Dampak Pedagogis Dari Permainan Papan dalam Pendidikan Biologi Kesehatan

Masyarakat: Permainan Papan Bioracer

The Pedagogical Impact of Board Games in Public Health Biology Education: The Bioracer
Board Game
Obidimma Ezezika, Maria Fusaro, James Rebello & Asal Aslemand
MAKALAH JURNAL
Disusun untuk memenuhi tugas mata kuliah Kajian Pendidikan Biologi dan Penulisan Karya
Ilmiah
Dosen Pengampu:
Prof. Dr. H. Suroso Adi Yudianto, M.Pd.
Dr. Kusnadi, M.Si.

Oleh:
Muhammad Naufal Daffa (2005778)

DEPARTEMEN PENDIDIKAN BIOLOGI

FAKULTAS PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA DAN ILMU PENGETAHUAN ALAM

UNIVERSITAS PENDIDIKAN INDONESIA

 BANDUNG

2023
Judul
Dampak Pedagogis Dari Permainan Papan dalam Pendidikan Biologi Kesehatan Masyarakat:
Permainan Papan Bioracer
Abstrak
Kami mengembangkan permainan papan analog, BioRacer untuk pembelajaran siswa lebih lanjut
di bidang biologi kesehatan masyarakat dan menilai dampaknya terhadap pembelajaran dengan
melakukan studi metode campuran. Tujuannya adalah untuk memastikan apakah dan bagaimana
bermain game bisa menjadi pengalaman belajar yang berharga bagi siswa di program sarjana
dalam bidang biologi kesehatan masyarakat. Data kuantitatif dikumpulkan melalui pre- dan post-
test di sesi kelas, yang dianalisis melalui desain campuran Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) yang
dilakukan di R (versi 3.3.1). Data kualitatif dikumpulkan melalui enam kelompok fokus di mana
strategi pengkodean induktif digunakan untuk menganalisis transkripsi. Hasil ANOVA desain
campuran mengungkapkan peningkatan yang sedikit signifikan pada nilai post-test siswa pada
kelompok intervensi pengajaran yang menggabungkan penggunaan permainan papan. Tiga tema
kunci utama muncul dari wawancara kelompok terarah: keterlibatan; retensi memori; dan kerja
tim. Secara keseluruhan, hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa siswa menganggap permainan
papan membantu dalam memfasilitasi pembelajaran mereka terhadap konten kursus. Berdasarkan
hasil penelitian, kami membahas implikasi pemanfaatan permainan papan analog pendidikan
dalam pedagogi biologi kesehatan masyarakat untuk meningkatkan pengalaman belajar siswa.
Kata Kunci: gamifikasi, kesehatan masyarakat, pedagogi, permainan papan, penentu biologis dari
kesehatan
Abstract
We developed an analog board game, BioRacer to further student learning in the field of public
health biology and assessed its impact on learning by conducting a mixed method study. The
purpose was to ascertain whether and how gaming could be a valuable learning experience for
students in a lower year level undergraduate course in public health biology. The quantitative data
were collected through pre- and post-tests in class sessions, which were analysed through a mixed-
design Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) conducted in R (version 3.3.1). Qualitative data was
gathered through six focus groups where an inductive coding strategy was used to analyse the
transcriptions. The result of mixed-design ANOVA revealed slightly significant improvement in
students’ post-test scores in the teaching intervention group that incorporated the use of the board
game. Three major key themes emerged from the focus group interviews: engagement; memory
retention; and teamwork. Overall, the results of this study showed that students found the board
game helpful in facilitating their learning of course content. Based on the results of the study, we
discuss the implications of utilising educational analog board games in public health biology
pedagogy to enhance the learning experience of students.
Keywords: Gamification; public health; pedagogy; board game; biological determinants of health

BAB I
PENDAHULUAN

Pembelajaran dengan metode tradisional seperti ceramah dianggap kurang efektif dalam
pembelajaran biologi. Siswa seringkali kesulitan dalam menerima dan mengaplikasikan konsep
biologi karena pengajar kurang bisa merepresentasikan materi dengan kondisi asli atau dalam
pembelajaran praktikum. Berdasarkan keadaan tersebut siswa seringkali merasa bosan dalam
kegiatan pembelajaran jika siswa hanya mendengar ceramah dalam penyampaian materi.
Dibutuhkan metode pembelajaran yang interaktif untuk mengatasi pembelajaran yang tidak
efektif. Salah satu usaha untuk mengatasi permasalahan tersebut ialah dengan menggunakan media
pembelajaran yang secara positif memiliki efek terhadap kognitif siswa dan memungkinkan siswa
secara aktif menjalani pembelajaran melalui proses discovery learning (Ezezika et al., 2021).
Pembelajaran menggunakan permainan papan sebagai alat pedagogik dapat digunakan untuk
mempermudah materi yang kompleks dan lebih mempresentasikan permasalahan agar dapat lebih
mudah dipahami. Berdasarkan penelitian sebelumnya, permainan papan menyediakan kesempatan
bagi siswa untuk menemukan materi yang dianggap siswa sulit dan konten materi yang belum
pernah diketahui sebelumnya. Permainan papan dapat membuat konsep agar lebih mudah
dipahami dan membantu guru dalam menciptakan suasana menarik dan menghibur bagis siswa.
Hal tersebut dapat meningkatkan pengalaman belajar dan pembelajaran aktif siswa di kelas.
Berdasarkan uraian di atas terkait kelebihan permainan papan dalam proses pembelajaran,
terdapat tantangan tentang mengimplementasikan permainan papan ke dalam konsep biologi agar
sesuai dengan yang ingin diajarkan. Oleh karena itu, tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk
mengembangkan permainan papan analog (BioRacer) untuk kursus biologi kesehatan masyarakat
sarjana dan menilai kegunaannya sebagai kegiatan pembelajaran bagi siswa.
 BAB II
TINJAUAN TEORITIS

