Engaging 6th-Grade Students in Ecosystem Education: Exploring Roles and Relationships in Ecology With an Interactive Gamified Module

Abstract

Gamified simulations, integrating gameplay into education, cater to younger learners’ digital preferences and align with Next Generation Science Standards. Current virtual modules focus on advanced high school classes, leaving a gap for middle school students. This study investigated the impact of substituting recitations in a 6th-grade ecology class with Feed the Dingo, a gamified module. Through quizzes evaluating academic performance and free-response surveys to gauge students’ attitudes, the module appeared to enhance intuitive understanding of core ecological concepts (e.g., ecosystems, food webs, biodiversity, etc.), resulting in commendable academic achievement and positive feedback. Such simulations serve as valuable supplements for K-12 lesson planning.

Keywords

educational technology gamification game-based learning motivation K-12 STEM ecology biodiversity experiential learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

75 Morton . (2018). History and culture. 75 Morton. https://www.75morton.org/historyculture

Allan

J. D.

Castillo

M. M.

(2007). Primary producers. In Stream ecology (2nd ed., pp. 105–134). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5583-6_6

Alqabbani

Almuwais

Benajiba

Almoayad

(2021). Readiness towards emergency shifting to remote learning during COVID-19 pandemic among university instructors. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(5), 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020981651

Altindag

D. T.

Filiz

E. S.

Tekin

(2021). Is online education working? National Bureau of Economic Research, 29113, 1–76. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29113

Anderson

J. L.

Barnett

(2013). Learning physics with digital game simulations in middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 914–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9438-8

Aquino

K. C.

(2023). Collaborating within a lockdown: Students’ online collaboration to develop a college readiness workshop during the COVID-19 in-person restrictions. Journal of Experiential Education, 46(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259221115813

Attali

Arieli-Attali

(2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Computer Education, 83, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012

Baker

B. K.

(1999). Learning to fish, fishing to learn: Guided participation in the interpersonal ecology of practice. Clinical Law Review, 6(1), 1–84. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2104109

Barber-Meyer

S. M.

Mech

L. D.

White

P. J.

(2008). Elk calf survival and mortality following wolf restoration to Yellowstone national park. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 169(169), 1–30. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/96

10.

Becker

W. E.

Johnston

(2008). The relationship between multiple choice and essay response questions in assessing economics understanding. The Economic Record, 75(4), 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.1999.tb02571.x

11.

Betts

L. R.

Elder

T. J.

Hartley

Trueman

(2009). Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple‐choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701773091

12.

Bicen

Kocakoyun

(2019). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(2), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467

13.

Bird

K. A.

Castleman

B. L.

Lohner

(2022). Negative impacts from the shift to online learning during the COVID-19 crisis: Evidence from a statewide community college system. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221081220

14.

Budescu

Bar-Hillel

(1993). To guess or not to guess: A decision-theoretic view of formula scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(4), 277-291. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ475214

15.

Caleon

I. S.

Subramaniam

(2008). Attitudes towards science of intellectually gifted and mainstream upper primary students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 940–954. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20250

16.

Cheng

Y.-M.

Lou

S.-J.

Kuo

S.-H.

Shih

R.-C.

(2013). Investigating elementary school students’ technology acceptance by applying digital game-based learning to environmental education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.65

17.

Douglas

Wilson

Ennis

(2012). Multiple-choice question tests: A convenient, flexible and effective learning tool? A case study. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 49(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.677596

18.

Ellman

M. S.

Schwartz

M. L.

(2016). Online learning tools as supplements for basic and clinical science education. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 3, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S18933

19.

Fanning

R. M.

Gaba

D. M.

(2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539

20.

Finn

Maxwell

Calver

(2002). Why does experimentation matter in teaching ecology? Journal of Biological Education, 36(4), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2002.9655826

21.

Gaedke

(2022). Trophic dynamics and food webs in aquatic ecosystems. In Rudstam

Bouffard

Perga

M.-E.

(Eds.), Encyclopaedia of inland waters (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 327–333). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819166-8.00009-8

22.

George

(2000). Measuring change in students’ attitudes toward science over time: An application of latent variable growth modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009491500456

23.

Haladyna

T. M.

Downing

S. M.

Rodriguez

M. C.

(2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5

24.

Jambu

(1991). 1-D statistical data analysis. In Exploratory and multivariate data analysis (pp. 27–62). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-092367-3.50007-1

25.

Jones

S. M.

Katyal

Xie

Nicolas

M. P.

Leung

E. M.

Noland

D. M.

Montclare

J. K.

(2019). A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: The effectiveness of game-based learning for an advanced placement biology class. Simulation & Gaming, 50(6), 832–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119882048

26.

Kolb

D. A.

(2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson.

27.

Kruszewska

Nazaruk

Szewczyk

(2020). Polish teachers of early education in the face of distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic - the difficulties experienced and suggestions for the future. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 50(3), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1849346

28.

