Escape ClassRoom: Can You Solve a Crime Using the Analytical

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Escape ClassRoom: Can You Solve a Crime Using the Analytical Process? Marta Ferreiro-Gonzaĺ ez,† Antonio Amores-Arrocha,‡ Estrella Espada-Bellido,† María Jose ́ Aliaño-Gonzalez,† Mercedes Vaź quez-Espinosa,† Ana V. Gonzaĺ ez-de-Peredo,† Pau Sancho-Galań ,‡ Jose ́ Á ngel Á lvarez-Saura,§ Gerardo F. Barbero,*,† and Cristina Cejudo-Bastante‡

Downloaded via IOWA STATE UNIV on January 19, 2019 at 00:23:01 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

†

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Cadiz, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (ceiA3), IVAGRO, P.O. Box 40, 11510 Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain ‡ Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Faculty of Sciences, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (ceiA3), University of Cadiz, IVAGRO, P.O. Box 40, 11510 Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain § Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, Institute of Biomolecules, University of Cadiz, P.O. Box 40, 11510 Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain ABSTRACT: Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” is an educational escape room proposed as an interactive analytical chemistry exercise for the evaluation of undergraduate students at the end of the subject. This approach is a new form of live action learning activity in which the students have to solve an analytical problem, namely, “an alleged crime”. From this initial hypothesis, they have to investigate the crime by playing the role of trainee forensic chemists. As in any escape room, Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” is a logical game in which the main objective is to discover several clues, to find hidden objects, and to solve a mystery in order to escape a “locked” room in an established time. The students play the role of forensic scientists and solve the alleged crime by following the scientific method in order to escape. To do so, they have to apply the whole analytical process from beginning to end, i.e., from a correct sampling at the crime scene, through the analysis of sample and data treatment until the interpretation of the results to validate the initial hypothesis: a murder has been committed. If it has, then who did it? The students’ knowledge in analytical chemistry and the teamwork are the only tools that they have to solve all of the riddles and uncover hidden messages to “win” while time is running out. This first experience showed the potential of an escape room to be used as an innovative educational tool easily applicable to other subjects. KEYWORDS: Upper-Division Undergraduate, Analytical Chemistry, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Humor/Puzzles/Games, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Problem Solving/Decision Making, Applications of Chemistry, Forensic Chemistry

■

INTRODUCTION The educational process is subject to continuous adjustment to encourage the use of new technologies and learning trends that ensure the quality of education, as guaranteed by the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).1 In this sense, traditional education is giving way to the use of new activities and alternatives that have been shown to strengthen the interest of the students and consolidate their learning.2−4 For these reasons, lecturers should promote the use of new tools that awaken the interest of the student. One of the achievements that should be highlighted is educational gamification, in other words, basing learning on games in which the student becomes a central character. The aim of this approach is to use game design, mechanics, and techniques for nongame applications.5−8 By applying gamification to an educational context, students can enjoy subjects or tasks that are sometimes tedious or difficult to understand.9−11 Although these activities involve additional effort on the part of the lecturer in terms of © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

assembly and adaptation to the subject, it has been proven that such activities increase the satisfaction and effort of the students.9,12−15 This possibility supposes an external motivation factor that has an influence not only on the academic performance2 but also on the cognitive, social, and emotional skills.16 Game learning activities have been applied to different areas of knowledge, such as language learning,17,18 computer programming,19−21 and scientific subjects.22−24 In this sense, board games have been already employed to assimilate concepts in degrees such as engineering and chemistry.25−27 In addition, gaming can be used for simulating situations in which the students face real situations. For example, Josephsen et al.28 used a laboratory simulation to help undergraduate students to acquire experimental and analytical skills. Sera et Received: July 25, 2018 Revised: December 1, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00601 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

al.29 reviewed a list of publications about gamification in health education, and these ranged from trivia quiz web games for pharmacy students, to the use of a human patient simulator in a nursing pharmacological subject to study the best course of action in case of an emergency, or to the use of simulated home visits for medical students to identify risk factors for falls and other potentially dangerous elements. Gamification has certainly been shown to improve learning through the application of theoretical or practical concepts that can cover certain deficiencies observed in the students. In scientific graduate and postgraduate courses (chemistry, environmental chemistry, biology, etc.), there are many subjects that deal with the importance of the application of analytical chemistry to solve (partially or totally) social problems and needs.30,31 When the origin or the cause of a problem is not well-known, the application of the scientific method is necessary. Analytical chemists often use the term “analytical approach” instead of “scientific method” when solving real-world problems. The analytical approach can be divided into different operational stages32 (Figure 1a):

