Is it time we get real? A systematic review of the potential of data-driven technologies to address teachers' implicit biases.

Data-driven technologies for education, such as artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) systems, learning analytics dashboards, open learner models, and other applications, are often created with an aspiration to help teachers make better, evidence-informed decisions in the classroom. Addressing gender, racial, and other biases inherent to data and algorithms in such applications is seen as a way to increase the responsibility of these systems and has been the focus of much of the research in the field, including systematic reviews. However, implicit biases can also be held by teachers. To the best of our knowledge, this systematic literature review is the first of its kind to investigate what kinds of teacher biases have been impacted by data-driven technologies, how or if these technologies were designed to challenge these biases, and which strategies were most effective at promoting equitable teaching behaviors and decision making. Following PRISMA guidelines, a search of five databases returned n = 359 records of which only n = 2 studies by a single research team were identified as relevant. The findings show that there is minimal evidence that data-driven technologies have been evaluated in their capacity for supporting teachers to make less biased decisions or promote equitable teaching behaviors, even though this capacity is often used as one of the core arguments for the use of data-driven technologies in education. By examining these two studies in conjunction with related studies that did not meet the eligibility criteria during the full-text review, we reveal the approaches that could play an effective role in mitigating teachers' biases, as well as ones that may perpetuate biases. We conclude by summarizing directions for future research that should seek to directly confront teachers' biases through explicit design strategies within teacher tools, to ensure that the impact of biases of both technology (including data, algorithms, models etc.) and teachers are minimized. We propose an extended framework to support future research and design in this area, through motivational, cognitive, and technological debiasing strategies.

Serious Gaming and Gamification Education in Health Professions: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is a worldwide shortage of health workers, and this issue requires innovative education solutions. Serious gaming and gamification education have the potential to provide a quality, cost-effective, novel approach that is flexible, portable, and enjoyable and allow interaction with tutors and peers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of serious gaming/gamification for health professions education compared with traditional learning, other types of digital education, or other serious gaming/gamification interventions in terms of patient outcomes, knowledge, skills, professional attitudes, and satisfaction (primary outcomes) as well as economic outcomes of education and adverse events (secondary outcomes). METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Educational Resources Information Centre, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted from 1990 to August 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently searched, screened, and assessed the study quality and extracted data. A meta-analysis was not deemed appropriate due to the heterogeneity of populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. RESULTS: A total of 27 RCTs and 3 cluster RCTs with 3634 participants were included. Two studies evaluated gamification interventions, and the remaining evaluated serious gaming interventions. One study reported a small statistically significant difference between serious gaming and digital education of primary care physicians in the time to control blood pressure in a subgroup of their patients already taking antihypertensive medications. There was evidence of a moderate-to-large magnitude of effect from five studies evaluating individually delivered interventions for objectively measured knowledge compared with traditional learning. There was also evidence of a small-to-large magnitude of effect from 10 studies for improved skills compared with traditional learning. Two and four studies suggested equivalence between interventions and controls for knowledge and skills, respectively. Evidence suggested that serious gaming was at least as effective as other digital education modalities for these outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether one type of serious gaming/gamification intervention is more effective than any other. There was limited evidence for the effects of serious gaming/gamification on professional attitudes. Serious gaming/gamification may improve satisfaction, but the evidence was limited. Evidence was of low or very low quality for all outcomes. Quality of evidence was downgraded due to the imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Serious gaming/gamification appears to be at least as effective as controls, and in many studies, more effective for improving knowledge, skills, and satisfaction. However, the available evidence is mostly of low quality and calls for further rigorous, theory-driven research.

Molecular Concepts Adaptive Assessment (MCAA) Characterizes Undergraduate Misconceptions about Molecular Emergence.

This paper discusses the results of two experiments assessing undergraduate students' beliefs about the random nature of molecular environments. Experiment 1 involved the implementation of a pilot adaptive assessment ( n = 773) and focus group discussions with undergraduate students enrolled in first- through third-year biology courses; experiment 2 involved the distribution of the redesigned adaptive assessment to the same population of students in three consecutive years ( n = 1170). The overarching goal of the study was to provide a detailed characterization of learners' perceptions and beliefs regarding molecular agency, environments, and diffusion and whether or not those beliefs change over time. Our results indicated that advanced learners hold as many misconceptions as novice learners and that confidence in their misconceptions increases as they advance through their undergraduate education. In particular, students' understanding of random/Brownian motion is complex and highly contextual, suggesting that the way in which we teach biology does not adequately remediate students' preconceived notions of molecular agency and may actually reinforce them.

Board Games for Health: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Nondigital board games are being used to engage players and impact outcomes in health and medicine across diverse populations and contexts. This systematic review and meta-analysis describes and summarizes their impact based on randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. An electronic search resulted in a review of n = 21 eligible studies. Sample sizes ranged from n = 17 to n = 3110 (n = 6554 total participants). A majority of the board game interventions focused on education to increase health-related knowledge and behaviors (76%, n = 16). Outcomes evaluated included self-efficacy, attitudes/beliefs, biological health indicators, social functioning, anxiety, and executive functioning, in addition to knowledge and behaviors. Using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing bias, most studies (52%, n = 11) had an unclear risk of bias (33% [n = 7] had a high risk and 14% [n = 3] had a low risk). Statistical tests of publication bias were not significant. A random-effects meta-analysis showed a large average effect of board games on health-related knowledge (d* = 0.82, 95% confidence interval; CI [0.15-1.48]), a small-to-moderate effect on behaviors (d* = 0.33, 95% CI [0.16-0.51]), and a small-to-moderate effect on biological health indicators (d* = 0.37, 95% CI [0.21-0.52]). The findings contribute to the literature on games and gamified approaches in healthcare. Future research efforts should aim for more consistent high scientific standards in their evaluation protocols and reporting methodologies to provide a stronger evidence base.