & Pallas, A.M. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50, 409-420 (1985).
6. Natriello, G., Pallas, A. & Alexander, K. Sociol. Educ. 62, 109-118 (1989).
7. Ralph, J., Keller, D. & Crouse, J. Phi Delta Kappan 76, 144-150 (1994).
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).
11. Zacharia, Z.C., Olympiou, G. & Papaevripidou, M. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 1021-1035 (2008).
12. Mislevy, R.J. Evidence-centered design for simulationbased assessment. CRESST Report 800 (National Center For Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles, 2011).
13. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W.R. & van der Veen, J.T. Comput. Educ. 58, 136-153 (2012).
14. Kiboss, J.K., Ndirangu, M. & Wekesa, E.W. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 207-213 (2004).
15. Gelbart, H. & Yarden, A. J. Biol. Educ. 40, 107-112 (2006).
16. Toth, E.E., Morrow, B.L. & Ludvico, L.R. Innovative High. Educ. 33, 333-344 (2009).
17. Eastwood, J.L. & Sadler, T.D. Comput. Educ. 66, 11-24 (2013).
18. Höffler, T.N. & Leutner, D. Learn. Instr. 17, 722-738 (2007).
19. Mayer, R.E. Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, 2001).
20. Mayer, R.E. in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (ed. R.E. Mayer) (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
21. Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B. & Armstrong, N. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 40, 45-52 (2011).
22. Anderson, R.D. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 13, 1-12 (2002).
23. Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J. & McGarr, O. Res. Sci. Educ. 43, 1571-1592 (2012).
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).
26. Heckman, J.J. Econ. Inq. 46, 289-324 (2008).
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).
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).
30. Embretson, S.E. & Reise, S.P. Item Response Theory for Psychologists (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2000).
31. Wainer, H., Bradlow, E.T. & Wang, X. Testlet Response Theory and its Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
32. Birnbaum, A. in Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores (eds. F.M. Lord & M.R. Novick) 395-479 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968).
33. Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. Change 27, 12-26 (1995).
34. Hays, R.T., Jacobs, J.W., Prince, C. & Eduardo, S. Mil. Psychol. 4, 63-74 (1992).