Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Using a board game to teach protein synthesis to

high school students

Julio Cesar Queiroz de Cavalho, Leila Maria Beltramini & Nelma Regina
Segnini Bossolan

To cite this article: Julio Cesar Queiroz de Cavalho, Leila Maria Beltramini & Nelma Regina
Segnini Bossolan (2018): Using a board game to teach protein synthesis to high school students,
Journal of Biological Education, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2018.1469532

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469532

View supplementary material

Published online: 03 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
Journal of Biological Education, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469532

Using a board game to teach protein synthesis to high school

students
Julio Cesar Queiroz de Cavalhoa  , Leila Maria Beltraminib and
Nelma Regina Segnini Bossolanb 
a
Graduate Program in Physics, São Carlos Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil; bSão Carlos
Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The present work aimed to investigate the contribution of the board game Proteins; rule-based game;
‘Synthesizing Proteins’ to the understanding of protein synthesis by high high school; Vygotsky;
school students, based on the socio-interactionist theory of Vygotsky. biology education
Fifteen students (six from a public school and nine from a private school)
participated in the research, which had three stages: diagnosis and pre-
interview, game execution, and post-interview, with collection of written
and audiovisual data. The data were organised and interpreted according
to a qualitative content analysis, in which we evaluated the predominant
concepts, the conceptual gains and type of interactions promoted by the
game in the understanding of target themes. The results indicated that
the game contributed to the improvement (or construction) of a protein
synthesis model by the students, providing a symbolic representation of
the process through interactions guided by the rules of the game (in the
game, students played the roles of molecules, and simulated mechanisms
and processes). These interactions, especially of cooperative and competitive
nature, may promote a meaningful, prospective learning.

Introduction
The cellular structure and its functional dynamics are basic subjects essential to the understanding of
larger phenomena of living organisms. Research in biology education has suggested several teaching
strategies based on the use of images, computational simulations, and tactile models among other
representations (Araujo-Jorge et al. 2004; Beltramini et al. 2006; Rotbain, Marbach-Ad, and Stavy
2006; Harris et al. 2009; Vijapurkar, Kawalkar, and Nambiar 2014). The understanding of cellular
processes, such as protein synthesis, cell division, and cellular respiration, depends on the knowledge
of the involved molecules such as their structures, functions, and interactions. As a support tool for
the teaching and learning of these concepts and consequent understanding of target themes, external
representations have been used for the modelling of structures and phenomena (Buckley 2000; Tsui
and Treagust 2003; Ainsworth 2008; Oh and Oh 2011). As an example, studies have demonstrated
the contribution of image-based card games in the learning of concepts in this field due to their col-
lective and motivating character (Lewis, Peat, and Franklin 2005; Spiegel et al. 2008; Su, Cheng, and

CONTACT  Nelma Regina Segnini Bossolan  [email protected]

  Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469532
© 2018 Royal Society of Biology
2   J. C. Q. DE CAVALHO ET AL.

Lin 2014). The Brazilian high school national curriculum guidelines recommend the use of games as
a strategy to approach topics in Biology, expanding teachers’ repertoire of active teaching techniques
and providing students with a pleasant and participative way of interacting with the content, leading
to a better appropriation of knowledge (Ministério da Educação Brasil 2002).
Game playing can be based on symbols or rules. In teaching, activities involving manipulation of
representative physical models of molecules or biochemical processes, and RPG (role-playing game)
are examples of symbolic games. Games of rules, such as board games with cards and/or pieces, involve
competition, and the understanding and application of predetermined rules (Macedo 1995).
Electronic or virtual games, which became popular after the 1990s with the advent of the personal
computer (PC) and the internet, vary from simulations involving virtual and augmented reality (Cai
et al. 2006; Sadler et al. 2015) to collaborative online games (Khatib et al. 2011; Farley 2013; Schaeffer
and Angotti 2016). The main difference in relation to board games is the type of interaction, which
occurs ‘with the computer’ or ‘through the computer’, requiring specific tools for data collection and
analysis, involving the field of Information and Communication Technology (Giordan 2013, 135).
The interactions that take place during a game when used as a didactic tool can be analyzed from
the perspective of the social interactionist theory of Vigotski. In the study of the relationship between
learning and child development, Vygotsky considered the role of cooperation – of a teacher or of a more
knowledgeable other – as fundamental in the achievement of higher levels of cognitive development.
He classified cognitive development as ‘real level of development’, achieved by the learner without
help or cooperation, and ‘level of potential development’, achieved with the help or collaboration of
a more capable peer. The gap between these two levels is termed the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD), and it has been suggested that an adequate teaching method is one that projects ahead of the
actual development and into the ZPD (Vygotsky 2007). Therefore, because scientific concepts are often
very abstract and difficult to understand (such as atom, molecule, cell and biochemical processes),
their construction by students can be assisted by the use of models and activities in a collaborative
situation such as a board game.
With the cooperative, pleasurable, and facilitating aspect of game-based learning in mind, the Centre
for Structural Molecular Biotechnology (CBME / CEPID / FAPESP) in partnership with the Centre
for Scientific and Cultural Diffusion of São Carlos (CDCC / USP) developed the game ‘Synthesizing
Proteins’. The choice of a board game (and not an electronic game) was based on cost-effectiveness,
as electronic games would require a structure that is absent in many schools, especially public ones.
The purpose of creating the game was to support skills development in high school students, related
to recognition, use, and interpretation of a descriptive and representative model of a biological system,
according to the national curriculum guidelines (Ministério da Educação Brasil 2002).
Within the context presented and in light of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework, the objective of the
present work was to investigate the contribution of the game ‘Synthesizing Proteins’ to the understand-
ing of concepts and processes related to this subject by second-year high school students, considering
the following questions:
(1) Do students’ post-interviews indicate improvement regarding students understanding of
concepts about protein synthesis?
(2) Which types of interactions are at play during the game?

