Background
In molecular biology, students have difficulty understanding how random, seemingly inefficient, mechanisms contribute to the functioning of complex, perceptually efficient, cellular systems and often compensate by attaching agency, or directedness, to molecular species (Momsen et al. 2010; Chi 2005; Chi et al. 2012; Garvin-doxas & Klymkowsky 2008; Chi & Roscoe 2002). It is important that students can reconcile randomness at the molecular level with the perceived efficiency of cellular systems as this lends meaning to more complex concepts, such as concentration gradients, protein specificity, or cell signalling cascades, and how these mechanisms may affect health and disease outcomes. However, these misconceptions are often robust and resistant to change; it requires that the student recognize that her understanding is incorrect, be provided with the tools to build a new mental model, and have the motivation in the first place to do so (Chi 2005; Modell et al. 2005).
Serious games are engaging spaces for active learning that may provide students with the motivation needed to trigger conceptual change. Cycles of productive negativity encourage schema building and are common in gaming environments—the player is challenged by a task and, under her current conception, she fails and must restructure her understanding in order to succeed (Mitgutsch & Alvarado 2012). This process corresponds with Chi (2005)’s conceptual change strategy involving misconception confrontation and schema building. Additionally, common game mechanics can be leveraged to promote productive negativity. For example, in their subversive game “Afterland”, Mitgutsch and Alvarado (2012) employ inventory collection, health status, and enemy-evasion because they can predict how gamers will interact with and react to these mechanics. However, interaction with these leads to unexpected outcomes, resulting in productive negativity and a learning experience for the player. To generalize, serious games can apply commonly used mechanics in uncommon ways so that players behave predictably, increasing the chances for productive negativity—and conceptual change—to ensue.
Furthermore, game design mechanics and elements have potential to increase a student’s willingness to participate in meaningful and intellectual play, thereby enhancing her understanding of target content and concepts (Squire 2011; Steinkuehler & Squire 2012; Gauthier et al. 2015). Much literature supports video games for learning (Gee 2007; Landers & Callan 2011; Squire 2006), but the empirical evidence can be contradictory. Recent meta-analyses reveal that serious games can increase learning, self-efficacy, and motivation in comparison to traditional learning or other non-gaming stimuli (Wouters et al. 2013; Sitzmann 2011; Clark et al. 2016) but fail to highlight the value-added effect of game design (Clark et al. 2016). The present publication strives to contribute to this area by investigating the value-added effect of a serious game in relation to a simulation application that employs similar interaction and visual design. This study is also, to the best of our knowledge, one of the first to implement conceptual change strategies—specifically, productive negativity—through game design to address misconceptions in undergraduate science.