Gamifikasi berbeda dari pembelajaran berbasis permainan karena menggunakan beberapa

elemen permainan tanpa mengubah proses pembelajaran menjadi permainan yang matang(Rivera
& Garden, 2021). Menurut Lander (dalam Rivera & Garden, 2021) penggunaan atribut permainan.
di luar konteks permainan dengan tujuan mempengaruhi pembelajaran. Theory of Gamified
Learning menyediakan kerangka kerja yang dapat digunakan untuk menggambarkan skenario di
mana gamifikasi digunakan untuk mendukung pembelajaran, atau dikenal sebagai pembelajaran
gamified.
Pembelajaran gamified menunjukkan hubungan antara atribut permainan tertentu dan konsep
teoretis pedagogik dari hasil pelatihan, dengan mengedepankan proposisi bahwa atribut permainan
secara langsung memengaruhi perilaku atau sikap siswa, yang memengaruhi cara siswa
berinteraksi dengan konten instruksional dan capaian pembelajaran. Oleh karena itu, tujuan
gamifikasi bukanlah untuk menyediakan konten instruksional, seperti dalam permainan serius,
tetapi untuk memodifikasi keadaan pembelajar guna meningkatkan instruksi yang sudah ada
sebelumnya.
Pembelajaran gamifikasi secara dapat positif mempengaruhi beberapa aspek dari pengalaman
siswa seperti minat dan intelektual siswa. berdasarkan kajian yang dilakukan Rivera dan Garden,
(2021) juga menyatakan bahwa beberapa elemen dalam penerapan gamifikasi dapat mendukung
capaian hasil pembelajaran seperti 'Tantangan/Kejutan' (Kesulitan dan Ketidakpastian) dan
'Aturan/Sasaran' (untuk memungkinkan kontrol kinerja) memiliki pengaruh positif pada aplikasi
pengetahuan, strategi kognitif, pengetahuan deklaratif dan organisasi pengetahuan yang mungkin
berhubungan dengan pembelajaran mendalam. Ini menunjukkan bahwa ada kemungkinan
gamifikasi memiliki konsekuensi yang lebih jauh daripada yang biasa diukur.
Menurut Sailer (dalam Ezezika et al., 2018) bentuk desain paling umum dalam gamifikasi
diantaranya: poin (hadiah yang diakumulasikan untuk tindakan tertentu), lencana (visual
represntasi pencapaian yang dapat dikumpulkan), papan peringkat (daftar semua pemain, biasanya
diperingkat berdasarkan poin), bar kemajuan (informasi tentang status pemain saat ini dari tujuan),
grafik kerja (informasi tentang kinerja pemain dibandingkan dengan kinerja sebelumnya) dan
avatar (represntasi visual pemain).
 BAB III
ISI ARTIKEL
3.1 Masalah yang Diteliti
Masalah yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah dampak pegagogis dari pembelajaran
menggunakan permainan papan dalam materi Biologi Kesehatan Masyarakat. Tujuan dari
penelitian ini adalah untuk mengembangkan permainan papan analog (Bioracer) untuk materi
Biologi Kesehatan Masyarakat dan menilai kegunannya sebagai kegiatan pembelajaran. Dampak
pedagogi yang peneliti kaji adalah hasil akademik siswa, retensi memori dan partisipasi siswa
dalam pembelajaran meliputi kerjasama tim dan diskusi.
3.2 Metode Penelitian
Metode yang digunakan berupa true experiment. 151 partisipan siswa secara acak
dimasukkan ke dalam salah satu dari enam sesi kelas. Dari 151 siswa yang berpartisipasi, 71 berada
di kelompok intervensi (Bagian 1, 5 dan 6), dan 80 berada di kelompok kontrol (Bagian 2, 3 dan
4). Siswa di semua bagian kelas menyelesaikan penilaian pra dan pasca tes yang berkaitan dengan
topik masing-masing kelas. Pra dan pasca-tes pertanyaan menilai pengetahuan konten biologis
siswa yang berkaitan dengan topik masing-masing kelas.
Siswa yang berpartisipasi dalam kelompok intervensi menerima pembelajaran dengan
permainan papan dan diberi kuesioner sebelum dan sesudah permainan yang terdiri dari 14
pertanyaan pilihan ganda yang menilai pengetahuan konten biologis mereka. Setiap waktu
pertemuan dijadwalkan sebagai berikut: 10 menit untuk menyelesaikan penilaian pra-tes yang
berkaitan dengan topik bagian kelas itu, 30-45 menit untuk bermain dengan permainan papan (di
bawah bimbingan sukarelawan yang akrab dengan Instruksi permainan papan dan siapa yang
memastikan bahwa itu dimainkan sebagaimana dimaksud dan semua pemain terlibat), dan 10
menit untuk menyelesaikan penilaian post-test yang berkaitan dengan topik bagian kelas tersebut.
Siswa yang berpartisipasi dalam kelompok kontrol menerima pelajaran berbasis pembelajaran
tradisional yang diajarkan oleh asisten pengajar dan diberi serangkaian yang sama seperti
kelompok intervensi.
Empat minggu setelah pra dan pasca tes dilakukan peneliti memberikan kesempatan bagi
siswa di semua enam bagian kelas untuk memainkan permainan papan dan kemudian membentuk
kelompok fokus dengan siswa dari bagian kelas ini segera setelah itu. Ada 146 siswa yang
berpartisipasi. Kelompok fokus merupakan kelas wawancara semi terstruktur yang dipimpin oleh
peneliti yang dimana pembicaraan direkam untuk ditranskripsi. Siswa di setiap bagian diberi
beberapa pertanyaan terbuka yang dijawab dalam format kelompok. Pertanyaan tersebut berkaitan
dengan tipe permainan, kemudahan intruksi, dan apakah permainan membantu dalam
pembelajaran atau memperoleh pengetahuan
3.3 Hasil dan Pembahasan
Berdasarkan hasil data penelitian kuantitatif menunjukkan bahwa skor pra-tes siswa lebih tinggi
pada kelompok kontrol daripada kelompok intervensi, dalam rata-rata. Selain daripada itu, skor
post-test siswa juga lebih tinggi pada kelompok kontrol dibandingkan dengan kelompok
intervensi, akan tetapi perbedaan dalam skor tes pasca dan pra secara signifikan lebih tinggi untuk
siswa dalam kelompok intervensi daripada pada kelompok kontrol, rata-rata (P <0,05).
Hasil penelitian terkait retensi memori siswa menunjukkan bahwa siswa lebih mampu
untuk memproses informasi secara lebih efektif, menerima umpan balik saat mereka berkembang
dengan permainan papan dan merasa kurang tertekan ketika belajar materi. Hal tersebut
memungkinkan siswa untuk menyimpan informasi dari permainan. Seperti yang dinyatakan salah
satu siswa:
Saya merasa seperti [bioracer] semacam memperkuat apa yang telah kami pelajari di kelas tetapi
tanpa harus dijadikan beban karena itu seharusnya menjadi permainan sedangkan jika itu adalah
lembar ulasan yang sebenarnya dan dalam pengaturan tes yang akan menjadi agak menegangkan
karena seperti secara psikologis itu akan berdampak pada anda
Analisis data kuantitatif menunjukkan bahwa skor kinerja signifikan lebih tinggi pada akhir
bagian kelas pada kelompok intervensi. Hal tersebut diperkuat oleh data kualitatif yang mana
diungkapkan oleh kelompok fokus bahwa siswa dapat terlibat dengan materi dengan cara yang
bermakna selama penelitian. Dengan bantuan aplikasi gamifikasi, pelajaran yang menurut siswa
membosankan bisa menjadi menghibur, yang kemungkinan akan meningkatkan motivasi siswa.
Selain itu, siswa mencatat bagaimana mereka tidak merasa tertekan untuk menghafal materi seperti
halnya melalui metode belajar tradisional. Mereka mencatat bahwa ketika menulis ujian, mereka
dapat mengingat pertanyaan yang mereka lihat ketika bermain permainan papan. Para peneliti
menemukan bahwa beberapa orang lebih mampu mempertahankan pengetahuan karena isyarat
visual yang ketika digabungkan dengan kegiatan interaktif, meningkatkan pembelajaran mereka.
 BAB IV
ANALISIS ARTIKEL
4.1 Masalah yang Dikaji Peneliti
Berdasarkan permasalahan yang dikaji peneliti pada artikel utama merupakan bagaimana implikasi
pedagogi dari permainan papan dalam pendidikan biologi kesehatan masyarakat. Terdapat banyak
artikel yang membahas mengenai pembelajaran gamifikasi menggunakan permainan papan, akan
tetapi tetap terdapat tantangan dalam implementasinya terhadap materi yang akan diajarkan. Pada
artikel ini tidak hanya mengkaji hasil akademik menggunakan pembelajaran permainan papan
tetapi juga mengkaji tentang retensi memori siswa dan partisipasi siswa dalam pembelajaran.
Selain itu peneliti juga menilai bagaimana kegunaan pembelajaran permainan papan dengan
menggunakan materi biologi kesehatan masyarakat.
4.2 Metodologi Penelitian yang Digunakan
Metodologi yang digunakan adalah true experiment dinilai dari rangkaian penelitian yang
dilakukan dengan menggunakan 151 partisipan dan dibagi ke dalam enam kelas secara acak.
Desain penelitian menggunakan kelompok kontrol dan intervensi. Pada penelitian dilakukan pre-
test dan post-test untuk memperoleh data kuantitatif dan wawancara untuk untuk memperoleh data
kualitatif. Pada penelitian tidak terdapat pertanyaan penelitian sehingga belum dapat ditentukan
apakah hasil penelitian sudah menjawab pertanyaan penelitian atau belum.
4.3 Hasil dan Diskusi Penelitian
Peneliti memaparkan hasil penelitian dengan hasil statistik, dijelaskan dengan logis dengan hasil
analisisnya. Selain itu peneliti menyandingkan hasil penelitiannya yang diperkuat dengan
penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya. Tidak terdapat pertanyaan penelitian pada artikel ini sehingga
sulit menentukan apakah hasil penelitian sudah menjawab pertanyaan penelitian atau belum.
4.4 Keunggulan dan Kelemahan
Keunggulan dari penelitian ini adalah peneliti dapat menjelaskan manfaat pembelajaran
menggunakan permainan papan dengan mudah dipahami. Mengunnakan metode true experiment
sehingga pengendalian terhadap variabel luar dapat dilakukan secara maksimal. Rangkaian
penelitian mudah untuk dipahami. Tidak hanya mengkaji tentang hasil akademik tetapi juga
mengkaji tentang bagaimana siswa lebih mudah untuk mengingat materi dan keaktifan siswa
dalam pembelajaran menggunakan permainan papan. Hasil dan diskusi dijelaskan dengan bahasa
yang mudah dimengerti serta didasarkan pada penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya.
Akan tetapi terdapat kelemahan pada artikel ini diantaranya peneliti tidak mencantumkan
pertanyaan penelitian sehingga tidak bisa ditentukan apakah hasil sudah menjawab pertanyaan
penelitian atau belum. Tidak adanya tinjauan pustaka pada artikel. Bentuk pengembangan
permainan papan tidak dijelaskan secara rinci, dan pembahasan mengenai hasil data kuantitatif
kurang komprehensif.
4.5 Kebermanfaatan Penelitian
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, kebermanfaatan yang dapat dirasakan dalam penggunaan permainan
papan dalam pembelajaran ialah permainan papan dapat memberikan ruang bagi siswa untuk ikut
langsung terlibat pada materi dalam proses pembelajaran. Membuat siswa aktif dalam kelas dan
mempermudah siswa dalam mengingat materi yang didapatkan.