Materials and methods

The ‘Synthesizing Proteins’ game
Created and described by Carvalho et al. (2014), the game contains playing cards and a board with a
cross section diagram of a eukaryotic animal cell, showing organelles and other structures identified
by their names (Figure S1). The game runs in five stages, numbered on the board, that are travelled
through by using the cards. The ‘Aim’ cards contain a problem-situation related to the protein to be
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   3

synthesised by the participant, another set of cards called ‘Action’ cards dictate the game dynamics, and
a set of pieces represent the game components (messenger RNA (mRNA), primary protein structure
and processed protein). In each round, players can buy new cards, and perform an action, given they
have the card required for the stage in question. However, at the end of the move, the player has to
discard one of his or her cards.
The game ends once the first participant (or all participants) completes the five stages, culminating
by everyone reading aloud their Aim card. At the end of each match, the teacher can mediate a dis-
cussion on the following topics: consequences to the organism if any of the proteins are not expressed;
simultaneous protein syntheses in our organism; diversity of functions; and importance of proteins to
our body. The Supplemental Material 1 provides a detailed description of the game.

Research design
To address the research questions, the study was planned with the following stages: (1) definition
of target population, (2) survey on students’ knowledge of proteins, (3) selection of students for the
intervention, (4) application of the intervention (playing the game), and (5) evaluation of the game
contribution towards understanding concepts. Stage (2) of the study is reported elsewhere (Carvalho,
Couto, and Bossolan 2012). Here, we report results obtained in stages (4) and (5).

Definition of the target population: selecting participating schools and contacting teachers
A state public school and a private school, both located in the city of São Carlos (SP, Brazil), were
selected to participate in the research, and are referred to by PuS and PrS, respectively. A meeting with
the Biology teachers of each school was scheduled to present the project. Afterwards, an authorisation
letter containing the steps and procedures of the study was signed by the school’s administration to
formalise the partnership. Four second-year high school classes were selected: two from PuS and two
from PrS, totalling 133 students participating in the first stage (survey of students’ previous knowledge
of proteins). Students were between 15 and 16 years old.
Biology is regularly offered to first- and second-year students of both schools, in an average of three
weekly classes of 50 min each. The subjects ‘Proteins: structure and function’ and ‘Protein synthesis’
are part of the first year’s curriculum, under Cell Biology, as reported by the participating teachers and
students. Biology textbooks are regularly used by both schools (Carvalho, Couto, and Bossolan 2012).

Survey on students’ knowledge of proteins

This stage aimed at outlining the students’ profile and their previous knowledge of proteins, using a
written diagnostic questionnaire. When analyzing the data, Carvalho, Couto, and Bossolan (2012)
found that students’ answers were superficial, with a tendency to describe proteins in generic terms,
and associate proteins to foods of animal origin and to structural functions. The results suggest failures
in the teaching and learning process, since the lack of a deeper knowledge of proteins may jeopardise
the understanding of other areas of biology, such as genetics.

Playing the game with a sample of students

Selection of students
After applying the diagnostic questionnaire, the students were informed of and invited to participate
in the next stages of the project. Fifteen students volunteered – six from the PuS and nine from the
PrS – and were all accepted, as the required number of participants in the game was from four to
eight. We did not stipulate any exclusion criteria as we targeted students that were motivated towards
playing the game. Before starting, the students were clarified about (1) the objectives of the game and
the importance of committing to the truthfulness of the answers’, and (2) the confidentiality regarding
4   J. C. Q. DE CAVALHO ET AL.

the participants’ recordings, image, and identity, guaranteed by using fictitious names to identify the
transcribed extracts.

