Sculptorades,Cloodles,and Cameos,Oh My! A Cranium Game for General Psychology

Abstract

Background:

Many instructors use trivia-style review games to encourage self-testing, increase student engagement, and promote collaboration. However, most published examples of review games include trivia questions only, rather than activities that incorporate kinesthetic learning.

Objective:

We evaluate a review activity modeled after the game Cranium, which includes charades, pictionary, sculpting, and trivia questions.

Method:

In Pilot Study 1, general psychology students (n = 25) completed a self-report evaluation of Cranium, and we compared performance on exam items practiced during Cranium versus control items. In Pilot Study 2, students (n = 23) were assigned to review for a mock exam via Cranium, a trivia-only version of Cranium, or a practice question review.

Results:

Students rated Cranium as enjoyable and useful, though not more so than comparison activities, and Cranium elicited similar exam performance to comparison activities.

Conclusion:

Cranium is similar, not superior, to trivia-only and practice question review activities in terms of student perceptions and exam performance.

Teaching Implications:

Cranium provides an additional tool for instructors to engage students in team-based review activities in general psychology. Games that incorporate self-testing are likely useful for student engagement and learning, and the specific choice of activity may depend on instructor and student preference.

Keywords

exam review games general psychology introductory psychology

Game-based learning, which refers to using games to promote knowledge or skill acquisition rather than solely for entertainment, is a growing trend in higher education (Boyle et al., 2016; Plass et al., 2015; Sera & Wheeler, 2017). Games may be an effective teaching strategy because they can be tailored to students’ initial knowledge, encourage students to take an active role and make choices, promote collaboration while also motivating students with competitive personalities, and make course content more tangible (Boyle et al., 2014; Plass et al., 2015; Sera & Wheeler, 2017). Within psychology, instructors have successfully used games to innovatively teach complex concepts, such as intersectionality (Bramesfeld & Good, 2016), assortative mating (Eastwick & Buck, 2014), the self (Stansbury, 2017), and factorial designs (Stansbury & Munro, 2013).

In addition to using games to teach specific concepts, many examples of game-based learning in the psychology classroom use games to review material that students have learned thus far, often in a trivia game format. Instructors have employed trivia or game show formats (e.g., Trivial Pursuit, Jeopardy!, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire) during review sessions in courses ranging from research methods to psychopharmacology (Ackil, 1986; Gibson, 1991; Keutzer, 1993; Kostic et al., 2015; Neef et al., 2007; Paul et al., 2006; Robison, 2014; Scarlet & Ampolos, 2013). Other creative twists on the traditional instructor-led review session have involved students in the creation of board or card games such as Taboo and Scattergories (Abramson et al., 2009; Merwin, 2003).

Although some evidence for the benefits of review games is anecdotal rather than empirical, a few studies have formally evaluated the effects of review games on student enjoyment and learning outcomes. Specifically, trivia-style review games have been shown to increase students’ enjoyment compared with traditional question-and-answer review sessions or practice exams (Kostic et al., 2015; Robison, 2014). While students generally endorse statements such as “I would recommend [the review game] be included in future courses” (Merwin, 2003; Middlecamp, 2003; Paul et al., 2006), one study found that students’ preferences for games were more variable than for question-and-answer review (Neef et al., 2007). Past research is even more mixed on whether games improve student learning, with some findings suggesting similar exam scores between game and comparison groups (Kostic et al., 2015; Neef et al., 2007), others showing higher exam scores for game than comparison groups (Paul et al., 2006; Vanags et al., 2012), and one study finding a benefit of games for essay questions but not multiple choice questions (Robison, 2014).

Despite a lack of direct empirical evidence, there are reasons to believe that review games could enhance student learning. A substantial body of research shows that self-testing results in more accurate and longer term retention relative to re-reading material (reviewed in Schwartz et al., 2011). Because review games require students to respond to questions and actively test themselves, games may enhance learning relative to a more traditional review session in which students ask questions and the instructor answers. Additionally, the self-test aspect of games can alert the students to areas that require additional study, leading to more accurate judgments of learning (Schwartz et al., 2011).