students are very rarely able to put into practice every single step of the whole analytical approach. In most cases, the students are focused on the pretreatment of the sample, analysis of the sample, and interpretation of the results. However, the students rarely have the opportunity to decide which sample to analyze or to think about the amount of sample necessary for the analysis, the sampling method, or the storage conditions required to preserve the sample prior to analysis, all aspects that are encountered in a real situation. We must not lose sight of the fact that appropriate identification, collection, packing, and transportation of samples (sampling procedure), as well as the selection of the most appropriate method and analytical technique, are crucial steps in any investigation due to the significant impact that these factors have on the quality of the final results and conclusions. Therefore, the steps for the correct design of the analytical process, i.e., the selection of a suitable sampling technique, the use of an appropriate analytical technique, and the correct interpretation of the results, are all necessary to solve the problem successfully. The use of an inappropriate sampling procedure or contamination of the sample will probably lead not only to a wrong analysis but also to a wrong conclusion, which may have serious consequences. Hence, it is extremely important that students are trained in all of the analytical steps required in the analytical process and not only in the analysis of the samples. The students must be aware of the fact that a wide variety of different social problems usually become analytical problems since chemical analysis is required to solve such problems (e.g., doping in sports, water contamination, food adulteration, oil spills in the ocean, and food poisoning, among others). It is also important to highlight that analytical chemistry cannot be considered in isolation but instead in relation with numerous other disciplines (e.g., biology, mathematics, statistics, physics, etc.).30,33 So, what if students are aware of the importance of the analytical process by gaming? Escape room activities have been very successful in recent years as they are physical and mental experiences in which you bring intelligence and quickness of mind into play.34 These recreational activities are carried out in small groups (no more than 6 people) and consist of solving a series of riddles and brainteasers to escape in less than an hour from a room in which they are locked. Moreover, the fact that the exercise is not carried out in the classroom and is not guided by the lecturer provides the student with total independence when acting and facing real situations, thus giving them exposure to a certain level of real-world experiences.35 These characteristics mean that this activity can easily be adapted to an educational environment. In the present work, an educational escape room activity named Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” is proposed as a new form of live action learning and as an interactive analytical chemistry exercise in which the students have to use every single step of the analytical process to solve a problem: “Has a murder been committed?”

Figure 1. Phases of the analytical process (a) and steps of the escape room (b).

(1) Identification/definition of the problem/form a hypothesis (2) Design of the analytical process (3) Experimental analysis (sampling, analysis, and data treatment) (4) Interpretation of the results/validation of the hypothesis (5) Problem solving/conclusions It is clear that each of these main stages includes different operational steps that vary depending on the type of sample. If, after applying the analytical approach, the data obtained are not suitable to solve the problem, a new problem arises and this needs to be addressed. In this case, the scientific method must be applied again from the beginning. Although these analytical concepts are widely taught as a theoretical aspect in lectures for many analytical subjects, the

■

PRESENTATION OF THE ACTIVITY ESCAPE CLASSROOM “CSI 1.0” Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” was inspired by the CSI TV show, since participants play the role of forensic scientists to solve a crime by following the scientific method and applying the different steps of the analytical process while working in a team. B



Article

Figure 2. Physical environment where Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” took place.