Pre-interview
A pre-interview was conducted individually with the fifteen participants to supplement the data
obtained with the diagnostic questionnaire. A semi-structured interview, in which the answers from
the diagnostic questionnaires were used as a script, was conducted: each question and its response was
read aloud and the student was asked to clarify its answer if it was confusing or to elaborate it, if it was
incomplete or too short (Moreira and Silveira 1993; Gil 2008). The pre-interview lasted 15–30 min.

Application of the game

The application of the game occurred one month after the diagnostic questionnaire, in the schools,
and during a period without classes. The researcher was the tutor of the group, acting as both medi-
ator and player. As the game allows four players or four groups of players, one spot was filled by the
researcher and the others were distributed according to the number of participating students from
each school. The students for the PuS were divided in two groups of three individual players each,
involving the six participants. The students from the PrS were also divided in two groups, one with
three individual players, and the other with three doubles, totalling nine participants. The sequence
was: (1) distribution of the game materials; (1) detailed explanation of game rules by the researcher;
(3) game playing, led by the researcher, who also clarified any doubts throughout the game; and (4)
final discussion on issues such as protein synthesis and gene expression. The game was videotaped
for later analysis of the questionings and interactions that took place.

Post-interview
This stage took place one month after the game playing and had the objective of evaluating the game’s
contribution towards students’ understanding of some concepts and processes raised in the diagnostic
questionnaire and pre-interview. The purpose of the 1-month interval was to minimise the carryover
effect of the game playing, as well as to avoid repeated answers from the pre-interview. During this
period, the topic was not mentioned in regular biology classes. A semi-structured interview was
conducted, guided by five questions developed based on the diagnostic questionnaire and related to
the concepts raised during the game.

Data analysis
A qualitative content analysis was performed to organise and interpret the collected data (Bogdan
and Biklen 1994). As unit of analysis, the student’s written responses or their narratives were used.
The answers from the diagnostic questionnaire were organised into categories, established according
to the student’s response pattern within the possibilities of responses of each question. The audio files
of the interviews (pre and post) were transcribed, and transcripts that allowed comparison with the
categories of the diagnostic questionnaire were examined for any consistencies or differences relevant
to the research. The conversations that occurred during the game were transcribed, and dialogues and
interactions (student-student, researcher-student or student-object) that were richer and provided
relevant elements of discussion were selected. We sought to understand how the different interactions
provided by the game environment would contribute to the students’ construction of the protein
synthesis concept.
The data analysis (written and oral records) was performed individually by each of the authors of this
work and later shared in a group meeting. A disagreement on data analysis occurred in one occasion,
concerning what responses should be taken as correct for the question about the relationship between
proteins and diseases. The question was discussed until a consensus was achieved, reducing analysis
bias and ensuring internal validity of the study (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2000).
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   5

Figure 1. Answers given by student James (PuS) to the diagnostic questionnaire and in the interviews (pre- and post-game).
Note: The underlined sentences are from the researcher.

Results and discussion

Contribution towards the understanding of the topic: a comparison between pre- and post-
game data
The goal of this step was to investigate possible conceptual gains throughout the process by com-
paring the data obtained with the diagnostic questionnaire and pre-interview with those obtained
in the post-interview. To preserve the students’ identity, their names were replaced by code-names.
Elements in the written records and in the transcripts that could indicate knowledge expansion of the
definition and function of proteins (for example, incorporation of new terms and information) were
identified. In this manuscript, we present the responses given by the students James (PuS) (Figure 1)
and Breno (PrS) (Figure 2), as representatives of each school, to illustrate the data analysis method.
The selection of these students was based on the richness and thoroughness of their dialogs, offering
several elements for analysis.
By analysing question Q.1b of the pre-interview (Figure 1), in which James states that ‘protein
works for the muscle … helps the muscles perform movements’, we see that the student presented a
definition of protein based on its structural function. However, later he adds that there is more than one
function attributed to proteins, because there several types of protein, each with a different function.
6   J. C. Q. DE CAVALHO ET AL.

Figure 2. Answers given by the Breno (PrS) to the diagnostic questionnaire and interviews (pre- and post-).
Note: The underlined sentences are from the researcher.

