4.5 Article

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

Journal

SCIENCE EDUCATION
Volume 99, Issue 4, Pages 696-720

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21171

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0833521]
  2. Division Of Research On Learning
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources [0833521] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 the impacts of games for learning, and the need for cost-benefit analyses in the planning of game-based educational approaches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available