BAB V
KESIMPULAN
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa permainan papan dapat memberikan siswa
kesempatan mendalami materi biologi dengan metode yang menyenangkan dan interaktif.
Permainan papan memperkuat retensi materi yang dipelajari. Permainan papan dapat menjadi
intervensi yang dapat dilakukan untuk mendukung pembelajaran mahasiswa dalam mata kuliah
biologi kesehatan masyarakat. Selain itu permainan papan dapat menjadi solusi untuk
meningkatkan minat siswa dalam pembelajaran.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Ezezika, O., Fusaro, M., Rebello, J., & Aslemand, A. (2021). The pedagogical impact of board
games in public health biology education: the Bioracer Board Game. Journal of Biological
Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1909638
Ezezika, O., Oh, J., Edeagu, N., & Boyo, W. (2018). Gamification of nutrition: A preliminary
study on the impact of gamification on nutrition knowledge, attitude, and behaviour of
adolescents in Nigeria. Nutrition and Health, 24(3), 137–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0260106018782211
Rivera, E. S., & Garden, C. L. P. (2021). Gamification for student engagement: a framework.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(7), 999–1012.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1875201
 LAMPIRAN
Lampiran I
Resume Artikel Pendukung 1
A. Identitas Artikel
Judul : Gamification for Student Engagement: A Framework
Jurnal : Journal of Further and Higher Education
Volume & Nomor : 45(7)
Tahun Terbit : 2021
Penulis : Errol Scott Rivera and Claire Louise Palmer Garden

B. Resume Artikel
Gamifikasi merupakan penerapan elemen permainan pada situasi non-permainan,
telah memperoleh daya tarik dalam pendidikan sebagai mekanisme untuk meningkatkan
motivasi dan/atau hasil belajar. Meskipun terdapat beberapa bukti bahwa gamifikasi dapat
mendukung aspek kognitif dan afektif yang lebih dalam. Masih belum jelas bagaimana
gamifikasi memengaruhi keterlibatan siswa dan mengarah pada pembelajaran. Tujuan
utama dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mensintesis kerangka teori yang akan
memungkinkan penerapan gamifikasi secara sistematis untuk tujuan khusus
mempengaruhi keterlibatan siswa untuk pencapaian hasil belajar.
Kerangka teoretis baru ini membuka kemungkinan aplikasi ilmiah dan evaluasi
gamifikasi melalui serangkaian empat proposisi yang dapat diuji:
1. Gamifikasi adalah proses di mana status keterlibatan siswa dapat dimodifikasi
untuk mendukung pencapaian hasil belajar.
2. Pencapaian hasil belajar dapat menjadi konsekuensi terukur dari keadaan
keterlibatan siswa yang mencakup domain afektif, kognitif, dan perilaku.
3. Dimungkinkan untuk memilih atribut permainan yang sesuai untuk mendukung
pencapaian tujuan pembelajaran khusus yang dikategorikan ke dalam tiga
domain pembelajaran: kognitif, afektif dan psikomotorik.
4. Dimungkinkan untuk memilih atribut permainan untuk digunakan dalam
strategi gamifikasi dengan mengidentifikasi domain psikologis dibagi antara
hasil belajar / tujuan pendidikan dan yang diinginkan, memodifikasi
pengalaman keterlibatan siswa.

