FROM ROUTINE TO PLAYFUL: ENHANCING VIROLOGY TEACHING WITH SCIENCE FICTION AND GAMIFICATION

  1. Antonio Lucas Rodrigues Silva
  2. Marcos André Fontenele Sales

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Given that traditional methodologies in virus teaching often spark little interest among High School students, this research aimed at the development of a dynamic and innovative methodological approach to teaching virus content through science fiction associated with active methodologies, in order to make learning more attractive and comprehensible to students. For this purpose, an experimental and qualitative approach was adopted with 20 second-year High School students from the Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Ceará. Initially, participants watched an 18-minute fictional video, accompanied by a dynamic questionnaire on the main concepts taught in virology addressed in a fictitious context. Subsequently, the students' perception of the use of the produced material was assessed through a second questionnaire. The results indicated a high rate of correct answers in the first questionnaire, while the responses obtained with the second questionnaire revealed that the strategy of content presentation based on elements of science fiction was positively evaluated by 95% of the participants. The students' comments showed a preference for the adopted teaching technique, in contrast with conventional teaching methods, corroborating the inference that the dynamic approach was effective in arousing interest, promoting understanding, and making learning more engaging.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/15693014.

    This review is the result of an in-person collaborative review discussion organized and hosted by the School of Information Sciences, Global Education and Training, and Intensive English Institute as part of the Bolashak Fellowship Program 2024-2025 at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The discussion was held on February 18, 2025 and joined by 18 people:  3 facilitators - Janaynne, Wendy, Krista, and 15 Bolashak fellows. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

    Summary paragraph

    The study attempts to answer the following research questions: How to improve engagement  of high school students in virology education through fiction and gamification? Can the use of science fiction and gamification improve the engagement and comprehension of virology concepts among high school students? How to improve the education effectiveness by using virology teaching with science fiction and gamification? The authors effectively articulate the need for innovative teaching methods due to the inherent challenges of virology education, such as abstract concepts and low student engagement. 

    The main goal of the study is to develop and test a new teaching method that combines science fiction and active methodologies to make virology learning more engaging and understandable for high school students. The study is important because it raises the problem of engagement of students, creating new methodologies of learning materials.  In addition, it helps to understand how modern content creating techniques can help in improving education effectiveness.

    To address the research questions, the authors are using a suitable combination of experimental and qualitative methods, including a science fiction video and two questionnaires. In the experimental study, 20 students of the second year of the secondary school of science and technology took part in the study. During the experiment, the participants watched an 18-minute science fiction film  accompanied by a questionnaire on the main concepts of virology. 

    One of their main findings is that using science fiction and gamification to teach virology was highly effective, with 95% of students evaluating it positively and demonstrating good content understanding, significantly preferring this interactive approach over traditional teaching methods.

    The most interesting aspect of the research is how science fiction and gamification were successfully used to make a traditionally challenging subject like virology more engaging and easier to understand, being more effective and involving, vivid for students comprehension. We particularly liked how the study incorporates animated videos, AI-generated voices, and gamified assessments, aligning with modern student preferences. In addition, the authors emphasize the student-centered approach: Unlike traditional rote learning, this approach empowers students to actively engage with the content.

    Although the study demonstrates the potential of innovative teaching techniques, paving the way for more engaging and effective education methods, there are some concerns and aspects of the manuscript that need to be improved prior to its final publication.

    Major issues

    • Concerns with methods/data

      •  The study's conclusions may not be generalizable to a broader student population.  For future studies we suggest increasing the sample size and ensure a more diverse demographic. 

      • The raw dataset is not available, which limits the analysis. Without raw dataset, other researchers can't verify or replicate the study's findings. 

      • The study  measures the immediate engagement and comprehension in perception, However this is not efficient in assessment of long-term for student understanding of virology.

      Concerns with techniques/analysis

      • The study uses appropriate methods like quizzes and student feedback to test if science fiction and gamification help learning, but it lacks a control group to compare results with traditional teaching. Without this, we can't be sure if the method is truly better or if any fun activity would work the same. Also, the study only checks short-term learning and doesn't test if students remember the material weeks later. To improve the study, researchers should add a control group, test long-term memory, and analyze mistakes better to see if this method really improves learning.

      • There is no detailed explanation of the video. This gap can be improved by providing a breakdown of its content and key virology concepts covered.

    Minor issues

    • Concerns with techniques/analysis

      • Only two surveys were given after the video, the number of students was only 20. There is not a pre test to check the students' knowledge. The author didn't use the method of statistical analysis ( comparison of validity of difference before and after).