Lin

Sun

Wang

Mahmoudinobar

Montclare

J. K.

(2024) (In press). Cloud-based STEM learning: Using an online simulation to teach renewable resources management in a remote learning classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic. E-Learning and Digital Media, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530241276153

29.

Lynch

S. J.

Pyke

Grafton

B. H.

(2012). A retrospective view of a study of middle school science curriculum materials: Implementation, scale-up, and sustainability in a changing policy environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 305–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21000

30.

McCallen

Knott

Nunez-Mir

Taylor

Fei

(2019). Trends in ecology: Shifts in ecological research themes over the past four decades. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1993

31.

McGarr

(2020). The use of virtual simulations in teacher education to develop pre-service teachers’ behaviour and classroom management skills: Implications for reflective practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1733398

32.

Monroe

M. C.

Plate

R. R.

Oxarart

Bowers

Chaves

W. A.

(2017). Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842

33.

Nah

F. F.-H.

Zeng

Telaprolu

V. R.

Ayyappa

A. P.

Eschenbrenner

(2014). Gamification of education: A review of literature. In Nah

F. F.-H.

(Ed.), HCI in business. HCIB 2014. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 8527, pp. 401–409). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07293-7_39

34.

National Center for Education Statistics . (2022). Search for public schools: MS 297. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&SchoolID=360007706602&ID=360007706602

35.

National Research Council . (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

36.

Nieto-Escamez

F. A.

Roldan-Tapia

M. D.

(2021). Gamification as online teaching strategy during COVID-19: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(648552), 648552–648559. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648552

37.

Pawluczuk

Ł.

Iskrzyński

(2022). Food web visualisation: Heat map, interactive graph and animated flow network. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 14(1), 57–64. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.13839

38.

PBS KIDS . (2017). Feed the Dingo. PBS KIDS. https://pbskids.org/plumlanding/games/ecosystem/feed_the_dingo.html

39.

Peteroy-Kelly

(2010). Online pre-laboratory modules enhance introductory biology students’ preparedness and performance in the laboratory. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 11(1), 5–13. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jmbe.v11.i1.130

40.

Nicolas

Leung

E. M.

Jones

S. M.

Katyal

Punia

Maxfield

Montclare

J. K.

(2022). Exploring the viability and role of virtual laboratories in chemistry education using two original modules. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(4), 1596–1603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00892

41.

Răducu

C.-M.

Stănculescu

(2021). Adaptability to online teaching during Covid-19 pandemic: A multiple mediation analysis based on Kolb’s theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 8032. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158032

42.

Ritter

Yost

(2009). Diversity, reproduction, and potential for invasiveness of Eucalyptus in California. Madroño, 56(3), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.3120/0024-9637-56.3.155

43.

Roberts

J. D.

Chung

G. K.

Parks

C. B.

(2016). Supporting children’s progress through the PBS KIDS learning analytics platform. Journal of Children and Media, 10(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1140489

44.

Sari

Alici

Şen

O. F.

(2018). The effect of STEM instruction on attitude career perception and career interest in a problem-based learning environment and student opinions. Electronic Journal for Research in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(1), 1–21. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/17861

45.

Smith

Schreder

Porter

(2020). Are they paying attention, or are they shoe-shopping? Evidence from online learning. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 5(1), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.32674/jimphe.v5i1.2643

46.

Steiner

E. D.

Woo

Doan

(2023). All work and No pay—teachers’ perception of their pay and hours worked: Findings from the 2023 state of American teacher survey. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-9.html

47.

Struyven

Dochy

Janssens

Schelfhou

Gielen

(2006). The overall effects of end-of-course assessment on student performance: A comparison between multiple choice testing, peer assessment, case-based assessment and portfolio assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.08.002

48.

Tyler

(2022). Using interactive simulations to explore abstract concepts. Primary Science, 173, 8–11. https://www.ase.org.uk/resources/primary-science/issue-173/using-interactive-simulations-explore-abstract-concepts-tyler

49.

Wanner

(2015). Enhancing student engagement and active learning through just-in-time teaching and the use of PowerPoint. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(1), 154–163. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1069796

50.

Ware

Sampson

Lann

Linard

Chance

L. G.

(2019). Bridging the gap: Bringing professionals into the classroom to effectively teach environmental science concepts. The American Biology Teacher, 81(9), 618–624. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2019.81.9.618

51.

Wieman

C. E.

Adams

W. K.

Perkins

K. K.

(2008). PHYSICS. PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948

52.

Wyss

V. L.

Heulskamp

Siebert

C. J.

(2012). Increasing middle school student interest in STEM careers with videos of scientists. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 7(4), 501–522. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ997137

53.

Yazdi

M. S. G.

Shoar

S. M. H.

Sobhani

Vafi sani

Khoshkholgh

Mousavi Bazaz

Mansourzadeh

(2021). Factors affecting students’ guesswork in multiple choice questions and corrective strategies. Medical Education Bulletin, 2(4), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.22034/meb.2021.312176.1032