Investigating the Influence of an Arduino-Based Educational Game on the Understanding of Genetics among Secondary School Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment

The work presented is of great interest in the field of science teaching and the game presented seems very interesting, however, to be able to be evaluated in more detail, it would be necessary to be able to access its content. Below comments on each of the sections of the work.

1. The content of this section could be expanded by adding some literature works similar to the one you present to expose the background. What has been done so far about games related to the sciences and specifically to genetics? There are many works on this that should be considered.

Authors’ response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort spent reading our manuscript and suggesting valuable comments to improve its quality. We reviewed the related literature over WoS and added the following lines to the “Conceptual Framework” section:

…..

Educational games can be an effective tool for enhancing science education [18]. Games can engage students in a more active and immersive way than traditional classroom methods, making learning fun and engaging [19]. Games can help reinforce key concepts and ideas that students have already learned in the classroom [20]. Educational games can encourage collaboration and teamwork among students, which is an essential skill in science education [18]. Educational games can be highly motivating for students, making them more likely to engage with the material and retain what they have learned [21]. Overall, the use of educational games in science education can be an effective way to engage students, reinforce key concepts, and encourage collaboration and experimentation [22].

Annetta et al. investigated the impact of video games on high school students learning and engagement in genetics [23]. Their results revealed no significant differences in student learning, while there was a statistically significant difference in the student’s engagement level. In 2019, Chen conducted a study on science-based digital game-based learning (DGBL) and investigated four-game settings: individual competition, peer competition, the individual no competition, and peer no competition. The study showed that when the competition was introduced, group collaboration improved, and anxiety decreased. However, when individuals played alone, competition caused a distraction from the learning process by making winning and losing the main focus [24].

According to a recent study, teacher students in Spain and Sweden learned about genetics using a game, and their experiences and attitudes were compared [25]. The study involved an intervention where students played the game, and questionnaires were used to measure its effectiveness. The questionnaires assessed the students' genetics knowledge before and after playing the game, their expectations and experiences, and their satisfaction with it. The results showed that the game improved the genetics knowledge of both Spanish and Swedish participants, and they found it both educational and engaging. A different study looked at how an augmented reality (AR) game affected elementary school students’ learning [26]. The study conducted a 2 x 2 experiment to determine how using AR and gaming mechanisms impacted elementary school science learning. During a field trip, four groups used different media and gaming mechanisms (AR or Non-AR and Game or Non-game). The results showed that there was no interaction between the game and AR approaches, but both significantly increased the students’ learning motivation. Whereas, only the game approach had a significant and positive effect on the student’s flow states and learning achievements.

References

1. Solé-Llussà, A.; Casanoves, M.; Salvadó, Z.; Garcia-Vallve, S.; Valls, C.; Novo, M. Annapurna Expedition Game: Applying Molecular Biology Tools to Learn Genetics. J. Biol. Educ. 2019, 53, 516–523, doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1501409.
2. Hussein, M.H.; Ow, S.H.; Elaish, M.M.; Jensen, E.O. Digital Game-Based Learning in K-12 Mathematics Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 2859–2891, doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10721-x.
3. Chen, C.-H.; Shih, C.-C.; Law, V. The Effects of Competition in Digital Game-Based Learning (DGBL): A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 1855–1873, doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09794-1.
4. Bressler, D.M.; Shane Tutwiler, M.; Bodzin, A.M. Promoting Student Flow and Interest in a Science Learning Game: A Design-Based Research Study of School Scene Investigators. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021, 69, 2789–2811, doi:10.1007/s11423-021-10039-y.
5. Chen, C.-H.; Law, V.; Chen, W.-Y. The Effects of Peer Competition-Based Science Learning Game on Secondary Students’ Performance, Achievement Goals, and Perceived Ability. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018, 26, 235–244, doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1300776.
6. Annetta, L.A.; Minogue, J.; Holmes, S.Y.; Cheng, M.-T. Investigating the Impact of Video Games on High School Students’ Engagement and Learning about Genetics. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 74–85, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020.
7. Chen, C.-H.; Law, V.; Huang, K. The Roles of Engagement and Competition on Learner’s Performance and Motivation in Game-Based Science Learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2019, 67, 1003–1024, doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09670-7.
8. Casanoves, M.; Solé-Llussà, A.; Haro, J.; Gericke, N.; Valls, C. Assessment of the Ability of Game-Based Science Learning to Enhance Genetic Understanding. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2022, 1–23, doi:10.1080/02635143.2022.2044301.
9. Chen, C.-H. Impacts of Augmented Reality and a Digital Game on Students’ Science Learning with Reflection Prompts in Multimedia Learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 3057–3076, doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09834-w.

 Reviewer’s comment

2. Materials and Methods: I think that this section lacks a lot of detailed explanation of what the questionnaire is like (I find it interesting to know the content of the questions in order to be able to evaluate the article) and also need to be able to access the game in order to see if there is a relationship between this questionnaire and the possibilities of working on these contents in the game you have designed.