Most previous studies have evaluated trivia-style games rather than games that incorporate multiple types of activities. In this paper, we describe a Cranium game that we developed for our general psychology course. In this game, students work in teams to complete problems modeled after the board game Cranium (Cranium Inc., 2016), which includes “Factoids” (trivia questions), “Cameos” (charades), “Cloodles” (pictionary), and “Sculptorades” (sculpting with clay). Similar to the trivia-style review games described above, Cranium takes advantage of the self-testing effect, but Cranium expands on previous games by employing a motor component via charades, pictionary, and sculpting. In addition to providing novel problems that teams must solve in creative ways, these motor activities could enhance learning via the enactment effect, a phenomenon in which performing an action improves memory relative to verbal rehearsal (Engelkamp & Jahn, 2003). Notably, Abramson et al. (2009) briefly mention Cranium as one possible board game that could be adapted for a history of psychology course, but Cranium is presented alongside multiple other possibilities and thus not evaluated formally. Here, we describe the Cranium game as used in general psychology, link to game materials, and provide pilot data on student enjoyment and learning outcomes. We conducted two pilot studies: in Study 1, we evaluated Cranium’s use in a general psychology course (n = 25); in Study 2, we conducted a quasi-experiment (n = 23) comparing exam performance between Cranium, trivia-only, and practice question conditions.

Study 1

Description of the Cranium Game

Our version of Cranium as used in general psychology (25 students) incorporated four types of activities from the board game Cranium: Factoids, Cameos, Cloodles, and Sculptorades (described with examples in Table 1).¹ Students played the game in teams of approximately five members each. Our Cranium varied from the board game’s rules in a few ways; for example, we did not use a game board or roll dice, but simply rotated through items printed on index cards or presented on PowerPoint. The class played Cranium once before each exam—a total of three times. For Exam 1’s Cranium, we followed the traditional Cranium format where items are printed on index cards and assigned to a single team, with the exception of several “Club Cranium” items where teams compete to be the first to answer. For Exam 2 and 3's reviews, we modified the game by playing all items “Club Cranium” and presenting them on PowerPoint to increase student engagement and keep the game fast-paced.

Table 1.

Cranium Game Item Types and Examples.

Item Type	Instructions	Example Items
Cloodle (pictionary)	One member of your team must draw the name or phrase on the back of this card while the other team members try to guess.	Negative correlation Growth mindset Somatosensory cortex
Sculptorades (sculpting with Play-Doh)	For this Sculptorades, one member of your team must try to get the others to guess the name or phrase on the back of the card by using the Play-Doh to create a sculpture.	The conservation problem (in child development) Hippocampus Sally-Anne task
Cameo (charades)	Using only silent clues, one member of your team must act out the name or phrase on the back of this card.	Moro reflex Cerebellum Ivan Pavlov
Factoid (trivia questions; some questions have multiple components and are worth multiple points accordingly)	N/A	Explain the difference between hostile and benevolent sexism. List and describe the three different types of attachment styles. Identify one recommendation for lineups based on research regarding eyewitness accounts.

During the game, performers/artists were allowed to ask for a clue from the teaching assistant if they could not recall the concept they needed to perform or draw, but students were discouraged from using notes or the internet. After each item, the instructor or teaching assistant elaborated on the relevant concept and students were given the opportunity to ask questions. When reviewing the clinical psychology unit, students were informed that disorders would not be used for charades, in order to ensure a respectful classroom environment. After playing Cranium, items and answers were posted on the course learning management system for students to access while studying. We received IRB exemption for the evaluations described below, and students completed informed consent.

Student Evaluations of Cranium

Immediately after playing the third Cranium game, 14 students completed a self-report evaluation of the game adapted from Burkley and Burkley (2009). Students indicated their agreement with each of nine statements on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). As shown in Table 2, evaluations of the game were positive overall. Students generally agreed that Cranium helped them to understand the class material better, was a good supplement to class, made class more enjoyable, and that they would recommend using Cranium again. Responses were more variable on whether the traditional question-and-answer session or taking practice exam questions individually would have been more useful than Cranium, but in general students disagreed or were neutral regarding these statements. Informally, we noticed a high level of student engagement in Cranium, particularly in the second game, during which teams argued heatedly over points. One student also reported to the instructor that other students asked if they could study with her based on her performance during the game, suggesting that Cranium was a useful way to connect classmates with one another.