This relationship between protein and muscles can also be seen in Q.2b and Q.6 from the diagnostic
questionnaire. In the post-interview, James answers contained more terms that are scientific and more
references to the games’ stages, especially regarding the problem-situation that he solved during the
game (his Aim card called for the synthesis of the melanin).
In question Q.2b, James answered that proteins could be found in ‘sperm, muscles, breast milk’, and
in the post-interview he added melanin, after remembering his Aim card. This shows that the game
promoted the connection with new types of proteins, in addition to the appropriation of knowledge,
such as the name of the protein. Regarding the role of proteins in the body (Q.3a), in the post-interview
the student added ‘(…) gives colour to our skin, protects from sun rays, ultraviolet …’, again referring
to terms and processes experienced during the game. In describing what happens to proteins in the
digestion process, the student demonstrated in the diagnostic questionnaire (Q.4) a notion of protein
metabolism, stating that ‘they undergo a breakdown in order to go into the blood’, although he does not
relate this breakdown with amino acids. However, he states amino acids as necessary ‘ingredients’ for
protein synthesis in Q.5. In the post-interview (Q.4) the student not only connected the ‘ingredients’
and amino acids in the process of protein synthesis but also he identified amino acids as the product
of protein ‘breakdown’ in the digestion process.
In Q.5 of the diagnostic questionnaire, the student made a correct interpretation of a given analogy,
demonstrating an understanding of part of the protein synthesis process. In the post-interview, when
asked to summarise this process, he referred to the stages of the game. After mentioning the RNA
transcription process, James described the translation process (without mentioning the specific term)
using the words ‘takes the trio and turns it into protein’ and ‘goes to its specific site’. The first part of
the quote refers to a specific step of the game, in which the genetic code table was used to translate the
three nucleotides of the messenger RNA strand into an amino acid sequence. The second part of the
quote refers to another stage (Allocate protein), in which the students had to direct their synthetized
protein to its ‘action site’, intra or extracellularly.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   7

However, the maintenance of a misconception regarding the production of proteins by the cell
should also be noted. In response to Q.5a of the diagnostic questionnaire, James stated that the cell
produces proteins because ‘there are proteins that are made by cells and others acquired from food’.
Responding to Q.4 in the post-interview he adds that ‘our body has three ways of absorbing proteins:
the body produces what it needs, but not all of it, some is found in food … so you need to eat it, to
get it from food’. Therefore, it is not clear from the student’s post-interview if he was referring to the
essential amino acids or if he did not understand the process, even though he seemed to understand
that proteins are synthesised from amino acids and that proteins are ‘broken’ into amino acids during
digestion.
For student Breno (PrS) (Figure 2) a protein is ‘an amino acid chain that can be metabolized by
the body and helps in muscle building’ (Q.1b), therefore a definition based on the protein’s structural
function. He also mentions the role of protein in muscles in Q.2b and Q.3a of the diagnostic question-
naire, and tissue formation in the pre-interview (Q.2b). Yet, in the post-interview, the student affirms
that ‘there is protein inside cells’, but does not specify a structure. Regarding the function of proteins,
Breno recalled his Aim card and mentioned the importance of ‘adrenaline’ in stressful situations that
require decision-making response.
In describing how proteins are ‘absorbed’ by our body (Q.4), Breno mentioned that its by ‘breaking
the amino acid chain’. Curiously, the student describes in the pre-interview that ‘it breaks down the
amino acid chain to make smaller bits so we can absorb them’, but he does not associate those ‘smaller
bits’ with amino acids. For him, ‘chain of amino acids’ is synonymous with ‘proteins’. However, we
can see from the post-interview that Breno not only mentioned the ‘breakdown’ of proteins in the
digestion process but also mentioned the breakdown ‘to form amino acids’ and then reuse them ‘as
in LEGO, referring to the construction toy.
In the protein synthesis description, the student mentioned, though in a simplistic way, where each
step occurred and which structure was involved, referring to the stages of the game: ‘in DNA (where it
starts). It breaks in half, makes messenger RNA, connecting with one another … leaves the karyotheca
(referring to step 2 of the game, ‘crosses the karyotheca’), goes into the ribosome (referring to step
3, in which students take their mRNA strand and ‘transfer’ it to the ribosome location on the board)
… and then makes the transfer RNAs. Then these RNAs go and … Then the cell releases it, and it’s
ready’. Regarding protein and disease relationship, an increase in the repertoire of terms was observed
with the game, as only anaemia was cited in the questionnaire, whereas in the post-interview Breno
remembered the problem-situation involving adrenaline and melanin.
The responses of James and Breno in the post-interview show that they had made use of elements
or stages of the game for protein definition or description of protein synthesis. This indicates that
the game, by simulating a real process, contributed to the organisation of ideas and mental models
regarding protein synthesis in animal eukaryotic cells. The abstract and microscopic nature of the
concept might make it difficult for students to grasp. Therefore, the game can provide an experience
of a concept that is beyond reach, providing an opportunity for what Vygotsky (2007) termed ‘ZPD’,
which is an important aspect of knowledge building.
From the transcripts of the other 15 students that participated in the research, we noticed many
scientific terms and definitions of the field, confirming that most of them had attended classes on
proteins. However, the main difficulty presented by students was using these terms and definitions in
other contexts. According to Pedrancini et al. (2007), the appropriation of a word does not guarantee
the appropriation of the concept embedded in it. For example, some of the protein definitions pre-
sented by the students, both in the questionnaires and in the interviews, were ‘a molecule formed by
a collection of amino acids’ (Maurício, PuS), ‘a molecular structure composed of amino acids’ (Paulo,
PrS), ‘a collection of amino acids’ (Michael, PuS), and ‘a chain of amino acids’ (Junior, Guto and Breno,
PrS). From these definitions, we can observe that the concept is based on one aspect of proteins, i.e.
the monomeric unit is the amino acid. When asked about the digestion and absorption of proteins,
all students were unanimous in relating digestion to a ‘breaking’ process. Only the students Paulo and
Guto expanded this information, stating that the proteins were ‘broken down into amino acids’ and
8   J. C. Q. DE CAVALHO ET AL.

