Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 566–580 | Cite as

Learning Neuroscience with Technology: a Scaffolded, Active Learning Approach

  • Katrina B. Schleisman
  • S. Selcen Guzey
  • Richard Lie
  • Michael Michlin
  • Christopher Desjardins
  • Hazel S. Shackleton
  • August C. Schwerdfeger
  • Martin Michalowski
  • Janet M. DubinskyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Mobile applications (apps) for learning technical scientific content are becoming increasingly popular in educational settings. Neuroscience is often considered complex and challenging for most students to understand conceptually. iNeuron is a recently developed iOS app that teaches basic neuroscience in the context of a series of scaffolded challenges to create neural circuits and increase understanding of nervous system structure and function. In this study, four different ways to implement the app within a classroom setting were explored. The goal of the study was to determine the app’s effectiveness under conditions closely approximating real-world use and to evaluate whether collaborative play and student-driven navigational features contributed to its effectiveness. Students used the app either individually or in small groups and used a version with either a fixed or variable learning sequence. Student performance on a pre- and post-neuroscience content assessment was analyzed and compared between students who used the app and a control group receiving standard instruction, and logged app data were analyzed. Significantly, greater learning gains were found for all students who used the app compared to control. All four implementation modes were effective in producing student learning gains relative to controls, but did not differ in their effectiveness to one another. In addition, students demonstrated transfer of information learned in one context to another within the app. These results suggest that teacher-led neuroscience instruction can be effectively supported by a scaffolded, technology-based curriculum which can be implemented in multiple ways to enhance student learning.

Keywords

Educational games Educational technology Neuroscience education Student learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Nelson Soken, Kyle Nelson, Todd Carpenter, and Adam Gordon for their contributions to this project. We would like to thank all teachers who participated in the piloting and study, and especially Jeff Thompson for his extensive feedback.

Funding Information

This research was funded by National Institutes of Health R44MH096674 to MM and JMD.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

HSS, ACS, and MM are employees of the company that owns the app and may benefit from its sale. KBS has multiple affiliations and was eventually hired as an employee of the company that owns the app.

References

  1. Anderson, J. L., & Barnett, M. (2013). Learning physics with digital game simulations in middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 914–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bressler, D. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2016). Investigating flow experience and scientific practices during a mobile serious educational game. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 795–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooke, J. (2013). SUS: a retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2), 29–40.Google Scholar
  6. Carolan, T. F., Hutchins, S. D., Wickens, C. D., & Cumming, J. M. (2014). Costs and benefits of more learner freedom: meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. Human Factors, 56(5), 999–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813517710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, H.-Y. (2017). How to augment the learning impact of computer simulations? The designs and effects of interactivity and scaffolding. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 1083–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, K.-C., Jang, S.-J., & Branch, R. M. (2010). Autonomy, affiliation, and ability: relative salience of factors that influence online learner motivation and learning outcomes. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 2(1), 30–50.Google Scholar
  9. Chudler, E. H., & Bergsman, K. C. (2014). Explain the brain: websites to help scientists teach neuroscience to the general public. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 577–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chudler, E. H., & Karikari, T. K. (2015). Neuroscience for kids. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 13(2), R14–R15.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Design-based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
  15. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: a review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dubinsky, J. M. (2010). Neuroscience education for prekindergarten–12 teachers. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(24), 8057–8060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dubinsky, J. M., & Al-Ghalith, G. (2012). Virtual Neurons. Retrieved on July 1, 2017 from brainu.org/lessons/virtual-neurons.
  19. Dubinsky, J. M., Roehrig, G., & Varma, S. (2013). Infusing neuroscience into teacher professional development. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gee, J. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33–37.Google Scholar
  22. Genetic Science Learning Center. (2013). Mouse party. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/mouse/.
  23. Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), Retrieved from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html.
  24. Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students’ distress with a webbased distance education course: an ethnographic study of participants’ experiences. Information, Communication, and Society, 3(4), 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hmelo, C., & Day, R. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers & Education, 32(2), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Israel, M., Wang, S., & Marino, M. T. (2016). A multilevel analysis of diverse learners playing life science video games: interactions between game content, learning disability status, reading proficiency, and gender. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karich, A. C., Burns, M. K., & Maki, K. E. (2014). Updated meta-analysis of learner control within educational technology. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 392–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ketelhut, D. J., Dede, C., Clarke, J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A multi-user virtual environment for building higher order inquiry skills in science. Paper presented at the 2006 AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/documents/rivercitysympinq1.pdf.
  30. Klisch, Y., Miller, L. M., Beier, M. E., & Wang, S. (2012a). Teaching the biological consequences of alcohol abuse through an online game: impacts among secondary students. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klisch, Y., Miller, L. M., Wang, S., & Epstein, J. (2012b). The impact of a science education game on students’ learning and perception of inhalants as body pollutants. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kortum, P. T., & Sorber, M. (2015). Measuring the usability of mobile applications for phones and tablets. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 31(8), 518–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: a review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lin, T. C., Hsu, Y. S., Lin, S. S., Changlai, M. L., Yang, K. Y., & Lai, T. L. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linn, M. C., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J., Zhang, H., & McElhaney, K. (2010). Can desirable difficulties overcome deception clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: a Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Front. Psychol., 8, 1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacNabb, C., Schmitt, L., Michlin, M., Harris, I., Thomas, L., Chittendon, D., Ebner, T. J., & Dubinsky, J. M. (2006). Neuroscience in middle schools: a professional development and resource program that models inquiry-based strategies and engages teachers in classroom implementation. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 5(2), 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martens, R., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: a promising combination. Metacognition Learning, 9(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school: expanded edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: teaching and learning science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nelson, B. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  46. Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H. J. (1996). Learner-control effects: a review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(2), 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinheiro J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., and R Core Team. (2017). nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–131, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
  49. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Core Team. (2017). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  52. Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation. Computers and Education, 27(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., Stuart, P. E., & Merle-Johnson, D. (2013). Game-based curricula in biology classes: differential effects among varying academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 479–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sauro, J. (2011). SUStisfied? Little-known system usability scale facts. User Experience Magazine, 10(3). Retrieved from http://uxpamagazine.org/sustified/.
  56. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schotland, M., & Littman, K. (2012). Using a computer game to teach young children about their brains. Games for Health Journal, 1(6), 442–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schrader, P. G., Deniz, H., & Keilty, J. (2016). Breaking SPORE: building instructional value in science education using a commercial, off-the shelf game. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age (JOLTIDA), 1(1), 63–73.Google Scholar
  59. Sorgenfrei, C., & Smolnik, S. (2016). The effectiveness of E-learning systems: a review of the empirical literature on learner control. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education., 14(2), 154–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Theobald, R., & Freeman, S. (2014). Is it the intervention or the students? Using linear regression to control for student characteristics in undergraduate STEM education research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrina B. Schleisman
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Selcen Guzey
    • 3
    • 4
  • Richard Lie
    • 4
  • Michael Michlin
    • 5
  • Christopher Desjardins
    • 5
  • Hazel S. Shackleton
    • 1
  • August C. Schwerdfeger
    • 1
  • Martin Michalowski
    • 1
  • Janet M. Dubinsky
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Andamio GamesMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeuroscienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Curriculum & InstructionPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Center for Applied Research & Educational ImprovementUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations