A 3D printed magnetic puzzle game to demonstrate viral infection and virucidal antivirals
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Viruses are the most abundant microorganism on the planet, outnumbering all others combined. Viruses can cause significant global problems to both health and the economy. Understanding viral infection life cycles and interventions against viruses have become a global focus, following recent pandemics. Being able to simply explain this complex process to a wide and general audience is of paramount importance. Here we have developed a magnetic puzzle game that through a timed assembly competition excites students and audiences and engages them while they learn about virus infection and antiviral interventions. The ’hands-on’ nature, alongside the competitive aspect, resulted in the activity being well received across a wide range of ages (from pre-school to adults).
Article activity feed
-
Thank you for your pre-peer review work on this manuscript. Please find the reviewers comments below. Both reviewers have questions around evaluation of the work, and as we have previously discussed this I and aware that there is not impact evaluation within the manuscript as there is no ethics in place to undertake this. Please make it clear with the instruction / aims that this manuscript is a resource/methods style paper - you have made something cool and are sharing with your peers. Please also add in a section into the discussion of limitations / further work, and add in the to determine this impact of your resource you would need to gain ethics and then run an additional study.
-
Comments to Author
This manuscript presents a teaching activity that provides an active learning resource around the structure of viruses paired with anti-viral drugs. This is a particularly exciting activity and the broader connections made demonstrate a lot of potential (with improving public understanding about COVID but also those with other disciplines - material science). Overall, this is an absolutely amazing activity that has real potential to communicate a tricky concept to learners at a range of levels. However, how this activity is scaffolded into learning is not clearly explained or evaluated, and the response of learners is not evaluated. Is it effective in achieving the learning outcomes? Do people take away the concepts that are intended? I think the context behind it is present-(particularly shown by …
Comments to Author
This manuscript presents a teaching activity that provides an active learning resource around the structure of viruses paired with anti-viral drugs. This is a particularly exciting activity and the broader connections made demonstrate a lot of potential (with improving public understanding about COVID but also those with other disciplines - material science). Overall, this is an absolutely amazing activity that has real potential to communicate a tricky concept to learners at a range of levels. However, how this activity is scaffolded into learning is not clearly explained or evaluated, and the response of learners is not evaluated. Is it effective in achieving the learning outcomes? Do people take away the concepts that are intended? I think the context behind it is present-(particularly shown by the translating activities into lessons section/table), but how was that communicated to the audience (i.e. learners)? I see there is a line in the text about aligning the level of these concepts to the audience (which is one of the strengths of this project- it's ability to engage individuals with tricky concepts and flexibility across levels), but it would be really great to have more explanation of this in practice. How do you explain the why associated with these activities? You may have done this, or plan to do it, but it would be great to have that included in this manuscript. Methodology, reproducibility & availability. Given its focus this manuscript doesnt have a standard format, however the methodology behind the design of the activity is highly reproducible and useful. Limited detail/context is given on implementation of this activity or evaluation, which would make it harder for others to follow what the authors did in terms of adopting it. Presentation of results. again, the presentation around the design of the activity is good, and it is easy to understand how the puzzles were created and the activities established. there is no evaluation of these, which would be typically included to demonstrate evidence on the effects of learning. these activities are really great, but some evaluation data are needed to demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes (do people learn the intended concepts). Organisation of the middle section (pages 7-9) I have no doubt that learners will engage with these activities really well, and their design really facilitates learning about a tricky concept (that is tricky because it's at just a small level). I think that connection to the real world needs to be highlighted somewhere (to prevent subconscious misconceptions about viruses forming). Viruses aren't big pink/green/orange pieces of plastic flying around in our bodies- this is a tool to help visualise that and show how these work in biological systems. Im sure you have done this, but you need to include that in how it is communicated here, particularly to make sure any adopters of the work also recognise that. I also think the Learning Outcomes should be placed much further up in the manuscript- that is the clear purpose behind the activities, so the reader should be aware of those much earlier on. The explanation behind the viral concepts is a really important part of this manuscript, especially for non-microbiologists trying to embed the work (or teachers for example). However, I find it a little dense and hard to read- I'm wondering if this could be simplified into a table? And then concepts like the intracellular antivirals 'extra' activity for the tombola (page 8, lines 25-31) be embedded into the learning activities section? I think that would be helpful in terms of highlighting the definitions more and then connecting up the concepts that are being taught. Finally, was there any evaluation done behind this work? I completely understand that this is a great idea and project, but the