Lampiran II

Resume Artikel Pendukung 2

A. Identitas Artikel
Judul : Gamification of nutrition: A preliminary study on the impact of
gamification on nutrition knowledge, attitude, and behaviour of adolescents in Nigeria

Jurnal : Nutrition and Health

 Volume & Nomor : 24(3)
Tahun Terbit : 2018
Penulis : Errol Scott Rivera and Claire Louise Palmer Garden

B. Resume Artikel
Gamifikasi mengacu pada penerapan game atau elemen dan prinsip seperti game
dalam konteks non-game.Gamifikasi nutrisi dapat disebut sebagai strategi menggunakan
elemen desain game untuk meningkatkan pola makan perilaku. Menurut Sailer et al.
(2013), desain elemen paling umum dalam gamifikasi adalah: poin (hadiah terakumulasi
untuk tindakan tertentu), lencana (visual representasi pencapaian yang dapat
dikumpulkan), papan peringkat (daftar semua pemain, biasanya diberi peringkat
berdasarkan sukses – berdasarkan poin atau lencana yang diberikan), kemajuan bar
(informasi tentang status pemain saat ini terhadap mencapai tujuan), grafik kinerja
(informasi tentang kinerja pemain dibandingkan dengan penampilan sebelumnya) dan
avatar (representasi visual pemain).
Nigeria dan banyak bagian Afrika sub-Sahara, memiliki ketersediaan makanan
yang tinggi garam, gula, dan lemak jenuh terus meningkat. Hal ini menyebabkan
peningkatan konsumsi makanan semacam itu di antara orang Nigeria, khususnya di
kalangan remaja. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk memahami apakah, dan bagaimana,
gamifikasi gizi dapat berdampak pada mengatasi masalah makan yang tidak sehat di
kalangan remaja Nigeria. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah sebanyak 31 siswa ikut serta ke
dalam empat kelompok fokus. Peserta melaporkan bahwa intervensi mengubah persepsi
dan preferensi mereka, mengarahkan mereka ke mengubah perilaku mereka dengan
memasukkan lebih banyak makanan bergizi (seperti buah-buahan dan sayuran) ke dalam
makanan mereka dan terlibat di dalamnya lebih banyak aktivitas fisik. Lima tema muncul
dari analisis: perilaku makan yang lebih baik; peningkatan fisik aktivitas; peningkatan
kesejahteraan secara keseluruhan; peningkatan pengetahuan gizi; dan mempengaruhi orang
lain. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa gamifikasi dapat mengarah pada
perbaikan perilaku diet di remaja dalam jangka pendek.
 Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

The pedagogical impact of board games in public

health biology education: the Bioracer Board Game

Obidimma Ezezika, Maria Fusaro, James Rebello & Asal Aslemand

To cite this article: Obidimma Ezezika, Maria Fusaro, James Rebello & Asal Aslemand (2021):
The pedagogical impact of board games in public health biology education: the Bioracer Board
Game, Journal of Biological Education, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2021.1909638

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1909638

Published online: 13 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 56

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1909638

The pedagogical impact of board games in public health biology

education: the Bioracer Board Game
a,b,c,d
Obidimma Ezezika , Maria Fusaroa, James Rebellob and Asal Aslemande
a
Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Canada; bDalla Lana School of
Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; cFaculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa,
Canada; dAfrican Centre for Innovation & Leadership Development, Abuja, Nigeria; eDepartment of Computer and
Mathematical Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
We developed an analog board game, BioRacer to further student learning Gamification; public health;
in the field of public health biology and assessed its impact on learning by pedagogy; board game;
conducting a mixed method study. The purpose was to ascertain whether biological determinants of
health
and how gaming could be a valuable learning experience for students in
a lower year level undergraduate course in public health biology. The
quantitative data were collected through pre- and post-tests in class ses­
sions, which were analysed through a mixed-design Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) conducted in R (version 3.3.1). Qualitative data was gathered
through six focus groups where an inductive coding strategy was used to
analyse the transcriptions. The result of mixed-design ANOVA revealed
slightly significant improvement in students’ post-test scores in the teach­
ing intervention group that incorporated the use of the board game. Three
major key themes emerged from the focus group interviews: engagement;
memory retention; and teamwork. Overall, the results of this study showed
that students found the board game helpful in facilitating their learning of
course content. Based on the results of the study, we discuss the implica­
tions of utilising educational analog board games in public health biology
pedagogy to enhance the learning experience of students.

Introduction
Students struggle to understand and apply biological concepts, and traditional lectures may not
accurately represent the complexity of real-life situations or learning in practice. A common issue
that has been highlighted is that students may face difficulty in learning class material, some even
finding it boring (Lord 1998; Mann and Robinson 2009). There is a need for more engaging and
interactive learning techniques to complement traditional teaching.
One way these challenges can be addressed is by using learning tools that positively affect
cognition, allowing individuals to utilise active experimentation and discovery (Pereira et al.
2014). An analog-based board game uses gamification to simplify complex systems, presenting
any issues in understanding them in an intuitive format. Analog board games as pedagogical tools
have been applied in a variety of medical and health fields including neonatology (Swiderska et al.
2013), anatomy (Anyanwu 2014), biology (Bochennek et al. 2007; Coli, Ettinger, and Eisen 2017),
pharmacology (Karbownik et al. 2016), genetics (Osier 2014), physiology (Freitas et al 2018; Luchi
et al.2019), infectious diseases (Robinson, Turner, and Sweet 2018), molecular biology (Cardoso
et al. 2008) and many other related areas. Furthermore, analog board games have also been used in

CONTACT Obidimma Ezezika obidimma.ezezika@utoronto.ca

© 2021 Royal Society of Biology
2 O. EZEZIKA ET AL.

influencing positive behaviour change and health promotion activities (Yoshida-Montezuma,

Ahmed, and Ezezika 2020; Nakao 2019; Ezezika et al. 2018).
Previously, board games have been implemented to teach individuals biological concepts utilis­
ing a variety of evaluation methods to assess their impact. For example, the University of Nigeria
utilised pre- and post-test assessments and questionnaires to determine if a board game improved
the learning experience for medical and dental students in anatomy (Anyanwu 2014). Another
study utilised a randomised controlled trial to determine how board game-based learning would
affect undergraduate medical students in the field of neonatology (Swiderska et al. 2013). Board
games have the potential to provide students with the opportunity to engage with material that they
find difficult, and review course content that they may not have had prior exposure to, allowing
them to improve their learning experience within the classroom (Swiderska et al. 2013; Bochennek
et al. 2007). Board games can make concepts easy to understand and support the creation of an
engaging and entertaining experience for students, while also promoting active learning in the
classroom (Osier 2014).
The objectives of this study were therefore to develop an analog board game (BioRacer) for an
undergraduate public health biology course and assess its utility as a learning activity for students.