To the best of our knowledge, Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” is the first escape room focused on the application of the scientific method and the analytical process in an educational context in a decorated scenario (Figure 1b). In this case, the analytical problem is an “alleged murder”. Every time a crime is committed, an investigation must be carried out. In this sense, the role of the analytical chemist is crucial since they have to analyze the physical/biological evidence or samples in order to solve the crime. The students have to work at the crime scene, where they must identify the samples, the “evidence” in this case, and select the appropriate material for sampling and packing. The students must then go to the laboratory, analyze all of the samples, and interpret the results in order to evaluate the initial hypotheses. If a crime has been committed, they have to determine who did it. What was the modus operandi? In order to complete the investigation successfully, apart from using logic to solve some of the clues, the students have to apply their analytical chemistry concepts and skill while working in teams.

appropriate evidence from the crime. Some of this evidence will be sent to the laboratory for analysis by different analytical methods. On the basis of prior knowledge and observations, the scientists begin to propose one or several hypotheses, which must then be compared according to the results of the analysis carried out in the laboratory (laboratory work). Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” also has different premises for carrying out both fieldwork and laboratory work. A plan with the dimensions of the escape room is shown in Figure 2. Indeed, Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” was assembled within a 10 m × 5 m tent, which was physically divided into three independent scenarios: (1) The Scientific Police Station, (2) The Crime Scene, and (3) The Forensic Laboratory. The designs of the different scenarios are shown in Figure 2. Prior to Start. Before entering the escape room premises, each team was given a sealed envelope labeled as “confidential material” containing a cassette tape with all the instructions required to start the game and a stopwatch with a 60 min countdown, i.e., the given time to escape. The students were then invited to enter the first scenario, “The Scientific Police Station”. Scenario 1: The Scientific Police Station, Adaptation Zone. The objective of this first space was 2-fold: on one hand, to gradually introduce the players to the game’s plot and, on the other hand, to collect all the necessary laboratory material to carry out the forensic investigation. By listening to the recording on the tape, the participants obtained all the information about the role they had to play. This is the moment when they are first exposed to the analytical problem that they have to solve, namely, “an alleged murder”. From this moment on, they have to work in order to validate this initial hypothesis: a murder has been committed. To start the investigation the students require all of the laboratory material that was stored in a locked briefcase and in a safe-deposit box. By using logic and ingenuity and by observing the scene, the students had to find out the secret

The Scenarios: How Is Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” Structured?

Most forensic investigations include two different phases: the fieldwork at the crime scene and the laboratory work. Usually, the action in any type of crime (murder, rape, arson, terrorist attacks, etc.) must comply with a series of different stages: inspection of the crime scene, sampling, and the appropriate conservation and transportation of the samples prior to analysis in order to obtain valid results that can act as evidence, in other words, the application of the analytical process to solve the crime. The investigation usually starts at the crime scene, where the investigators have to examine the location and gather as much background information as possible (fieldwork). This process includes numerous activities: interviewing people (witnesses, victims, or anyone who can provide useful information), looking for security cameras, as well as collecting all the C



Article

Figure 3. Workflow diagram in the forensic laboratory.

analyses commonly carried out in a forensic laboratory were proposed. (1) Toxicological analysis, which involved a protocol in which different reagents were used for the analysis of blood. By analyzing the blood, the students could determine if the victim had been poisoned. (2) Chromatography−mass spectrometry analysis to identify specific drugs/poisons. For this purpose, a set of six reference “drugs” with a characteristic aroma profile was included. Each drug had a characteristic chromatogram in the bottle. By smelling the drug bottles, the students had to identify the aroma in the glass of wine, and then, by matching the chromatogram in the bottle with the one found in the library, they could identify the poison. At this point, the students could verify that the victim had been killed by poisoning. However, in order to determine who committed the crime, they had to analyze the rest of the evidence by other different methods that are (3) Audiovisual analysis that included a laptop for watching videos or listening to recordings. By watching the security video obtained from a camera of the crime scene, the students could rule out two of the four suspects. (4) Fingerprinting analysis with a UV lamp and a magnifying glass for the analysis of fingerprints collected on materials or persons from the crime scene. By analyzing the fingerprints from the four suspects and from the wine bottle, only one of the suspects could be guilty. The correct analysis of each piece of evidence helped the students to solve a secret code to unlock the final door and escape. For security reasons and space−time limitations, in this first experience the experiments were not real, although the interpretation of the results was. Likewise, the reagents used for the reactions were harmless.