true test of whether it works is what the audience actually learns from it. Do they better understand those concepts you've included? Any qualitative or quantitative data would be extremely beneficial, although I'm sure you have lots of plans for trying this out. This would also broaden the conclusions. Context & Discussion. Introduction: this section does a really nice job of highlighting the wider issues the work is trying to address, and both the project's role relative to COVID, 'combatting' misinformation and the wider interdisciplinary angles are brilliant! However, more evidence around those concepts is needed, and also some definitions. I know you're really familiar with things like antivirals, but if you're aiming for an educational audience it might be good to define these concepts (and materials science as well). Is this about the material properties of 3D printing, or just 3D printing as a methodology to promote active learning? this seems to get blurred and could use clarification, and is not re-visited in the conclusions/discussion. I would consider taking the material science angle out, as none of the learning concepts relate to the material science side. I think it's good to still highlight the benefits of 3D printing in the educational context (linking to the Key Stages as you do), but unless you add some concepts around material science, it's just a method to enact the viral concepts (which honestly are well-justified on their own). Page 2, lines 6-11. I wonder if you could find any references to support this assertation. I agree with it, but it would be stronger with some evidence behind young peoples' views on development of reasoning or critical analysis. There is also a jump in logic between this paragraph and the next, where you shift into the specifics about your project. Page 2, lines 23-29. This is a great connection to make, and I think is really beneficial to the students involved. I don't think this paragraph fits well here though, you need to end the introduction with final thoughts about the overall study (like the previous paragraph) and bring this idea in earlier in the section (possibly in a broader context). In the Discussion/Conclusion, you might want to consider revisiting your thoughts about reducing the spread of misinformation. You set that out in the introduction, but it would be nice to follow it up at the end. It could also be included in an evaluation conducted.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Very good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
It is encouraging to the see the effort that has been put into creating these 3D puzzles and suggestions for how they can be incorporated into an educational setting. This paper would be greatly improved by demonstrating the effect that these puzzles/games have. This might be a measure of participation, measure of enjoyment or demonstration of the knowledge gained. However, it is my understanding that ethical approval would be required if any measures involving participants were to take place. Although this paper undoubtedly discusses a worthwhile venture, it's unclear what the purpose of the paper is. Is it to provide an example of the game, a lesson plan, demonstrate educational benefits of interacting with the games or introduce the topic of material science? What ages or level of education are …
Comments to Author
It is encouraging to the see the effort that has been put into creating these 3D puzzles and suggestions for how they can be incorporated into an educational setting. This paper would be greatly improved by demonstrating the effect that these puzzles/games have. This might be a measure of participation, measure of enjoyment or demonstration of the knowledge gained. However, it is my understanding that ethical approval would be required if any measures involving participants were to take place. Although this paper undoubtedly discusses a worthwhile venture, it's unclear what the purpose of the paper is. Is it to provide an example of the game, a lesson plan, demonstrate educational benefits of interacting with the games or introduce the topic of material science? What ages or level of education are being targeted? Some clearly stated aims would be beneficial. Similarly, who is the intended audience of this paper? Some sections (e.g. Antivirals) appear to be written for a lay understanding rather than the typical science academic. The introduction is lacking in any mention or evidence to support gamification or game-based learning. This area of pedagogy is extremely relevant to the paper and should be discussed in detail. Additionally, a mention of active learning and kinaesthetic learning approaches would benefit the introduction. There are repeated mentions that these games are suitable and adaptable for all ages, but there is no evidence of this. For what ages, settings or level of education have these games been demonstrated or trialled? Finally, the conclusions are only partially supported by the paper. Primarily because there is no data to actually show that the games were enjoyed or improved participant understanding. This links back to my earlier comment: what is the purpose of this paper? Specific aims and measures of efficacy would demonstrate the functionality of these models. There is potential here to present the great benefits of game-based learning and showcase the unique models and games the authors have created. Minor Points Page 1, line 34: I would no longer classify the COVID pandemic as "current". Page 2, line 34: Can you provide an approximation of cost for those who maybe considering investing? Page 3: The first figure should be labelled as Figure 1, the second as Figure 2. Page 4, line 9: Is the correct Figure referenced here? Page 5: Figure 3C is unclear, could the image be enlarged? Page 5, line 5: Can you provide any statistics to support that time was independent of age? What ages were included in the trial? Page 6, line 16: typo in 'difficult'. Page 7, line 13: I would suggest simplifying these learning outcomes to those that can be specifically demonstrated by the models. Page 8, lines 13-16: It would help to explicitly state that you are referring to virustatic antivirals here. Page 8, line 23: Can you reference this?
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