Methods
Development of the Board game, BioRacer
The purpose of developing the BioRacer board game was to provide students with a complementary
learning activity for a lower-year undergraduate public health biology course that was interactive
and enhanced active learning. The principle of the game is based on the conceptual framework for
the biological determinants of health proposed by Bortz (2005), which includes 4 determinants: (1)
genes, (2) external agency, (3) internal agency, and (4) ageing However, for this pilot, we substituted
the ‘ageing’ determinant for a section related to ‘foundational concepts in public health biology’ as
the game was tailored to a lower-year undergraduate course. The game BioRacer utilises a turn-
based system where players roll a dice and move counterclockwise along the board, navigating
through the four areas of the biological determinants of health (Bortz 2005) (Figure 1). The game is
based on the Roll-and-Move taxonomy of board games similar to Monopoly or Snakes and Ladders
where players move spaces on a path from start to finish [See supplementary material for board­
game instructions]. The game is designed to be played by two – six players. Turns are taken by each
player and game markers represent each player’s position on the board. To win the game, players

Figure 1. The BioRacer Boardgame.

 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 3

need to demonstrate that they understand the relative importance of these determinants and how
they affect health by answering questions in each of the four categories on the foundational
concepts, genetics, external agency and internal agency. The play time takes about 40 minutes.

Ethics and consent

Research Ethics Board (REB) approval was obtained for this study and consent from each partici­
pant prior to conducting these interviews. Throughout the process, participants were given the
opportunity to withdraw voluntarily at any time and to pass on questions they were uncertain about
or did not want to answer. It was made clear both in class announcements and on the consent form
that participation in the interview portion was completely voluntary and decision to participate
would not reflect on course marks or grades. Students were first given a presentation on the
methods, consent, confidentiality, and goals of the study in their class sections. Students were
then given consent forms two days after the initial presentation and had the opportunity to ask any
questions regarding the study. The participation in the study was completely voluntary, with no
course incentive.

Pre- and post- test

The study examining the impact of BioRacer on students was conducted during the Fall 2019
semester involving undergraduate students in a public health biology course from the University of
Toronto. The course enrolment was 171 students and 151 students participated in the pre- and
post-test study. There were six class sections (sections 1 to 6) of approximately 16–34 students that
met weekly for 1 hour, starting in the second week of the course (Table 1). A different teaching
assistant led each class section. All students were randomly assigned to one of the six class sections
at the beginning of the semester via the University of Toronto’s student information system.
Of the 151 participating students, 71 were in the intervention group (sections 1, 5 and 6), and 80
were in the control group (sections 2, 3 and 4). There were no students who dropped the course
from either the intervention group or the control group. Students in all class sections completed the
pre- and post-test assessments pertaining to each class section’s topic. The pre- and post-test
questions assessed students’ biological content knowledge pertaining to each class section’s topic.
In this paper, we refer to this measurement as performance scores.
The participating students in the intervention group received the board game and were given
pre- and post-game questionnaires that consisted of 14 multiple-choice questions that assessed their
biological content knowledge. The weekly 1-h section meeting time was scheduled as follows:
10 minutes for completing the pre-test assessment pertaining to that class section’s topic,
30–45 minutes to play with the board game (under the guidance of volunteers that were familiar
with the board game instructions and who ensured that it was played as intended and all players
engaged), and 10 minutes for completing the post-test assessment pertaining to that class section’s
topic.
The participating students in the control group received a traditional lecture-based lesson taught
by the teaching assistant and were given the same set of pre- and post-questionnaires as the

Table 1. Class sections and number of students for the RCT.

Class Section Number of Student Participants
Section 1 (Intervention) 16
Section 2 (Control) 30
Section 3 (Control) 34
Section 4 (Control) 16
Section 5 (Intervention) 34
Section 6 (Intervention) 21
4 O. EZEZIKA ET AL.

intervention group. The weekly 1-h section-meeting time was scheduled as follows: 10 minutes for
completing the pre-test assessment pertaining to that class section’s topic, 30–45 minutes to devote
to the teaching assistant’s teaching of biological contents (these class sections allowed students to
review course content with their teaching assistants), and 10 minutes for completing the post-test
assessment pertaining to that class section’s topic.

Quantitative data analysis

The participating students’ answers to each of the 14 pre- and post-test questions were
marked out of 14 points. For the quantitative data, we compared participating students’
correct responses to the pre- and post-test questions in the control group to thos of the
intervention group.
R software was used to analyse the quantitative data for the pre- and post-test scores in each
group (control, and intervention). A two-way mixed-design ANOVA was performed to examine
the effect of teaching method (whether board games were used or not: intervention group verses
control group) and time of test administration (at the beginning and at the end of each class section:
pre-test verses post-test) on students’ performance scores. We treated the type of teaching method
(control group verses intervention group) as the between-subject factor, and the time of test
administration (pre-test verses post-test) as the within-subject factor.

Focus groups
Four weeks after the pre- and post-tests were conducted, we provided the opportunity for
students in all six class sections to play the board game and then conducted focus groups
with students from these class sections soon after. There were 146 students who participated
in the 6 focus groups. 16 students from section 1 focus group, 28 students from section 2
focus group, 31 students from section 3 focus group, 16 students from section 4 focus
group, 34 students from section 5 focus group and 21 students from section 6 focus group.
The focus groups included a semi-structure interview style led by the researchers where the
audio was recorded for transcription. Students in each section were given multiple open-
ended questions which were answered in a group format. These included questions corre­
sponding to the styling of the game, the ease of instructions, and if the game helped with
studying/gaining knowledge. The questions included: 1) What is your perception regarding
aspects of game playing that were most and least helpful to learning? 2) Did playing the
board game help with retention of course material? 3) What are some potential improve­
ments to the game, and would you recommend it to others? Explain. The teaching assistants
were not present during the focus groups so as not to not bias any opinion and maintain
confidentiality.

Qualitative data analyses

All digitally recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded (i.e., systematic selection of
a word or phrase to reflect the participants' meaning) for downstream analysis. Codes were
organised into broad categories under which sub-categories were created, along with descriptive
properties, including relevant quotations. A general inductive approach for analysing the qualitative
data (Thomas 2006) was used, which requires researchers to construct theories and explanations
based upon observations and interview data.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 5

Results
Quantitative results
Before conducting any statistical analysis, the data needed to be screened for missing values, outliers
and to ensure it met the assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variances, and homogeneity of
covariances (Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino 2013). The analysis of quantitative data screening
showed no presence of extreme outliers, as assessed by boxplot method. The data was normally
distributed, as assessed by normal probability plots. There was homogeneity of variances as assessed
by Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances. Moreover, there was homogeneity of covariances, as
assessed by Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices.
We assessed students’ performance scores at both times, once at the beginning and another time
at the end of the class section in the control group and in the intervention group. Table 2 presents
mean and standard deviation values for the students’ performance-scores at both times of the test
administrations in each group, as well as their change in their scores.
There was a statistically significant two-way interaction between teaching method and time of
test administration (p<0.05). This result indicates that, the mean difference in performance scores
between the two teaching methods' control group and intervention group differ between pre- and
post-test scores. Figure 2 shows the estimated mean score in each group at each time of the test-
assessment.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for pre- and post-test scores in each group.
Pre-test Post-test Change
Group M SD M SD M SD
Control (n = 80) 8.40 2.13 8.66 2.22 0.26 1.38
Intervention (n = 71) 7.45 2.55 8.21 2.50 0.76 1.55

Figure 2. Estimated mean score in each group at each time of assessment.