Table 2.

Student Evaluations of the Cranium Game in Study 1, and of the Review Activity Conditions in Study 2.

	Study 1		Study 2
	General Psychology Students		Cranium Condition		Factoid-Only Condition		Practice Question Condition
Item	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
1. Helped me to understand the material better	6.07	1.07	6.33	1.03	6.62	0.65	5.50	3.00
2. Was a good supplement to class/Would be useful in a real class	6.14	0.95	6.67	0.52	6.85	0.38	5.50	3.00
3. Was an effective way to review for the exam	6.07	1.00	6.67	0.52	6.69	0.48	5.50	3.00
4. Helped me remember psychology terms and concepts better	5.71	1.38	6.17	0.75	6.54	0.52	5.50	2.38
5. Made class more enjoyable/Was enjoyable	6.14	1.17	6.33	0.82	6.23	0.93	5.25	2.36
6. Helped me get to know my classmates/peers better	5.43	1.45	5.00	1.23	4.62	1.50	4.50	1.73
7. A traditional question-and-answer review session (e.g., students ask questions and the instructor responds) would have been more useful^a	2.64	1.98	2.67	0.82	2.46	1.71	2.25	1.26
8. Taking practice exam questions individually would have been more useful^{a, b}	3.36	1.82	—	—	—	—	—	—
9. Recommend using in a General Psychology course	6.29	0.99	6.33	0.82	6.77	0.44	5.50	2.38
OVERALL MEAN SCORE	5.76	1.04	6.12	0.33	6.23	0.38	5.38	2.20

Note. Responses were made on a 7-point scale with higher numbers indicating higher agreement. In Study 1, items referred to “The Cranium game”; in Study 2, items referred to “The review activity.” When item wording differed between studies, this is indicated with a slash.

^a Indicates item reverse coded in overall mean score

^b Item 8 was not included in Study 2 given that it would have been irrelevant for the practice question condition

Cranium and Exam Performance

Students’ feedback indicated they found Cranium enjoyable and useful, but did playing Cranium enhance learning as measured by exam performance? Following methods used by previous authors (Burkley & Burkley, 2009; Eaton & Uskul, 2004), we tested whether students performed better on material practiced during Cranium by comparing scores on Cranium-relevant exam items with scores on control exam items. A “Cranium-relevant” exam item was defined as an exam item that tested a term or concept that had been practiced during the Cranium game. Most Cranium-relevant exam items applied the term or concept practiced during Cranium to a new problem; very rarely did an exam item and a Cranium game item match verbatim (see Table 3 for examples). Both authors independently categorized multiple-choice exam items as Cranium-relevant or control and disagreements were resolved through discussion, resulting in nine Cranium-relevant and 14 control items for Exam 1, and 15 Cranium-relevant and 11 control items for Exam 2.² General psychology students who were not present for the relevant Cranium game were eliminated from analysis for that exam, leaving 20 general psychology students for analysis for Exam 1 and 17 students for Exam 2. To address the possibility that Cranium-relevant and control exam items differed on factors besides practice during Cranium, such as difficulty or specificity, we also asked senior psychology students (n = 6 for Exam 1 and n = 8 for Exam 2) who had no experience with the Cranium game and who were blinded to item categorizations to answer the exam items and rate them on difficulty (1 = Easy, 2 = Medium, 3 = Hard).

Table 3.

Examples of Cranium-Relevant and Control Exam Items in Study 1.