code to open both the locked case and the safe-deposit box. The code for opening the briefcase was obtained by solving a mathematical riddle, while the one required for unlocking the safe-deposit box consisted of a logical game about scientists throughout history. Inside the briefcase, they had all the laboratory material for the collection of the evidence (samples of blood and fingerprints), gloves, forensic, overalls, and an interrogation form that contained a few questions that should be answered by witnesses and/or suspects. Inside the safedeposit box they had a key to open the padlock to access the next scenario, the crime scene. Scenario 2: The Crime Scene, Sampling Zone. In the crime scene, the students were encouraged to do the fieldwork. In this case, the scenario was a living room where a party had been celebrated. In the middle of the room, there was a corpse silhouette. Some blood stains, a glass of wine lying on the floor, wine bottles, and the fingerprints from four witnesses/suspects were the evidence they had to collect at The Crime Scene by using the material provided inside the briefcase. The main objective in this zone was to apply the sampling procedure: identifying the samples that were important as evidence, sampling, and packing them in an appropriate way to keep them safe prior to analysis. In this zone, besides sampling, the students had to interrogate the suspects to gather as much as information as possible. An unappropriated sampling could lead to a lack of information and consequently an error in the analysis and eventually the wrong codes. If this happened, they had to go back to the crime scene and try again. The students had to find a way to move from the crime scene to the next scenario, The Forensic Laboratory. Scenario 3: The Forensic Laboratory, Experimental Analysis, Data Treatment, and Interpretation of the Results. The aim of this stage was to analyze all of the collected samples by selecting the applicable method and the appropriate analytical technique to extract relevant data to verify the initial hypothesis (solving the problem) that “a murder has been committed”. Once the students had accepted the initial hypothesis, they needed to determine which of the four suspects had committed the crime. To solve the crime and escape in time, the students had to analyze each piece of evidence and interpret the results in the correct order (Figure 3). The students had to solve a secret code to unlock the final door and escape. Four different

How To Move from One Scenario to Another?

As can be observed on the map (Figure 2), the three scenarios were physically connected through access “doors”. The game started at the front door in The Scientific Police Station. There, the participants were given initial instructions, and they then had free access to the first stage. The Scientific Police Station (zone 1) and The Crime Scene (zone 2) were D



Article

Teamwork was one of the skills necessary to complete the game, and the interaction between all members was required to compile all of the relevant information and solve the enigmas.

separated by a jail door with a padlock that must be unlocked by using a key hidden in the safe-deposit box. In this way, the participants could not go forward to The Crime Scene until they got all the laboratory material required for a correct sampling procedure. The Crime Scene (zone 2) and The Laboratory (zone 3) were connected through a secret door that was hidden behind the chimney. In this case, it was not related to solving any riddle. However, they realized that they needed to find a way to reach the laboratory for analyzing all the collected evidence. Through this door, the students could enter the laboratory, appearing under a sink. Once they correctly analyzed all evidence, they could finally “escape” through an exit door closed with two padlocks. The physical location of all the access points allowed the return of the participants if necessary.

Level of Difficulty

The escape room was designed by increasing the level of difficulty as the students progressed through the different scenarios. The estimated times for each stage (Scientific Police Station, Crime Scene, and Forensic Laboratory) were 15, 20, and 25 min, respectively. The first stage, the Scientific Police Station, was the simplest one since it was designed to introduce the players gradually to the game’s plot. Although riddles hidden in this room were estimated to be solved in no more than 10 min, none of the teams were able to overcome this challenge in less than 18 min. In the first contact with the plot of the game, the participants did not focus on the game role. They wasted too much time exploring the environment. It can be observed from the information in Table 1 that team 5 and team 6 needed almost 3 times more than the estimated time to overcome this stage and 10 min more than the rest of the teams. Once again, the high number of members was a handicap to complete this stage. Once the participants reached the second scenario, “The Crime Scene”, they were more involved in the game plot. The level of difficulty at this time was increased by adding more stimuli in addition to the proper riddles that could distract them. Furthermore, the players had to interact with actors included in the crime scene, who played the role of suspects, to obtain useful information. The estimated time to solve the crime scene (zone 2) was no more than 20 min. However, all of the teams needed more than the estimated time to overcome this stage (Table 1). Regarding the forensic laboratory, it was estimated that around 30 min would be required to analyze all of the samples and interpret the results to finally escape. None of the groups required that time to solve this scenario. However, as mentioned above, three groups were able to escape and overcome this scenario in less than 15 min.