these were ‘absorbed by the cells for the synthesis of new proteins’. The others had difficulty applying
the concept and employed a more elementary thinking, such as ‘we chew it, and make it smaller …’
(Katia, PrS), ‘in the process of digestion, food is broken into micro-particles’ (Mauricio, PuS), ‘proteins
are broken down by enzymes, so they get smaller and can be absorbed’ (Michael, PuS) or ‘gastric juices
break down protein into several pieces’ (James, PuS). In the literature, this level of conception was found
among Turkish elementary school students, with an average age of 10 years, when trying to define
what happens to food during digestion (Cakici 2005). Based on Vygotsky’s theory (2009), adolescents
tend to maintain the most elementary forms of thought, even after learning to form concepts that
are more elaborate. Also supported by Mortimer (1995), knowledge acquisition does not occur by a
rupture between the ways of thinking, but through the awareness of the different ways of thinking and
the arguments that justify their use depending on the context. For Vygotsky, a transition takes place
in adolescence between two phases of thinking; from the ‘thinking in complexes’ phase, in which the
relationship assigned to objects can be as diverse as the relationships that really exist between them,
to the ‘thinking in concepts’ phase, in which relationships are based on simple attributes of objects. In
some cases, ‘complex thinking’ predominates over ‘concept thinking’. The main difficulty encountered
by adolescents, according to Vygotsky, is not the formulation of concepts, but their definition and
application. In our study, in spite of the predominance of complex-based thinking demonstrated by
the students’ primitive or simplistic answers, we found that the interaction with the game, due to its
symbolic nature, allowed students to perceive abstract concepts, contributing to the cognition process
the occurs in the ZPD, as defined by Vygotsky.

Analysis of game interactions

Through the analysis of audio transcripts, we sought to identify the interactions that occurred during
the game between the researcher and students, and among students. The influence of these interac-
tions on students’ conceptual construction of proteins and their synthesis were examined based on
Vygotsky’s framework. Sections of the transcripts were selected based on the richness of interactions.
Before starting the match, the researcher presented the game to the students, by exposing its com-
ponents and then explaining the game’s rules. As the rules correspond to a simplified view of the
biochemical process that leads to protein synthesis, the researcher used the opportunity to review
the concepts with the students. Therefore, researcher (mediator)-student interactions were mostly
conceptual, in which the researcher questioned students on concepts covered in class, or introduced
new concepts brought up by the game.
As an example, in Dialogue 1, by asking PuS students about which process occurs in the nucleus, and
which molecule was represented by the ‘ribbon’ used in stage 1 of the game, the researcher (whose name
[Julio] is underlined) sought to help students associate game elements and rules to known concepts.
Other times, however, the game introduced new situations and terms to students. The researcher, as
mediator and ‘more capable partner’, explained the meanings of the new terms and their importance
to the process, as well as their functions within the game.

Dialogue 1 – PuS
JULIO […] there, other than this card you have this ‘ribbon’ here (referring to the strand where the messenger
RNA will be transcribed), that we will put here, because we will start the process in the nucleus … And how do
we call this process …?

JAMES [0:01:39] Transcription?

JULIO [0:01:42] Transcription. So what do you think this ‘ribbon’ here represents?

JAMES [0:01:47] It’s the …

MAURICIO [0:01:48] It is the RNA nucleotide chain.

JAMES [0:01:50] RNA

 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   9

JULIO [0:01:51] RNA nucleotide chain (pointing to the two students who answered). Which RNA?

MAURICIO [0:01:58] RNA … from the nucleus?

JAMES [0:01:59] Messenger RNA?