	Exam Item	Cranium Game Item That Practiced Concept
Cranium-Relevant Items	Jaqui hypothesizes that upbeat background music leads people to perceive others more positively compared with somber background music. To test this, she randomly assigns college students to listen to either upbeat classical music or somber classical music. Then, she shows all participants the same slideshow of faces and asks them to rate the friendliness of each person in the slideshow on a scale of 0 = unfriendly to 10 = very friendly. What is the independent variable in Jaqui’s study? A. Friendliness ratings of faces B. College students C. Type of music (upbeat or somber)^a D. All of the above are independent variables	Factoid: I conduct an experiment to test how the number of people in the audience affects cortisol (stress hormone) responses to giving a speech. Identify the independent and dependent variables.Answer: IV = number of people in audience; DV = cortisol response
	When students in a professor’s class answer a question correctly, she gives them a piece of candy. This is an example of: A. Systematic desensitization B. Operant conditioning (reinforcement)^a C. Operant conditioning (punishment) D. Taste aversion learning	Cameo: Using only silent clues, one member of your team must act out the name or phrase on the back of this card.Answer: Operant conditioning
Control Items	Which of the following is NOT one of the 3 Belmont Report Principles for ethical research with human participants? A. Significance^a B. Autonomy C. Justice D. Beneficence	N/A
	When given a choice between two unfamiliar foods, rats chose to eat the food they had smelled on another rat’s breath. We discussed this as an example of: A. Normative influence B. Informational influence^a C. Social dominance orientation D. Empathy-altruism model	N/A

Note. ^aIndicates the correct answer.

Table 4 shows the percent of correct answers for Cranium-relevant versus control items among general psychology and senior psychology students. Among general psychology students, the percentage of correct answers was very similar for Cranium-relevant and control items on Exam 1, paired t(19) = 0.19, p = .852, d = 0.04, 95% CI [−5.59, 6.70]. However, on Exam 2, general psychology students scored significantly higher on Cranium-relevant items (M = 91.37%, SD = 12.64%) than control items (M = 77.01%, SD = 14.05%), paired t(16) = 6.55, p < .001, d = 1.59, 95% CI [9.71, 19.02]. Although this result is interesting, senior psychology students also scored significantly higher on Cranium-relevant items than control items for Exam 2, paired t(7) = 2.82, p = .026, d = 1.00, 95% CI [2.16, 24.76], and an ANOVA with item type (Cranium-relevant or control) as a within-subjects factor and student type (general psychology or senior psychology) as a between-subjects factor showed no significant item type x student type interaction, F(1, 23) = 0.04, p = .843, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .002. This suggests that some other factor besides Cranium likely explained this result, given that senior psychology students who did not play Cranium showed a similar degree of accuracy bias for Cranium over control items.

Table 4.

Scores and Difficulty Ratings for Cranium-Relevant and Control Exam Items Among General Psychology and Senior Psychology Students in Study 1.

		General Psychology Students		Senior Psychology Students
		Percent Correct		Percent Correct		Difficulty (1 = Easy, 2 = Medium, 3 = Hard)
		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Exam 1	Cranium-Relevant Items (n = 9)	80.56%	14.36%	70.37%	15.18%	1.61	0.21
	Control Items(n = 14)	80.00%	9.99%	79.76%	10.51%	1.71	0.32
Exam 2	Cranium-Relevant Items (n = 15)	91.37%	12.64%	68.57%	16.88%	1.84	0.50
	Control Items(n = 11)	77.01%	14.05%	55.11%	13.40%	2.09	0.17

Study 1 Discussion

Our general psychology students’ evaluations of Cranium pointed to high levels of student engagement. Students felt that the game made class more enjoyable and helped them understand class material better, and overall, students indicated a preference for Cranium over alternative review methods, specifically question-and-answer or practice exam questions. However, despite promising self-report evaluations, we did not find clear evidence that our game improved exam performance, a finding similar to some previous studies (Kostic et al., 2015; Neef et al., 2007). General psychology students did score significantly higher on multiple-choice exam items testing content practiced during Cranium than on control items for the second exam, the session in which we informally noted the highest student engagement in Cranium. However, senior psychology students with no experience with Cranium showed a similar bias for Cranium-relevant items compared with control items, suggesting that something about the items themselves, such as difficulty, specificity, or content, explained these results.

While a strength of our in-class study was its ecological validity, with students playing Cranium to review for their high-stakes general psychology exams, Study 1 had some key limitations. First, the senior psychology students were not an ideal comparison group, as they did not study in preparation for the exam. Second, because students completed their self-report evaluations immediately after playing the final Cranium game, attendance bias could have influenced our results, with students who disliked the game or did not find it useful choosing to be absent that day. Third, our study raises additional questions best addressed by an experimental design. For example, do potential benefits of Cranium for student engagement and exam performance exceed benefits of more typical trivia-style games? Are benefits of Cranium explained by the enactment effect (Engelkamp & Jahn, 2003), which is relevant to the kinesthetic Cranium activities (Cameos, Cloodles, Sculptorades) but not Factoids?