Authors’ response

Thank you for pointing this out. The following lines were added to the manuscript to address this comment (updated parts were shown in red):

Data Collection:

…

To measure student achievements, a 20-item achievement test was prepared regarding the learning outcomes of the “DNA and Genetic Code” unit. An item pool of 40 questions was created for the learning outcomes. The created question pool was applied to eighth-grade students as a pilot study after an evaluation by four field experts. As a result of the analysis made after the pilot study, 20 questions were removed from the test in line with expert opinions, and the final achievement test was obtained. Each multiple-choice item in the test consists of one item root, four options, and one correct answer. Sample questions in the achievement test include “Which of the following crosses can be made so that all pea seeds produced by crossing peas have the same phenotype? What is the probability that a yellow-seeded pea will be produced by crossing a hybrid yellow-seed pea with a hybrid yellow-seed pea? As a result of crossing two heterozygous peas as genotypes, 800 peas were formed. How many of these peas are expected to have recessive characteristics? 500 seeds are obtained by crossing yellow-seeded peas with green-seeded peas. Which of the following is the most likely number of green and yellow seeds? (The yellow seed gene is dominant to the green seed gene).”

Reviewer’s comment

3. Results and Discussion: The results presented are very poor. They only give details of whether or not it improved in the experimental group and the control group. In this sense, it would have been much more interesting to see how knowledge has evolved through the questions in the questionnaire. Consequently, the discussion of the results would also have been much richer in content and would have contributed more to the literature.

Authors’ response

We revised the manuscript accordingly. The following lines were included to address this comment:

Conclusions

This study developed a digital educational game and assessed the effect of the developed teaching material on students’ academic success in a science class. The digital educational game improved students’ academic success. The educational game may also improve their interest in, motivation for, and involvement in science learning, which in turn promotes student engagement. Engaged students are more likely to achieve improved academic results, which can support the sustainability of the educational system. A commitment to delivering a high-quality education that satisfies the requirements of both the present and future generations is necessary for educational sustainability. With the help of this study, schools will be encouraged to adopt environmentally sustainable practices and will be given the resources and support necessary to deliver high-quality education. Educators can contribute to the development of a better future for all students and the sustainability of education by encouraging student involvement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest that the authors should write again many parts of the manuscript from scratch. I observed several ambiguities that could confuse the readership.

First, the title of the manuscript doesn’t fit with this work. I don't understand how the students' engagement fits with this work. I don't find anything measurement of the students' engagement in the manuscript.  Although the authors said “…Accordingly, this study aimed to develop an educational game using Arduino to increase student engagement in a science class. Further, the study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational game.” they didn’t investigate the students’ engagement but the effectiveness of each teaching intervention (post-test>pre-test). However, in the conclusion section the authors again mention “The digital educational game improved students’ interest in, motivation for, and involvement in science learning, which in turn promoted student engagement.”

Moreover, although the authors mention in the title the term “Educational Game” they didn’t systematically present this concept and mainly they didn’t present the previous similar works, that indicate how educational digital games and not technology in general support the teaching process. The earlier work could indicate the research gap and the necessity for this research.  It is worth mentioning that the term “game” is not presented anywhere across the section “Conceptual Framework”.

 I didn’t see any mention of the ethical approval of this research.

The test about the normal distribution should be carried out for all collected data (post-test by group) not only for the two first groups (experimental 1 and control 1). The authors use a parametric test comparing two independent samples in three cases (see table 5). I suggest the authors use a one-way ANOVA test since it is more suitable to avoid type I error.

 Please pay attention to the symbols of mean and standard deviation in the tables.

 Line 306, the MEB acronym is not defined.

Finally, although the authors mention “There are some limitations on the study”, I don’t see them. Maybe my previous comments will help the authors to think about some limitations.

 

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment

1. I suggest that the authors should write again many parts of the manuscript from scratch. I observed several ambiguities that could confuse the readership. First, the title of the manuscript doesn’t fit with this work. I don't understand how the students' engagement fits with this work. I don't find anything measurement of the student’s engagement in the manuscript.  Although the authors said “…Accordingly, this study aimed to develop an educational game using Arduino to increase student engagement in a science class. Further, the study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational game.” they didn’t investigate the students’ engagement but the effectiveness of each teaching intervention (post-test>pre-test). However, in the conclusion section, the authors again mention “The digital educational game improved students’ interest in, motivation for, and involvement in science learning, which in turn promoted student engagement.”

 

Authors’ response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort spent reading our manuscript and suggesting valuable comments to improve its quality. We revised the whole manuscript accordingly. The title of the revised manuscript was changed to “Investigating the influence of an Arduino-based educational game on the understanding of genetics among secondary school students.” Other parts of the manuscript were also revised to address this comment.

 

Reviewer’s comment

2. Moreover, although the authors mention in the title the term “Educational Game” they didn’t systematically present this concept and mainly they didn’t present the previous similar works, that indicate how educational digital games and not technology in general support the teaching process. The earlier work could indicate the research gap and the necessity for this research. It is worth mentioning that the term “game” is not presented anywhere across the section “Conceptual Framework”.

Authors’ response

We reviewed the related literature over WoS and updated the “Conceptual Framework” section by adding the following lines:

…..