      • The methods are described in detail, making the study replicable. The authors provide clear explanations about the process of video development, including animation tools used. The design of the questionnaires and how they were implemented. The data collection and analysis procedures. However, future studies should consider refining the methodology by incorporating a larger, more diverse sample and including a comparison group to better isolate the impact of the intervention.

      • The study tries to  measure the immediate engagement and comprehension in perception. However this is not efficient in assessment of long-term for student understanding of virology.

      Concerns with figures and tables

      • As shown in Chart 1, the structure of question №2 requires revision, as it confirms the significant difference between the correct and incorrect answers in the questionnaire.

      • Figures and tables are mostly clear and easy to read. Bar charts could use clearer labels to make the comparisons easier to interpret.

      • Displayed data on this article is clear and enough for understand initial data therefore the tables show duplicated answers and it could be grouped. According to Figure 3, it could be improved by adding some details about what goes on

      • The results are well-presented through charts and tables, making the findings easy to interpret.  However, some charts lack detailed descriptions—for instance, error rates in the quiz questions could be compared against expected baseline knowledge.

      • We suggest the use of contemporary tools of visualization for charts and diagrams.

        Concluding remarks

      This study is creative and interesting, showing how gamification and storytelling can make science learning more fun. We would recommend this manuscript especially for educators, instructional designers, and researchers interested in active learning, gamification, and innovative teaching methods. 

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/15693301.

    This review is the result of an in-person collaborative review discussion organized and hosted by the School of Information Sciences, Global Education and Training, and Intensive English Institute as part of the Bolashak Fellowship Program 2024-2025 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The discussion was held on February 27, 2025 and joined by 11 people:  3 facilitators - Janaynne, Wendy, Lisa, and 8 Bolashak fellows. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

    Summary paragraph

    This preprint's main aim is to develop and evaluate an innovative teaching methodology that enhances virology education by integrating science fiction and gamification. The authors want to make learning more smooth and comprehensible by developing innovative techniques of teaching virus content through the prism of science fiction. In addition, it argues for a paradigm shift toward active learning methodologies, drawing on frameworks that prioritize student engagement. 

    This research is significant because it addresses key challenges in science education and explores innovative ways to improve student engagement, motivation, and understanding.

    The authors used an experimental qualitative research approach to assess the impact of science fiction and gamification on virology education. Their methodology focused on active learning strategies, integrating storytelling, interactive media, and gamified elements to enhance student engagement and comprehension. They produced a fictional video lasting  18 minutes   strategically developed to explore concepts (some of them from everyday life) related to viruses. A unique feature of this video was the implementation of a dynamic questionnaire presented throughout the playback of the audiovisual material. Viewers were invited to answer questions during the video, at strategically delimited moments.  and aligned with the content addressed.

    The findings indicated positive correlation between the use of an innovative dynamic approach to teaching and students' increased interest and understanding of the material taught, which makes learning more engaging. We particularly appreciated the usage of various multimedia to develop a video in the research. Authors tried to create a fictional video by all means to make the process of learning a difficult topic easier. They didn't just choose existing multimedia, they developed new one from scratch.

    The main strength is the study proposes something new which could be very topical and change some traditional approaches. We liked the idea that they try to make a complex topic accessible for learners. The conclusions are generally supported by the data, particularly in terms of student engagement and perceived effectiveness of the gamified, science-fiction-based teaching method. The weakest side is the sampling size which I think is one of the limitations of the study. 20 participants are too small representation. There are some additional concerns, particularly about the availability of the dataset and the data analysis separated into major and minor issues.

    Major issues 

    Concerns with methods/data

    • Although the manuscript includes new data, the dataset is not fully available. We suggest that the authors publish their dataset in a repository or alongside the manuscript.

    Concerns with techniques/analysis

    • Potential bias in students' responses since the study relies on their self reported data, students might overstate their engagement into the activity due to the novelty effect; and the study evaluates only short term answers, however, it doesn't look further to longer retention of virology concepts. 

    Minor issues

    Concerns with techniques/analysis

    • While the study mentions ethics approval, it does not discuss how student anonymity and data protection were handled in more detail.

    Concerns with figures and tables

    • The authors used two screenshots from the video making process, one real photo, and various charts to show the results of the study. The figures are clear, however, We would suggest working on open-ended questions' responses since they were given in a table but were not sorted out or categorised. 

    Concluding remarks

    • We would recommend this manuscript to others to read because the  study shows alternative ways of teaching, it might change the view on traditional methods of teaching in the classroom. It opens ideas and opportunities for further research to experiment and see various techniques. In addition, the paper is worth publishing since it has new data and new settings.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  3. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/15693458.