JULIO [0:02:01] Messenger RNA. This means we will start here (pointing to the nucleus). We will start with the
first process called transcription […]
Thus, researcher-student interactions had an instructive profile, in which the researcher, as a medi-
ator, had the important role of making the students not only understand the game’s rules but also
understand the real meaning of each step and element in protein synthesis as a whole.
The student-student interactions presented two profiles: cooperative and competitive. Dialogue 2
demonstrates a cooperative interaction, which occurred more frequently during the first and third
stages of the game. In the first stage, for example, Michael dictated the DNA nucleotide sequence so
that James could insert the complementary bases in the strand corresponding to the messenger RNA
he was forming. In the third stage, Michael assisted Maurício with the genetic code table during the
translation, making corrections and reformulations as necessary.

Dialogue 2 – PuS
JULIO [0:23:02] No, no. You can put 10 (nucleotides). Then you can tell him which ones (asking MICHAEL to
spell to JAMES the nucleotides to be marked on the messenger RNA strand).

MICHAEL [0:23:11] T – A – C … fill them up, there … T …

JULIO [0:23:17] He’s going to tell you the sequence and you’ll complement it (the sequence) …

MICHAEL [0:23:18] T – A – C – C – G – T – C – T … 8, wright? … T – T. T is not U … (counting the amount

of nucleotides that were already placed).

JULIO [0:23:45] ‘T’ is ‘A’, only when it is ‘A’, which is ‘U’ … (laughs). You can use the eraser … Now you just
discard one card and pass it on to MICHAEL.

[…]

JAMES [0:50:22] Gosh, MAURICIO, you’re the only one who’s losing …

MICHAEL [0:50:23] I tried to help him, but he wouldn’t let me …

‘AUG’ … is ‘Met’, ‘Lys’, ‘Glu’, ‘Ile’ … I’m done!

Take three (nucleotides) there … how much you still need to get out? (Encouraging MAURICE to finish his
messenger RNA and leave the nucleus).

MAURICIO [0:51:58] Only a few more … Tell me…

MICHAEL [0:52:02] Three more, right?

MAURICIO [0:52:03] Yes.

MICHAEL [0:52:04] ‘ACT’. U – G – A. You need a ‘Cross’ card … (referring to the ‘Cross the karyotheca’ card)

MAURICIO [0:52:15] I have it …

MICHAEL [0:52:16] You have a ‘Cross’? What a smart guy …

As shown in Dialogue 3, competitive situations occurred more often among PrS students, perhaps
because they played in pairs. By understanding the rules and realising that a certain move could affect
the move of other players, students began to play strategically, avoiding discarding cards that could
favour the opponents. As known, competition develops decision-making processes, since choices taken
affect the progress of the game. According to Macedo (1995, 8), a game that promotes competition
develops skills such as ‘comprehension, anticipation, thinking agility, action precision, and strategic
coordination and behavior.’ The author further explains that competition itself is neither positive nor
10   J. C. Q. DE CAVALHO ET AL.

negative. It is how people react to the competition and the actions taken when facing it, that modify
its meaning.

Dialogue 3 – PrS
JUNIOR [0:34:28] Now he’ll come and destroy everything here … (laughs). (Referring to PAULO and GUTO,
the next pair to play).

PAULO [0:34:39] Let’s see … this one…

JULIO [0:34:43] Are you thinking on which card to discard? … What about this one? (Pointing to a card that
was face down on the table, not in PAULOS’s hand).

PAULO [0:34:47] It’s a secret!!

JUNIOR [0:34:50] Ah! He will use that card … the one that destroys (referring to the ‘RNAse’ card that can
determine the degradation of half of the nucleotides that have been formed)

KÁTIA [0:34:54] Oh! No!

JUNIOR [0:34:57] We have a worse chance.

KÁTIA [0:34:59] No … I’m alone, it’s not fair.

[…]

PAULO [0:35:24] All right, we’ll make a choice. Here! (Showing a card with 8 nucleotides), then we discard these
ones here … RNA polymerase and Ribosome (referring to the cards of the same names).

JUNIOR [0:35:35] Look, they know how to play! (Turning to BRENO, his partner).

KÁTIA [0:35:37] (Laughter) For sure! (Agreeing with JUNIOR).

JUNIOR [0:35:40] We don’t choose cards, we spend them all.