Educational games can be an effective tool for enhancing science education [18]. Games can engage students in a more active and immersive way than traditional classroom methods, making learning fun and engaging [19]. Games can help reinforce key concepts and ideas that students have already learned in the classroom [20]. Educational games can encourage collaboration and teamwork among students, which is an essential skill in science education [18]. Educational games can be highly motivating for students, making them more likely to engage with the material and retain what they have learned [21]. Overall, the use of educational games in science education can be an effective way to engage students, reinforce key concepts, and encourage collaboration and experimentation [22].

Annetta et al. investigated the impact of video games on high school students learning and engagement in genetics [23]. Their results revealed no significant differences in student learning, while there was a statistically significant difference in the student’s engagement level. In 2019, Chen conducted a study on science-based digital game-based learning (DGBL) and investigated four-game settings: individual competition, peer competition, individual no competition, and peer no competition. The study showed that when the competition was introduced, group collaboration improved, and anxiety decreased. However, when individuals played alone, competition caused a distraction from the learning process by making winning and losing the main focus [24].

According to a recent study, teacher students in Spain and Sweden learned about genetics using a game, and their experiences and attitudes were compared [25]. The study involved an intervention where students played the game, and questionnaires were used to measure its effectiveness. The questionnaires assessed the students' genetics knowledge before and after playing the game, their expectations and experiences, and their satisfaction with it. The results showed that the game improved the genetics knowledge of both Spanish and Swedish participants, and they found it both educational and engaging. A different study looked at how an augmented reality (AR) game affected elementary school students’ learning [26]. The study conducted a 2 x 2 experiment to determine how using AR and gaming mechanisms impacted elementary school science learning. During a field trip, four groups used different media and gaming mechanisms (AR or Non-AR and Game or Non-game). The results showed that there was no interaction between the game and AR approaches, but both significantly increased the students’ learning motivation. Whereas, only the game approach had a significant and positive effect on the student’s flow states and learning achievements.

References

1. Solé-Llussà, A.; Casanoves, M.; Salvadó, Z.; Garcia-Vallve, S.; Valls, C.; Novo, M. Annapurna Expedition Game: Applying Molecular Biology Tools to Learn Genetics. J. Biol. Educ. 2019, 53, 516–523, doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1501409.
2. Hussein, M.H.; Ow, S.H.; Elaish, M.M.; Jensen, E.O. Digital Game-Based Learning in K-12 Mathematics Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 2859–2891, doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10721-x.
3. Chen, C.-H.; Shih, C.-C.; Law, V. The Effects of Competition in Digital Game-Based Learning (DGBL): A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 1855–1873, doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09794-1.
4. Bressler, D.M.; Shane Tutwiler, M.; Bodzin, A.M. Promoting Student Flow and Interest in a Science Learning Game: A Design-Based Research Study of School Scene Investigators. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021, 69, 2789–2811, doi:10.1007/s11423-021-10039-y.
5. Chen, C.-H.; Law, V.; Chen, W.-Y. The Effects of Peer Competition-Based Science Learning Game on Secondary Students’ Performance, Achievement Goals, and Perceived Ability. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018, 26, 235–244, doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1300776.
6. Annetta, L.A.; Minogue, J.; Holmes, S.Y.; Cheng, M.-T. Investigating the Impact of Video Games on High School Students’ Engagement and Learning about Genetics. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 74–85, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020.
7. Chen, C.-H.; Law, V.; Huang, K. The Roles of Engagement and Competition on Learner’s Performance and Motivation in Game-Based Science Learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2019, 67, 1003–1024, doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09670-7.
8. Casanoves, M.; Solé-Llussà, A.; Haro, J.; Gericke, N.; Valls, C. Assessment of the Ability of Game-Based Science Learning to Enhance Genetic Understanding. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2022, 1–23, doi:10.1080/02635143.2022.2044301.
9. Chen, C.-H. Impacts of Augmented Reality and a Digital Game on Students’ Science Learning with Reflection Prompts in Multimedia Learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 3057–3076, doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09834-w.

Reviewer’s comment

3. I didn’t see any mention of the ethical approval of this research.

Authors’ response

We provided the ethical approval code before the references:

Institutional Review Board Statement: “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University Institutional Review Board (protocol code 01-26 and 08/25/2022).”

Reviewer’s comment

4. The test about the normal distribution should be carried out for all collected data (post-test by group) not only for the two first groups (experimental 1 and control 1). The authors use a parametric test comparing two independent samples in three cases (see Table 5). I suggest the authors use a one-way ANOVA test since it is more suitable to avoid type I error.

Authors’ response

Thank you for pointing this out. We conducted a one-way ANOVA test and included the results in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer’s comment

5. Please pay attention to the symbols of mean and standard deviation in the tables. Line 306, the MEB acronym is not defined.

Authors’ response

We corrected the symbols of the mean and standard deviation in the tables.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The relevant changes have been made and the article has improved significantly.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for your revisions.

Maybe to calculate the effect size in each group (for pre-test to post-test). This comparison could support your interpretation.

This version should be published.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. Cohen’s d and Effect-size r were included in the tables in the revised manuscript. We appreciate the time and energy you put into reviewing our manuscript.