    This review is the result of an in-person collaborative review discussion organized and hosted by the School of Information Sciences, Global Education and Training, and Intensive English Institute as part of the Bolashak Fellowship Program 2024-2025 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The discussion was held on March 11, 2025 and joined by 28 people:  4 facilitators - Janaynne, Wendy, Ivan, and Lisa, and 24 Bolashak fellows. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

    Summary paragraph

    The main  goal of this research is  to explore the efficiency of the  more  engaging  and interactive  approach to teaching  virology, using elements  of  science fiction and  gamification as  methodological  tools. The authors address the research question(s) by using a learning experiment that has practical relevance and it includes a qualitative method (which is exploratory in nature), a quantitative method (obtaining accurate data about students, through recording the results of the research (hypothesis, observation, experimentation, conclusion). The sample for the research involved 20 high school  students and employs an experimental and qualitative methodology that integrates science fiction with active learning strategies to teach virology concepts. The approach involves using a fictional video as an educational tool, combined with interactive activities to assess student engagement and comprehension of the content.

    One of the main findings of the study is that 95% of the students approved the teaching approach applied by the authors. In addition, the study showed that using science fiction makes virology lessons easier to understand, more fun, effective, and increase student interest, comprehension, and participation in class. In short, the main findings of the study likely highlight the positive impact of integrating science fiction and gamification into virology teaching. We particularly appreciated seeing how the combination of science fiction and gamification techniques can serve as effective alternatives to traditional teaching methods.

    The study can expand the  knowledge in the field of education and pedagogy by discussing new techniques and technologies to teach complex topics and can open up  methodological opportunities for qualitative and quantitative study of pedagogical innovative approaches from an interdisciplinary perspective. One main strength of the study is its innovative integration of gamification and science fiction, which successfully increased student engagement and comprehension. The strengths also  include explaining the learning benefits of gamification and its relevance to virology, as well as interpreting the integration of science fiction with gamification to position it as an effective alternative to traditional teaching methods. One 

    weakness is the small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the findings. In this sense, further development and testing with larger participant groups are needed to refine and expand the methodology. For some participants of this review, the research includes sufficient methodological details, and for other participants the manuscript does not provide sufficient detail to allow full reproduction and validation of the study.  Although we recommend this manuscript for publication, we have some suggestions on how to improve the author's work.  These suggestions are described below and indicated as minor issues.

    Minor issues

    • Concerns with methods/data

      • The study lacks a control group, making it difficult to determine whether the improvement in learning outcomes was due to the new methodology or other factors. Additionally, while the qualitative approach captures student perceptions, a more rigorous analysis with statistical comparisons and a larger sample size would strengthen the validity of the findings.e effectiveness of a new teaching methodology. 

      • The new methodology motivates students to learn and arouses interest, on the other hand, it is necessary to think about the use of other approaches to obtain an effective result in the assimilation of the material.

      • The study involved only 20 students, and it may not represent the broader population of high school students, limiting the generalizability of the findings.  The small sample size and lack of statistical analysis reduce the robustness of the conclusions, while the data were largely interpreted accurately and supported by participant feedback.

      • The study relies heavily on self reported data which can introduce bias. While high engagement is a positive outcome, objective measures would strengthen the conclusion.

      • Giving detailed information about the materials of the research would be clearly presented if  the selection criteria and principles of  fictional video to combine with active methodology had been presented.

      • Conclusions can be improved by supporting obtained data, including numbers. The conclusion does not show the numerical results.

      • The data shows a modest improvement in student engagement but the conclusions claim a "revolutionary transformation", this would be an overreach. We agreed that conclusions are supported by the data showing positive feedback and effective outcomes. However, the study's small sample size of the group suggests results could be more nuanced. Larger studies and further testing are needed to strengthen the conclusions. 

      • The chart data does not show any improvement in student performance, but the findings state "transformation" which only speaks of positive results during this study.  We believe that the conclusion can be strengthened by incorporating the data collected, especially by presenting numerical results. Without these figures, the conclusion lacks concrete evidence to support its claims. 

      Concerns with techniques/analysis

      • The work does not provide a detailed analysis of the research methodology, specific methods of data analysis, which makes it difficult to understand the quality of the research. And a small group of 20 students does not show the overall picture in the questionnaire and survey. Providing additional information would have revealed important points of the study and revealed small details.

      •  The abstract lacks sufficient detail on the study's methodology, such as the content of the questionnaires, criteria for assessment, and specific data analysis techniques, making reproduction difficult. Providing more information on these aspects would improve the study's transparency and allow for better validation.