6 O. EZEZIKA ET AL.

Figure 3. Distribution of mean difference in post- and pre-test scores in each group.

As presented in Table 2 and in Figure 2, students’ pre-test scores were higher in the control
group than the intervention group, on average. However, while students’ post-test scores were also
higher in the control group compared to the intervention group, the difference in the post- and pre-
test scores were significantly higher for students in the intervention group than in the control group,
on average (p<0.05).
Figure 3 shows the distribution of differences in scores for each group. While these two
distributions' pre- and post-test scores have approximately the same shape, students’ post-scores
were up to six points higher on the 14-multiple choice questionnaire than their pre-scores in the
intervention group. This positive change in scores among the intervention group was three points
higher than the students’ performance in the control group.
Moreover, there was a marginally significant mean difference in performance scores between the
two times of test administration in the intervention group (p<0.10), but no significant score-
difference was found in the control group. That is, compared to the pre-test, students’ performance
scores were slightly improved overall at the end of the intervention sessions, on average. However,
there was no significant evidence that students' performance scores changed over time in the
control group.
There was a statistically significant main effect of time of test administration on students’
performance (p<0.05). Averaging over the method of teaching levels, students’ mean performance
scores improved over time, that is, from the beginning (M = 7.95, SD = 2.38) to the end (M = 8.45,
SD = 2.35) of class section’s assessment of students’ knowledge.

Qualitative results
All six class sections played the board game and participated in the focus groups. Three inter­
connected themes emerged from the analysis of the focus group transcripts. First, the board game
allowed students to engage with the course material in a meaningful way. Due to this engagement,
they were able to motivate themselves to learn course material and improve their overall learning
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 7

experience. Secondly, students noted that the board game challenged them to retain and understand
the information presented. Finally, the board game taught students how to work together as a team
and collaborate.

Engagement
Analysis of the transcripts show that participants from all the six class sections who played the
board game were able to engage with the material in a meaningful way. Through engaging in the
board game participants were able to enjoy the material learned, have fun in a learning environment
and move physically while playing the game. Participants were able to utilise these elements to
stimulate in-classroom learning. As one participant noted ‘It makes learning fun . . . it doesn’t feel
like your studying it feels like a game your studying without really knowing your studying.’ (Student
2, Section 6)
The idea of engagement was echoed by another participant who stated:
It helped think about concepts that we didn’t really go in-depth in class because in class it’s more
of general stuff with the time constraint but in the actual board game was more fun and it specified
the details more so than we would of read in our textbook or studying elsewhere. (Student 2,
Section 5)
Three participants across three class sections (Section 4, 5, 6) stated how they enjoyed the board
game since it allowed them to engage with material that was complex or difficult. A participant said,
‘The game is fun so it’s more engaging [when] everyone is trying to learn.’ (Student 14, Section 3)
Another participant emphasised that the physical movement of utilising the board game was also
enjoyable stating that it ‘Make[s] it more fun . . . it’s more engaging because you have to like
physically to do something . . . .’. (Student 1, Section 4)
By using a board game technique, participants were able to engage in challenges that they find
fun compared to an in-class lecture.

Memory retention
The second theme that emerged from the board game was memory retention, as participants across
all six class sections noted that it helped them retain knowledge learned in the course. Participants
noted that they were better able to process information more effectively, receive feedback as they
progressed with the board game and feel less stressed when learning course material. Participants
experienced each one of these elements allowing them to fully retain the information from the
game. As one participant stated:
I like that the most helpful thing was that a lot of the questions did show up on the exam too. So,
because of it, it kind of gave us like, since we played it like a week before our exam it kind of helped
us out to see what type of questions and it’s also recall memory, so it's kind of helped us out.
(Student 1, Section 1)
Two participants across two class sections (Section 1 and 4) noted the board game allowed them
to easily consolidate knowledge. With one stating:
I felt like it [BioRacer] kind of reinforced what we learned in class but without it having to be stressful because
it’s supposed to be a game whereas if it was an actual review sheet and in a test setting that would be kind of
stressful because like psychologically it would have an impact on you. (Student 4, Section 1)

This participant also mentioned that they did not feel pressured to memorise or study the material,
unlike traditional study methods. They found this style of learning helpful to them as it felt more
relaxed.
Participants across all six class sections also noted that the board game challenged them, allowing
them to think back and see if the previous information they learnt was well consolidated. One
participant noted ‘ . . . this boardgame allowed [us] to see the kinds of questions [thatwe] never
thought [of our]selves . . . it gives [us] the feedback on where [we] need to focus more for studying.’
(Student 5, Section 5)
8 O. EZEZIKA ET AL.

The board game also offered participants the opportunity to check-in to see how much they
remembered. One participant stated, “It really helps with recalling some things that [we] haven’t
thought about in a while’ (Student 5, Section 2).
The board game helped with the retention of course material, allowing participants to not only
review current course material but explore information they may have previously not reviewed.
Participants were able to see how much knowledge they have retained and what they would need to
remember for any upcoming test.

Teamwork
Within this final theme, 14 participants across all six sections noted that the board game helped
foster a sense of teamwork and collaboration within the class. Working as a team, participants were
able to understand information that they found challenging, form a friendly camaraderie with one
another, and reduce pressure by spreading the burden of learning. Due to each one of these factors,
participants felt motivated to participate in their learning, as one participant noted: ‘ . . . games [are]
a very easy way for [us] to learn as a group because everyone is sharing their ideas. So even if [we]
don’t understand a particular concept [we] can share as a group and learn together.’ (Student 3,
Section 5).
Specifically, participants noted that working as a team made the content easier to understand
since they were able to bounce ideas off one another. Another participant echoed ‘ . . . [we] feel
like discussing it with others, [since we can] retain that information better.’ (Student 13,
Section 3).
Three participants in class section 3 also stated that they prefer working in a team setting. One of
them noted ‘[we] would actually prefer being in pairs because . . . when [our partner] knew the
answer, she would have to speak through why she thinks that’s the answer so [we] think [that’s]
helpful.’ (Student 22, Section 3).
Working as a team also helped make the experience less stressful for eight participants across
four class sections (Section 1, 3, 4, 5). One mentioned that ‘ . . . it was . . . less stressful because [we]
had each other to help . . . identify the answer if [we] didn’t know . . . ’ (Student 5, Section 1)
Overall, participants noted that working collaboratively to answer the questions from the board
game helped them to learn the content. By having several classmates around them, many felt
comfortable to share answers.