■

RESULTS OF THE FIRST GAME-PLAYING EXPERIENCE Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” was premiered at the European Researchers’ Night 2017 in Cadiz (Andalusia, Spain). This open science event brings science and the work of researchers closer to the general audience all over Europe. The European Researchers’ Night is a Marie Sklodowska Curie (MSCA) action, under the European Union Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020. A total of 43 students, including undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate students, with different scientific backgrounds, were involved in the experience. They were randomly grouped into six teams. Four of the teams were formed by 6 members, one of 9 and one of 10. The teams and the real versus estimated times to complete each scenario and the whole escape room are provided in Table 1. Only 50% of the teams were able to escape in time. All of the experience was supervised by the authors of the present work. Table 1. Comparison of Solution Times Obtained by Teams in Each Zone Time in Min by Zonea Team

Members, N

1

2

3

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6

6 6 6 6 10 9

18 21 22 19 28 27 15b

25 23 22 26 25 28 20b

15 11 16 14 19 18 25b

58 55 61 59 72 73 60b

Evaluation of the Activity by the Students

In order to evaluate the activity and improve the experience to be implemented as an analytical chemistry practical in the degree course, a brief satisfaction survey was filled out by all of the teams after finishing the exercise. The survey consisted of four short questions with a yes/no answer or a rating from 0 to 10, where 0 is the lowest and 10 the maximum score. • Question 1 (Q1). Rate the degree of difficulty of the Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” on the following the scale: very easy, easy, moderate, somewhat hard, hard, very hard. • Question 2 (Q2). Do you think a greater knowledge of the different steps of the scientific method would help you to solve the crime? • Question 3 (Q3). Do you think this kind of activity could be used as a learning activity for a better understanding of the theoretical concepts and their application? • Question 4 (Q4). Would you like to participate in more similar activities like this? Regarding the difficulty of the activity (Q1), over 67% of the participants considered the activity difficult/very difficult (Figure 4). As far as Q2 was concerned, 100% of the

a Zone 1, Scientific Police Station; zone 2, Crime Scene; zone 3, Laboratory. bEstimated time.

Influence of the Number of Members on the Time Invested

It would be expected that the best times would have been obtained by teams with a greater number of participants. However, the results reflected the opposite behavior. On the basis of this first experience, it could be observed that in general groups with 6 members worked better than those with more participants. Teams 5 and 6, formed by 10 and 9 participants, respectively, required the longest times, and neither of these teams were able to escape in time. This behavior could be due to the loss of communication and organization in teams with higher numbers of students. E



Article

subjects such as teamwork, the capacity of analysis, discussion of results from a critical point of view, problem solving, etc. were encouraged while playing. The positive and successful results confirmed that the activity Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” could be implemented as an educational innovative environment in degrees with scientific backgrounds by changing the scenarios, changing the initial problem, and being adjusted to the needs of each subject. In addition, this exercise can be applied in combination with other innovative tools, such as Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), Design Thinking, or other gamification activities. Nevertheless, some minor limitations should be resolved before the implementation of the activity in a scientific degree. It has to be considered that the development of this “escape room” as a practical lesson does have some drawbacks: i.e., the fact that the number of members per group should be reduced, the level of scientific knowledge of the participants should be similar, or a fair distribution of work between members should be sought. All of these problems could be solved by tailoring the plot, the space, and the allowed time for the game. Moreover, a more appropriate manner of evaluation of the students should be included before the implementation. For a single evaluation of each of the participants, one proposal in this respect is that an individual final quiz could be introduced where the student would have to correlate the stages and activities carried out during the escape room with the different steps of the analytical process.

Figure 4. Feedback from the participants regarding with the difficulty of the activity.

participants answered affirmatively to this question, which shows the importance of applying the scientific method to solve problems. The survey showed that 100% of the students considered this kind of activity to be a suitable way of learning (Q3). Finally, 100% of the participants showed great interest in repeating this kind of physical adventure game experience in the future (Q4).