The game ‘Synthesizing Proteins’, as a rule-based game, must be consider in both its symbolic
(imaginary) and its collective aspects (it generates competition). From the symbolic point of view, it
materialised a process that is only understood within the imaginary: the synthesis of a protein. That
is, by playing the game, students assumed roles of molecules, plunging into the microscopic ‘world’ of
the cell, and simulated mechanisms and processes that are beyond their perceptual limits. A similar
situation occurs when children realise their ‘unrealizable desires’ by playing, thus creating a ‘zone of
proximal development’ (Vygotsky 2007). From the collective point of view, the synthesis of a certain
protein in the game was associated with the student’s possibility of winning, which can stimulate the
development of important skills such as decision-making, anticipations, managing situations and
strategic conduct (Macedo 1995).
Oliveira (2010), based on Vygotsky theories, affirms that there is a strong relationship between
development, learning and the concept of ‘zone of proximal development’ within the socio-cultural
environment, and that an individual only completely develops with the support of other individuals
of the same species. The author adds that ‘it is within the ‘zone of proximal development’ that the
interference of other individuals is the most transformative’ (63). Assuming that students should not
be left alone in the road to learning, the intervention of other people, such as teachers or classmates,
is fundamental for their development. The importance of cooperative educational activities, including
the use games as pedagogical resources, is thus reinforced.
The results of this study suggest that the game contributed to the observed conceptual gains and to
the improvement (or formation) of a protein synthesis model by the students. The contribution was
provided by the symbolic representation of this process (presence of a cross section diagram of the
eukaryotic cell and the problem-situations of the Aim cards), and interactions guided by the rules of
the game. These interactions, especially of cooperative and competitive nature, may promote mean-
ingful, prospective learning, that is, towards the ‘zone proximal development’.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   11

Based on the above aspects, the game was validated to be used in classroom as a didactic tool. Its
use can be facilitated when classmates who have had previous experience with the game act as tutors,
as observed by the authors in real-life classroom situations (data not shown).

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the students, teachers and principals of the participating schools, and the Centre for Scientific
and Cultural Diffusion (CDCC) of the University of São Paulo for adopting the game ‘Synthesizing proteins’ to be used
in the CDCC Experimentoteca (set of didactic materials for teaching Biology).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by FAPESP (The São Paulo Research Foundation) [grant number 98/14138-2]. JCQ Carvalho
received a scholarship from CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel).

ORCID
Julio Cesar Queiroz de Cavalho   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8343-1524
Nelma Regina Segnini Bossolan   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5484-9283

References
Ainsworth, S. 2008. “The Educational Value of Multiple-Representations When Learning Complex Scientific Concepts.”
In Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, edited by J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, and M. Nakhleh,
191–208. Dordrecht: Springer.
Araujo-Jorge, T. C., T. S. Cardona, C. L. S. Mendes, A. Henrique-Pons, R. M. S. Meirelles, C. M. L. M. Coutinho, L. E.
V. Aguiar, et al. 2004. “Microscopy Images as Interactive Tools in Cell Modeling and Cell Biology Education.” Cell
Biology Education 3 (2): 99–110. doi:10.1187/cbe.03-08-0010.
Beltramini, L. M., A. P. U. Araújo, T. H. G. Oliveira, L. D. S. Abel, A. R. S. Silva, and N. F. Santos. 2006. “A New
Three-Dimensional Educational Model Kit for Building DNA and RNA Molecules: Development and Evaluation.”
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 34 (3): 187–193. doi:10.1002/bmb.2006.49403403187.
Bogdan, R. C., and S. K. Biklen. 1994. Investigação qualitativa em educação: uma introdução à teoria e aos métodos
[Qualitative Research for Education]. Porto: Porto Editora.
Buckley, B. C. 2000. “Interactive Multimedia and Model-based Learning in Biology.” International Journal of Science
Education 22 (9): 895–935.
Cai, Y., B. Lu, J. Zheng, and L. Li. 2006. “Immersive Protein Gaming for Bio Edutainment.” Simulation & Gaming 37
(4): 466–475.
Cakici, Y. 2005. “Exploring Turkish Upper Primary Level Pupils’ Understanding of Digestion.” International Journal of
Science Education 27 (1): 79–100.
Carvalho, J. C. Q., S. G. Couto, and N. R. S. Bossolan. 2012. “Algumas concepções de alunos do ensino médio a respeito
das proteínas.” [High School Students’ Conceptions about Proteins] Ciência & Educação 18 (4): 897–912.
Carvalho, J. C. Q., L. M. Beltramini, L. D. S. Abel, and N. R. S. Bossolan. 2014. “‘Sintetizando Proteínas’, o jogo: proposta
e avaliação de uma ferramenta educacional.” [“Synthesizing proteins”, the Game: Proposal and Evaluation of an
Educational Tool] Revista de Ensino de Bioquímica (Journal of Biochemistry Education) 12 (1): 48–68.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2000. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Farley, P. 2013. “Using the Computer Came ‘FoldIt’ to Entice Students to Explore External Representations of Protein
Structure in a Biochemistry Course for Nonmajors.” BMB Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 41 (1):
56–57. doi:10.1002/bmb.20655.
Gil, A. C. 2008. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social [Methods and Techniques of Social Research]. São Paulo: Atlas.
Giordan, M. 2013. “Computadores e linguagens nas aulas de ciências” [Computers and Languages in Science Classes].
Ijuí: Ed. Unijuí.
Harris, M. A., R. F. Peck, S. Colton, J. Morris, E. Chaiub-Neto, and J. Kallio. 2009. “A Combination of Hand-Held Models
and Computer Imaging Programs Helps Students Answer Oral Questions about Molecular Structure and Function:
A Controlled Investigation of Student Learning.” Cell Biology Education 8 (1): 29–43. doi:10.1187/cbe.08-07-0039.
12   J. C. Q. DE CAVALHO ET AL.