Discussion
Due to the growing interest in games for biological education in health, we have developed the
BioRacer analog board game and assessed its impact on students' learning experience through
statistical analyses and a general inductive approach for analysing qualitative data. The results from
the quantitative data analysis demonstrate that students’ performance improved regardless of their
group assignment (control or intervention group). However, performance scores were significantly
higher by the end of the class section’s assessment in the intervention group. Moreover, students’
improvement in their test-performance was significantly higher in the intervention group than in
the control group.
Although the quantitative data generated showed there was some degree of positive impact, the
qualitative data provided further insights on how such impact might have been generated. The first
theme of engagement, as revealed by the focus groups, found students were able to engage with the
material in a meaningful way during the study. A few of the students from two class-sections noted
that they did not even feel like they were studying and that they wanted to participate in the game.
Deif (2017) states that gamification approaches address the many limitations of teaching where
students may not feel engaged in active learning. With the help of gamification applications, lessons
that students find boring can become entertaining, which is likely to increase students’ motivation
(Yapici and Karakoyun 2017; Huang, Hew, and Lo 2018).
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 9

Furthermore, students noted how they did not feel pressured to memorise materials as would be
the case through traditional studying methods. They noted that when writing the exam, they were
able to recall questions they saw when playing the board game. Researchers found that some people
are better able to retain knowledge due to visual cues which, when coupled with interactive
activities, enhance their learning (Ibarra-Herrera et al. 2019). An analog board game can offer
students a chance to actively use a different medium to study, where it can improve their under­
standing of course content and increase their preparedness for exams (Freitas et al. 2018).
Educational board games can work to reduce the pressure associated with courses with heavy
content (Bellotti et al. 2013). The results of our study showed that the BioRacer board game offered
students a chance to be challenged where they were able to test their memory. Previous studies have
found that this competitive environment can help with students' retention of knowledge, allowing
them to check to see if they are consolidating necessary information (Lavender et al. 2019). One of
the results from our study highlighted how the board game offered students a chance to critically
analyse if they were retaining knowledge. Whittam and Chow (2017) had found similar findings,
that working through the questions as a group, and receiving immediate feedback, helped to
facilitate learning.
Finally, the theme of teamwork that was elicited from playing the board game helped foster
a sense of collaboration and improve overall learning. Cooperative forms of learning encourage
students to become more confident with difficult comprehension subjects, such as in molecular
biology (Cardoso et al. 2008). Educational board games are able to take content from course
material and translate it into real-world situations with a group dynamic (Kwok 2017).
Gamification is able to have a positive influence on students since it provides support through
social and emotional aspects. For example, the Department of Biology Education at Dicle University
reported positive feedback using Kahoot applications in class (Yapici and Karakoyun 2017). Many
students may feel intimidated by professors and teaching assistants (Patel et al. 2009) and therefore
additional learning opportunities with other classmates can be a more welcome alternative.
The use of board games for education and pedagogy can be complex and involves multiple
factors. In our study, we assessed the impact of the game through statistical models and common
themes. The qualitative analysis of the common themes demonstrated the support the game
provided to students. Although the game reinforces collaboration among students, there is
a competitive nature that can propose limitations (Zagal, Rick, and Hsi 2006). For example,
games can demotivate students who do not feel comfortable competing with others and can restrict
the positive learning outcomes that can come from game play (Zagal, Rick, and Hsi 2006). One of
the ways we accounted for this potential limitation in the board game design instructions was to
provide opportunities for players having difficulty progressing to collaborate with other players. For
example, in the BioRacer board-game instructions, it states: ‘If the player does not know the answer
to the question, the other players can steal the card’. It also states that ‘If players are struggling on
levels 1 and 2, they may work as a team to answer’. In this way, a player can seek help and support
from other players during the game and further enhance inter-player collaboration.

Limitations
It is important to note that the quantitative aspect of this study measured students’ biological
content knowledge once at the beginning of the class section and another time towards the end,
either after the intervention (Board game) was implemented or after the lesson delivered by the
teaching assistant. Therefore, we recommend that future research studies assess students’ biological
content knowledge during the intervention time as well. The results of a future study designed in
that regard will better determine the impact of board games in public health biology education.
Secondly, this intervention was done once in a limited time frame, so it is unclear if any effects
shown are reproducible. Participants may perform differently depending on other circumstances, so
multiple trials might be needed to produce stronger statistical results. Thirdly, due to the limited
10 O. EZEZIKA ET AL.

time availability, the measurement in the tests was mostly focused on knowledge and under­
standing, which are both lower order taxonomic skills according to Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom
et al. 1956). Finally, response bias during the focus groups should not be ruled out. Participants may
have not answered truthfully if they felt pressure from the research team or other students in the
focus group. There were many attempts to minimise coercion effects throughout the study,
including ensuring the anonymity of eacstudent using codes and consent forms noting that mark
on the pre- and post-tests assessment would not influence final marks. However, participants may
still have felt pressured to answer the focus group interview questions in a positive light.

Conclusion
We developed and implemented an analog BioRacer board game as a complementary learning
activity for a lower-year undergraduate public health biology course. We subsequently assessed its
utility through a mixed methods approach. The results of the study revealed that students’
improvement in their test-performance was significantly higher in the intervention group than in
the control group. The results of the focus group showed that the BioRacer board game can provide
students the opportunity to engage with challenging public health biology concepts in afun and
interactive manner. BioRacer strengthens the retention of material learnt and enhances teamwork
as well as collaborative learning with colleagues. Based on the results we found in our study, board
games can be aviable intervention to support student learning in public health biology courses.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to David Chan, Sadia Hashmi, Mona Jarrah, Jennifer Lake Ye and Joyce Jang for supporting
the pilot of the board game and data collection. The authors are also grateful to Tinah Orungbemi, Akanbi
Abdulhakeem and Okunoye Kunle for supporting the board game design.