■

DISCUSSION From an analytical chemistry point of view, the interpretation of the results obtained from the first game-playing experience clearly showed that both steps of the analytical process “analysis of the samples and interpretation of the results” were the easiest ones for the students as they required less time to be carried out, in spite of the intrinsic difficulties associated with them. It is important to highlight not only that the concepts related to these steps of the analytical process are taught during the theoretical lessons but also that the student is also deeply involved in these steps during practical sessions. In contrast, the sampling process was surprisingly the most difficult step for the students as they needed more than the estimated time to carry out this stage. The students hardly ever have the opportunity to put into practice every single step of the whole analytical approach because the laboratory sessions are more focused on the pretreatment of the sample and the analysis and interpretation of the results. As a consequence, the students encountered significant difficulties in a crucial step in the analytical process, the sampling. On the basis of the authors’ observations during the exercise, most of the students were not confident at sampling, although this step is taught as a theoretical part in a class. As in a real crime scene, the sampling procedure was not always straightforward; however, there were some mistakes that should not have been made. Some teams took everything from the scene without any criteria, and others had to go back to the crime scene several times to take samples again. It was also observed that some participants were not aware of the importance of not contaminating the scene by stepping on the evidence or did not wear gloves to take the samples. This suggests that the concepts that are only taught during theoretical lessons and not put into practice in the degree course are the most difficult to assimilate. The results of the survey showed that the participants had a great interest and an excellent acceptance of the approach and considered the activity to be a suitable way of learning. The students were also prepared to participate in more similar activities. In addition, the authors who were responsible for the activity observed that educational skills commonly pursued in

■

CONCLUSIONS Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0” presented in this study illustrates for the first time an educational escape room that can be implemented as an interactive learning exercise in analytical chemistry. It is known that the application of the analytical process leads to the reinforcement of concepts previously learned theoretically but not always implemented in the laboratory, such as sampling, formulation and hypotheses testing, or formulation of conclusions. By using this innovative educational environment, on the basis of escape room activities, the students have the opportunity to apply the whole analytical process from the selection of the appropriate samples or evidence at in the crime scene to the interpretation of the results in the forensic laboratory. This activity allows the students to work in a more realistic situation and to correlate and apply concepts previously studied in different subjects, thus using their scientific knowledge from a global perspective. The application of live action learning activities like the escape room described here can help students to assimilate concepts, in a different academic environment. By using this learning exercise, the students do not have any procedure to follow in order to solve the problems so they have a higher autonomy, which improves their analytical skills such as creativity, decision-making, data analyses, teamwork, and critical thinking.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Estrella Espada-Bellido: 0000-0002-8166-2510 Gerardo F. Barbero: 0000-0001-7302-6605 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest. F