      Concerns with figures and tables

      • The quality of figures 1-3 can be improved, some unnecessary parts have to be trimmed. Charts are of good quality. Tables can be revised for better understanding. 

      • The tables and figures can be improved. Manuscript figures are blurred and not clearly shown. The tables are very simple, other tools could have been used and can be revised for better understanding.  For example, In table 1 (page 12) could be shortened by grouping the answers into no, yes and little because a specific, clarifying question was asked. Grouping in this way will be more understandable for readers.

      • The figure includes too many elements such as multiple overlapping lines, excessive text into tables. Design reduces the readability and impact of the table, making it harder for readers to understand the data in the table and draw conclusions. In addition, In the manuscript, the used figures, diagrams and tables are heavily crowded, so we suggest the authors reduce the number of figures and tables. 

      Concluding remarks

      We recommend this manuscript for publication because the integration of science fiction and gamification into virology teaching is creative and has the potential to transform how complex subjects are taught. We learned from this manuscript a new teaching method to be applied in our own class, and we would bring to our own practice the study on how integrating elements of science fiction with dynamic, interactive teaching strategies can significantly increase students' interest and comprehension, especially in subjects that are traditionally less engaging.

      We believe that the manuscript reflects different approaches to solving the identified problem, demonstrates the author's deep knowledge and ability to carry out research work and draw well-founded conclusions. The results can directly benefit society by offering solutions to problems.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  4. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/14569352.

    Commentary

    • First off, I wanted to congratulate you guys for the preprint, and for publishing here in PreReview. Briefly, I specialize in education and games critical digital literacy. I have done courses in statistical analysis and meta-research, including Open research and peer review. I must note a certain bias towards progressive and transformative research. Please note that this review was conducted in about 4 hours.

    Summary

    • This is a classroom test where some teachers looked at whether an 18-minute video was or wasn't engaging to the 20 students (that came that day). To call it experimental and gamified, I personally find it an overstatement, given with a reduced sample size it is complicated to even suggest avenues of research (not to get into correlation). This paper does not seem to add a new technique to teaching, nor does it justify why the used methods are contextually relevant, or whether the content was adapted (personalised) to be particularly novel.

      • Briefly, although the "video technique" may be somewhat atypical in virology teaching in Brazil, I do not think narrowing down a situation like this pushes scientific literature on the field. Without trying to be rude or minimise your effort, ask yourself: What if you tested every class intervention and called it a paper because it had a survey? Would that create research noise (I ask myself this too, in a "publish or perish" environment)?

    Major limitations

    • I'd say I am missing a "table 1" to clarify details about the sample besides those you mention in the first paragraph from the methodological procedures. I'd argue it would aid the clarity of the text. Furthermore, I am missing other contextual cues that could have affected the process: Which classes did the students have before and after? What time of day was it? Did they have homework, exams, was this a graded task? How long did it take? Who presented the activity and why? This paper Brown et al. summarises my advice on what to report, to enhance scientific/public trust.

      • On a similar note, you mention the exclusion criteria was "Not adhering to the inclusion criteria", does this mean that if a student intentionally answered randomly, you would have not excluded their responses? What if they disrupted the classroom or added offensive qualitative comments? Also, regarding ethics, how were students prepared to participate on this research? How was the data anonymised, and how did you track and ensure there was consent? With a form, digital, physical, when? I'd argue this is off relevance to curve possible novelty effects that could have inflated the scores you mention on page 16.

    • Education has a lot of references and international literature of what works and what doesn't, so I suggest you focus on systematic reviews of techniques/interventions rather than specific papers (like you do in the Introduction). This line action I am talking about is intended to bring resources that help your potential readers, instead of guiding them to particular non-generalisable case studies.

    • I take it that your aim/objective is in the last paragraph of the introduction, right? Is it "This study aimed to explore the efficiency of a more engaging and interactive approach to teaching virology, using elements of science fiction and gamification as methodological tools. Through this new pedagogical strategy …"? If that's the case, I don't think this presents an exhaustive thesis: More engaging compared to what? How is this strategy really new? Why do you think is relevant in your case?

      • Again, to make my point clear, you could present this article to a newspaper or use it internally to review your educational practices, I would find that commendable, cool work! Nevertheless, I must insist that you present your approach as "new" and "innovative" but to me, it sounds like any MOOC that uses narrative examples to catch the attention of its users. If you contend with this, I think it would be fair to mention it.