Disclosure statement
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article: Teaching Equipment Grant, Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Toronto, Scarborough. [N/
A];

ORCID
Obidimma Ezezika http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7832-0483

References
Anyanwu, E. G. 2014. “Anatomy Adventure: A Board Game for Enhancing Understanding of Anatomy.” Anatomical
Sciences Education 7 (2): 153–160. doi:10.1002/ase.1389.
Bellotti, F., B. Kapralos, K. Lee, P. Moreno-Ger, and R. Berta. 2013. “Assessment in and of Serious Games: An
Overview.” Advances in Human-computer Interaction 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/136864.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I:
Cognitive domain. In M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, & D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.), Taxonomy of educational
objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay (pp. 201-
207).
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 11

Bochennek, K., B. Wittekindt, S. Y. Zimmermann, and T. Klingebiel. 2007. “More than Mere Games: A Review of
Card and Board Games for Medical Education.” Medical Teacher 29 (9– 10): 941–948. doi:10.1080/
01421590701749813.
Bortz, W. M. 2005. “Biological Basis of Determinants of Health.” American Journal of Public Health 95 (3): 389–392.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2003.033324.
Cardoso, F. S., R. Dumpel, L. B. Da Silva, C. R. Rodrigues, D. O. Santos, L. M. Cabral, and H. C. Castro. 2008. “Just
Working with the Cellular Machine: A High School Game for Teaching Molecular Biology.” Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education: A Bimonthly Publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology 36 (2): 120–124. doi:10.1002/bmb.20164.
Coli, D., C. Ettinger, and J. Eisen. 2017. “Gut Check: The Evolution of an Educational Board Game.” PLoS Biology 15:
1–8.
Derif, A. 2017. “Insights on Lean Gamification for Higher Education.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 8:
359–376. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-04-2016-0017.
Ezezika, O., J. Oh, N. Edeagu, and W. Boyo. 2018. “Gamification of Nutrition: A Preliminary Study on the Impact of
Gamification on Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude, and Behaviour of Adolescents in Nigeria.” Nutrition and Health
24 (3): 137–144. doi:10.1177/0260106018782211.
Filippou, J., C. Cheong, and F. Cheong. 2018. “A Model to Investigate Preference for Use of Gamification in
A Learning Activity.” Australasian Journal of Information Systems 22. doi:10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1397.
Freitas, F. O. R., J. E. F. Barreto, E. A. De Sousa Ramos, A. P. F. De Freitas, J. D. De Lucena, A. G. Scafuri, and
G. S. Cerqueira. 2018. “Anatomy Board Games Promote Significant Learning about the Cardiovascular System.”
The FASEB Journal 32 (1_supplement): 507–511.
Huang, B., K. F. Hew, and C. K. Lo. 2018. “Investigating the Effects of Gamification-enhanced Flipped Learning on
Undergraduate Students’ Behavioral and Cognitive Engagement.” Interactive Learning Environments 27 (8):
1106–1126. doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653.
Ibarra-Herrera, C. C., A. Alejandro Carrizosa, J. A. Yunes-Rojas, A. Marco, and M. A. Mata Gómez. 2019. “Design of
an App Based on Gamification and Storytelling as a Tool for Biology Courses.” International Journal on Interactive
Design and Manufacturing (Ijidem) 13 (4): 1271–1282. doi:10.1007/s12008-019-00600-8.
Karbownik, M. S., A. Wiktorowska-Owczarek, E. Kowalczyk, P. Kwarta, Ł. Mokros, and T. Pietras. 2016. “Board
Game versus Lecture-based Seminar in the Teaching of Pharmacology of Antimicrobial Drugs–a Randomized
Controlled Trial.” FEMS Microbiology Letters 363 (7): fnw045. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-04-2016-0017.
Kwok, R. 2017. “Enterprise: Game On.” Nature 547 (7663): 369–371. doi:10.1038/nj7663-369a.
Lavender, T., G. Omoni, R. Laisser, L. McGowan, S. Wakasiaka, G. Maclean, and A. Chimwaza. 2019. “Evaluation of
an Educational Board Game to Improve Use of the Partograph in sub-Saharan Africa: A Quasi-experimental
Study.” Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 20: 54–59. doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2019.03.001.
Lord, T. R. 1998. “Cooperative Learning that Really Works in Biology Teaching: Using Constructivist- Based
Activities to Challenge Student Teams.” The American Biology Teacher 60 (8): 580–588. doi:10.2307/4450554.
Luchi, K., L. Cardozo, and F. Marcondes. 2019. “Increased Learning by Using Board Game on Muscular System
Physiology Compared with Guided Study.” Advances in Physiology Education 43: 149–154. doi:10.1152/
advan.00165.2018.
Mann, S., and A. Robinson. 2009. “Boredom in the Lecture Theatre: An Investigation into the Contributors,
Moderators and Outcomes of Boredom Amongst University Students.” British Educational Research Journal 35
(2): 243–258. doi:10.1080/01411920802042911.
Meyers, L., G. Gamst, and A. J. Guarino. 2013. Applied Multivariate Research Design and Interpretation. Thousand
Oks, CA: Sage Publication.
Nakao, M. 2019. “Special Series on “Effects of Board Games on Health Education and Promotion” Board Games as
a Promising Tool for Health Promotion: A Review of Recent Literature.” BioPsychoSocial Med 13: 5. doi:10.1186/
s13030-019-0146-3.
Osier, M. V. 2014. “A Board Game for Undergraduate Genetics Vocabulary and Concept Review: The Pathway
Shuffle.” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 15 (2): 328–329. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.794.
Patel, V. L., N. A. Yoskowitz, J. F. Arocha, and E. H. Shortliffe. 2009. “Cognitive and Learning Sciences in Biomedical
and Health Instructional Design: A Review with Lessons for Biomedical Informatics Education.” Journal of
Biomedical Informatics 42 (1): 176–197. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.12.002.
Pereira, P., E. Duarte, F. Rebelo, and P. Noriega. 2014. “A Review of Gamification for Health-related Contexts.”
International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability 8518: 742–753. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07626-
3_70.
Robinson, L. A., I. J. Turner, and M. J. Sweet. 2018. “The Use of Gamification in the Teaching of Disease Epidemics
and Pandemics.” FEMS Microbiology Letters 365 (11): fny111. doi:10.1093/femsle/fny111.
Swiderska, N., E. Thomason, A. Hart, and B. N. Shaw. 2013. “Randomised Controlled Trial of the Use of an
Educational Board Game in Neonatology.” Medical Teacher 35 (5): 413–415. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.769679.
Thomas, D. 2006. ”A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data“. American Journal of
Evaluation 27: 237–246
12 O. EZEZIKA ET AL.

Whittam, A. M., and W. Chow. 2017. “An Educational Board Game for Learning and Teaching Burn Care:
A Preliminary Evaluation.” Scars, Burns & Healing 3: 17–36. doi:10.1177/2059513117690012.
Yapici, İ. Ü., and F. Karakoyun. 2017. “Gamification in Biology Teaching: A Sample of Kahoot Application.” Turkish
Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 8 (4): 396–414. doi:10.17569/tojqi.335956.
Yoshida-Montezuma, Y., M. Ahmed, and O. Ezezika. 2020. “Does Gamification Improve Fruit and Vegetable Intake
in Adolescents? A Systematic Review.” Nutrition and Health 26 (4): 347–366. doi:10.1177/0260106020936143.
Zagal, J. P., J. Rick, and I. Hsi. 2006. “Collaborative Games: Lessons Learned from Board Games.” Simulation &
Gaming 37 (1): 24–40. doi:10.1177/1046878105282279.