■

Article

Procedia − Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015, 174 (Supplement C), 2308−2315. (19) Mladenović, S.; Krpan, D.; Mladenovic, M. Using games to help novices embrace programming: From elementary to higher education. International Journal of Engineering Education 2016, 32 (1), 521−531. (20) Moser, R. A fantasy adventure game as a learning environment: Why learning to program is so difficult and what can be done about it. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education) 1997, 29 (3), 114−116. (21) Crown, S. W. Improving visualization skills of engineering graphics students using simple javascript web based games. Journal of Engineering Education 2001, 90 (3), 347−355. (22) Schoenenberger, C.-A.; Korkut, S.; Jaeger, J.; Dornberger, R. BioTourney: Gamifying a Biology Class by Applying a ContentIndependent Learning Game Framework. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning 2016, 1575−1583. (23) Diederen, J.; Gruppen, H.; Hartog, R.; Moerland, G.; Voragen, A. Design of activating digital learning material for food chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2003, 4 (3), 353−371. (24) Potter, N.; Overton, T. Chemistry in sport: Context-based elearning in chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2006, 7 (1), 195−202. (25) Azizan, M. T.; Mellon, N.; Ramli, R. M.; Yusup, S. Improving teamwork skills and enhancing deep learning via development of board game using cooperative learning method in Reaction Engineering course. Education for Chemical Engineers 2018, 22, 1−13. (26) Yuriev, E.; Capuano, B.; Short, J. L. Crossword puzzles for chemistry education: Learning goals beyond vocabulary. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17 (3), 532−554. (27) Farmer, S. C.; Schuman, M. K. A Simple Card Game to Teach Synthesis in Organic Chemistry Courses. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 695−698. (28) Josephsen, J.; Kristensen, A. K. Simulation of laboratory assignments to support students’ learning of introductory inorganic chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2006, 7 (4), 266−279. (29) Sera, L.; Wheeler, E. Game on: The gamification of the pharmacy classroom. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 2017, 9 (1), 155−159. (30) Valcárcel, M. Analytical Chemistry Today and Tomorrow. In Analytical Chemistry, 1st ed.; Krull, I. S., Ed.; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2012; Chapter 4, pp 93−114. DOI: 10.5772/50497 (31) Valcárcel, M.; Ríos, A. The analytical problem. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 1997, 16 (7), 385−393. (32) Elving, P. J. Analytical Process in Chemistry. Anal. Chem. 1950, 22 (8), 962−965. (33) Valcárcel, M.; Simonet, B. M. Types of analytical information and their mutual relationships. TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem. 2008, 27 (5), 490−495. (34) Dietrich, N. Escape Classroom: The Leblanc Process-An Educational “Escape Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (6), 996−999. (35) Wang, G. G. Bringing games into the classroom in teaching quality control. International Journal of Engineering Education 2004, 20 (5), 678−689.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This activity was developed within the European Researchers’ Night 2017 event, a European science dissemination project promoted by the European Commission within the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions in the Horizon 2020. This activity was coordinated by the Unit of Scientific Culture and Research integrated in the Vice-Rectorship for Research of the University of Cadiz. The authors wish to acknowledge Alejandro Moreno Fariñas for his assistance taking photos during the Escape ClassRoom “CSI 1.0”.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Fernández Díaz, M. J.; Carballo Santaolalla, R.; Galán González, A. Faculty attitudes and training needs to respond the new European Higher Education challenges. Higher Education 2010, 60 (1), 101− 118. (2) Buckley, P.; Doyle, E. Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments 2016, 24 (6), 1162−1175. (3) Hanson, R. M. The Chemical Name Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (11), 1380. (4) Rau, M. A.; Kennedy, K.; Oxtoby, L.; Bollom, M.; Moore, J. W. Unpacking ‘Active Learning’: A Combination of Flipped Classroom and Collaboration Support Is More Effective but Collaboration Support Alone Is Not. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (10), 1406−1414. (5) Zichermann, G.; Cunningham, C. Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps, 1st ed.; O’Reilly Media: Newton, MA, 2011. (6) Pippins, T.; Anderson, C. M.; Poindexter, E. F.; Sultemeier, S. W.; Schultz, L. D. Element Cycles: An Environmental Chemistry Board Game. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8), 1112−1115. (7) Capps, K. Chemistry Taboo: An Active Learning Game for the General Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (4), 518. (8) Costa, M. J. CARBOHYDECK: A Card Game To Teach the Stereochemistry of Carbohydrates. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (6), 977. (9) Hanus, M. D.; Fox, J. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education 2015, 80 (Supplement C), 152−161. (10) Campbell, S.; Muzyka, J. Chemistry Game Shows. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79 (4), 458. (11) Grinias, J. P. Making a Game Out of It: Using Web-Based Competitive Quizzes for Quantitative Analysis Content Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (9), 1363−1366. (12) Dichev, C.; Dicheva, D. Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 2017, 14 (1), 9. (13) Saputro, R. E.; Salam, S. B.; Zakaria, M. H. A review of intrinsic motivation elements in gamified online learning. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 2017, 95 (19), 4934−4948. (14) Vlachopoulos, D.; Makri, A. The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 2017, 14 (1), 22. (15) Stringfield, T. W.; Kramer, E. F. Benefits of a Game-Based Review Module in Chemistry Courses for Nonmajors. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (1), 56−58. (16) Domínguez, A.; Saenz-De-Navarrete, J.; De-Marcos, L.; Fernández-Sanz, L.; Pagés, C.; Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education 2013, 63 (1), 380−392. (17) Liu, Y.; Holden, D.; Zheng, D. Analyzing students’ Language Learning Experience in an Augmented Reality Mobile Game: An Exploration of an Emergent Learning Environment. Procedia − Social and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 228 (Supplement C), 369−374. (18) Perry, B. Gamifying French Language Learning: A Case Study Examining a Quest-based, Augmented Reality Mobile Learning-tool. G


Escape ClassRoom: Can You Solve a Crime Using the Analytical

Recommend Documents