    • I am not fond of authority arguments like "Dickey (2005), in his analysis of immersive learning environments […] significantly increase student engagement and motivation" because I feel they detract from the why. If they increase engagement, say why? Is this a correlation or a causation? How did Dickey or other authors arrive to that conclusion? I may know this, but some readers may not.

    • Despite having plenty of sources, the citation used on them is somewhat inconsistent. All references start with the authors, but some are followed by a full stop or a point whereas others are not. Some have the date, whereas others have only access. You link half of your sources, and often use the non-secure http gateway. Some have their DOI written and others have the link. You give the ISBN for some books, but not all. Because of the aforementioned, I found myself unable to locate some of the articles, like that of "Pliessnig". In summary, this lack of references systematisation can difficult replication and expansion efforts.

    • From what I gathered, the project had intentional sampling, it lacked blinding, it used an unvalidated instrument which might've had difficult or threatening questions. These aspects are not mentioned in the manuscript.

    • The selective reporting on page 14 led me to fear that your particular results were cherry-picked to match a specific paper narrative. Although not untypical nor necessarily forbidden, I am afraid you claim "In the light of the obtained results, it becomes clear that …", and nevertheless not share the full results. Where can I find the raw data? Could you upload it to a repository like Zenodo or Figshare?

    • Additionally, I wonder how you analysed the results personally, given you didn't mention of protocols or procedures conducted during the qualitative or quantitative surveys. Did you follow a strict set of guidelines to try and prove causation as in a descriptive research?

      • I assume this is not the case, so I'd argue you should mention the analyses were exploratory for transparency's sake. Otherwise, can you prove you scheduled and followed clear criteria (beyond being approved by your local ethics committee, which I thank you for)? On this sense, I recommend looking into the process before the actual research takes place: Pre-registration is being adopted/required at increasing rates, you may want to look into OSF.

    Minor limitations

    • I was a bit frustrated that the article is in English and yet most of the sources are in Portuguese. I wonder if there exist alternatives that at least have the main texts translated in both languages. I think it would be faster to review it for non-natives. Perhaps this could help you reach a broader audience.

    • The graphs have some consistency issues. I believe the clearest are charts 2 and 3 because they use a biromantic colour palette and indicate the variable and the amount of responses both with percentage and absolute value (reading from left to right). The pie charts on the other hand would present difficulties for people with impaired visibility because of a lack of contrast in colours, I suggest adding the values and tags on the chart itself (and not on a side/bottom legend/index), or changing the visualisation to bars.

      • Additionally, I believe all the graphs have fairly small text. Lastly, I'd recommend avoiding 3D graphs, specially those without labels, since the lines create noise and it can be difficult to grasp what value or percentage each variable has. Nevertheless, I appreciate that most charts are vector/text and not PNGs with artefacts.

      • To get a sense of variety and more appealing data visualisation, which can help attract readers, I recommend looking at The Economist, or The New York Times, and perhaps playing with the tool RAWGraphs.

    • I am aware of the popularity authors like Foucault, Freire, or Nussbaum have taken in reshaping education away from monotonous reproduction of western values, and I see you mention Freire and some of your the authors you credit use the others. Nevertheless, I think these tenets are not "new" and can be gathered through informal step-by-step logic. I'd personally like to see more science that promotes a procedural and inclusive understanding by walking through the topics, even if the papers are meant for people who already know the authors and their theses.

    • I appreciate the times when you cite the specific pages you used when referencing an author for an opinion, like "According to Pliessnig and Kovaliczn (2007, p. 5), the weakness of the methodologies used by biology teachers creates a dependency on the use of the textbook (when available) or limits them to using the chalkboard to "deliver content"", and yet, I think you needn't spend time on some of these claims. I'd trust readers to be able to see that textbooks and the chalkboard can create a reproductive and content memorisation bias.

    • I found the section "Use of science fiction as a teaching resource" very enjoyable and straightforward, I'd argue if you wanted to go further you could link it to Levitas' Utopia as a method, whereby fiction enables the construction of alternative futures, which contrasts with the stagnation of capitalism realism that Mark Fisher suggests.

    • I repeatedly read generalist/ambiguous terms (usually adjectives and adverbs) like "strategically delimited", "committed involvement", "it is important", "demonstrates a strong", "it is essential", or "highly promising". To me, these can make the paper sound less "scientific" and more "headline-seeking", this might have been intentional, but I nevertheless wanted to warn you.

    • Finally, I generally recommend in any study to add a small section for the limitations of the study, as an act of scientific honesty, indicating possible biases during the process, and its validity.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  5. Version published to 10.1590/scielopreprints.10514 on SciELO Preprints