Khatib, F., S. Cooper, M. D. Tyka, K. Xu, I. Makedon, Z. Popovic, D. Baker, and Foldit Players. 2011. “Algorithm
Discovery by Protein Folding Game Players.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (47): 18949–18953.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1115898108.
Lewis, A., M. Peat, and S. Franklin. 2005. “Understanding Protein Synthesis: An Interactive Card Game Discussion.”
Journal of Biological Education 39 (3): 125–130.
Macedo, L. 1995. “Os jogos e a sua importância na escola.” [Games and Their Importance in the School] Cadernos de
Pesquisa 93: 5–10.
Moreira, M. A., and F. L. Silveira. 1993. Instrumentos de pesquisa em ensino e aprendizagem [Teaching and Learning
Research Tools]. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.
Mortimer, E. F. 1995. “Conceptual Change or Conceptual Profile Change?” Science & Education 4 (3): 267–285.
Oh, P. S., and S. J. Oh. 2011. “What Teachers of Science Need to Know about Models: An Overview.” International Journal
of Science Education 33 (8): 1109–1130. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.502191.
Oliveira, M. K. 2010. Vygotsky: aprendizado e desenvolvimento – um processo sócio-histórico [Vygotsky: Learning and
Development – A Socio-Historical Process]. São Paulo: Scipione.
Pedrancini, V. D., M. J. Corazza-Nunes, M. T. B. Galuch, A. L. O. R. Moreira, and A. C. Ribeiro. 2007. “Ensino e
aprendizagem de Biologia no ensino médio e a apropriação do saber científico e biotecnológico.” [Teaching and
Learning of Biology in Higher Secondary Education and the Scientific and Biotechnology Knowledge Appropriation.]
Revista Electrónica De Enseñanza De Las Ciências 6 (2): 299–309.
Rotbain, Y., G. Marbach-Ad, and R. Stavy. 2006. “Effect of Bead and Illustrations Models on High School Students’
Achievement in Molecular Genetics.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43 (5): 500–529.
Sadler, T. D., W. L. Romine, D. Menon, R. E. Ferdig, and L. Annetta. 2015. “Learning Biology through Innovative
Curricula: A Comparison of Game- and Nongame-based Approaches.” Science Education 99 (4): 696–720. doi:10.1002/
sce.21171.
Schaeffer, A. G., and J. A. P. Angotti. 2016. “Jogos digitais na apropriação de conhecimentos científicos.” [Digital Games in
the Appropriation of Scientific Knowledge.] RENOTE Novas Tecnologias Na Educação 14 (1): 1–10. doi:10.22456/1679-
1916.67331.
Spiegel, C. N., G. G. Alves, T. S. Cardona, L. M. C. Melim, M. R. M. Luz, T. C. Araújo-Jorge, and A. Henriques-Pons.
2008. “Discovering the Cell: An Educational Game about Cell and Molecular Biology.” Journal of Biological Education
43 (1): 27–36.
Su, T. F., M.-T. Cheng, and S.-H. Lin. 2014. “Investigating the Effectiveness of an Educational Card Game for Learning
How Human Immunology is Regulated.” Cell Biology Education 13 (3): 504–515. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-10-0197.
Tsui, C.-Y., and D. F. Treagust. 2003. “Genetics Reasoning with Multiple External Representations.” Research in Science
Education 33 (1): 111–135. doi:10.1023/A:1023685706290.
Vijapurkar, J., A. Kawalkar, and P. Nambiar. 2014. “What Do Cells Really Look like? An Inquiry into Students’ Difficulties
in Visualising a 3-D Biological Cell and Lessons for Pedagogy.” Research in Science Education 44 (2): 307–333.
doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9379-5.
Vygotsky, L. S. 2007. A formação social da mente: o desenvolvimento dos processos psicológicos superiores [Mind in Society:
The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.] São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Vygotsky, L. S. 2009. A construção do pensamento e da linguagem [Thought and Language.] São Paulo: W.M.F Martins
Fontes.
Ministério da Educação Brasil. 2002. PCN+ ensino médio: orientações educacionais complementares aos parâmetros
curriculares nacionais – ciências da natureza, matemática e suas tecnologias [PCN+ High School: Educational
Guidelines Complementary to the National Curriculum – Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Their Technologies].
Brasília: MEC-SEMTEC.