To address these questions, in Study 2 we conducted a quasi-experiment in which small groups of students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) play Cranium, (2) play a Factoid-only (i.e., trivia-only) version of Cranium, or (3) participate in a more traditional practice question review session. Students completed a multiple-choice exam and a self-report evaluation after their assigned activity. This design allowed us to explore whether potential benefits of Cranium result from self-testing (present in all three conditions), from group interaction and team play (present in the Cranium and Factoid-only conditions), or from the enactment effect (present in the Cranium condition).

Study 2

Method

Participants were 23 students who had either completed or were currently enrolled in general psychology.³ The majority (n = 17) were Psychology or Behavioral Neuroscience majors who had previously completed general psychology; a minority (n = 6) were currently enrolled in general psychology and were non-majors (including kinesiology, religious studies, and political science). Our sample included first-years (n =4), sophomores (n = 5), juniors (n = 9) and seniors (n = 5). Participants were recruited for a research study on “what review skills work best in optimizing exam performance.”

Participants were scheduled for the study in small groups, and each study session was assigned to one of three conditions. We were able to hold one session for the Cranium condition (n = 6), two sessions for the Factoid-only condition (n = 6 and n = 7), and two sessions for the practice question condition (both n = 2).⁴ In all conditions, participants completed a review activity that consisted of 15 items. In the Cranium condition, participants were randomized to one of two teams and played Cranium in the “Club Cranium” format described in Study 1. In this condition, nine items were kinesthetic (Cloodles, Cameos, or Sculptorades), and six items were Factoids. In the Factoid-only condition, participants were still randomized to one of two teams, but the kinesthetic items were replaced with Factoids on the same content. For example, the sculptorades for “myelin” was replaced with this item: “The insulating layer or sheath that covers axons and speeds up the conduction of the action potential is called ______.” Finally, in the practice question condition, participants were not split into teams and simply wrote down their answer for each of the 15 review items, which were identical to the Factoid items. Then, the instructor called on a participant in turn to share their answer. In all three conditions, after participants shared an answer, the instructor briefly elaborated on the concept. For example, talking points for myelin included that myelin is an insulating layer or sheath that covers axons and that its primary function is to speed conduction of the action potential.

Immediately following the review activity, all participants completed a 15-item multiple-choice exam. Each exam item directly corresponded to a review activity item, though not in the same order, and contained unique wording and examples to the extent possible. Our method for the mock exam was adapted from prior research (Kostic et al., 2015). Finally, students completed an evaluation of the review activity nearly identical to that used in Study 1 (see Table 2). The eight items were averaged such that higher scores indicated more positive evaluations (α = .88). The university’s Institutional Review Board approved all procedures, and participants provided informed consent. Full materials for the review activities and exam are available at https://figshare.com/articles/Cranium_Study_2_Materials/12485366.

Results

While the Cranium (M = 6.12, SD = 0.33) and Factoid-only (M = 6.23, SD = 0.38) conditions received slightly higher evaluation scores than the practice question condition (M = 5.38, SD = 2.20), this difference was not statistically significant, F(2, 20) = 1.36, p = .279, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .120 (see Table 2). Open-ended student comments were generally positive regardless of condition. For example, students commented that the activity was “enjoyable and good recall practice involving multiple functions” (Cranium condition), “better than the traditional Q&A because the students are asked to recall the info” (Factoid-only condition), and “lots of fun” (practice question condition).

Exam scores were similar between the three conditions, with no significant differences, F(2, 20) = 0.10, p = .905, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .010 (see Table 5). We checked whether participants in the Cranium condition performed better than those in other conditions on the nine exam items that were practiced kinesthetically in the Cranium game, but this was not the case, F(2, 20) = 0.33, p = .722, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .032. When only including Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience majors who had completed general psychology (n = 17), there were still no significant differences by condition in evaluation scores, exam scores, or scores on kinesthetic items.

Table 5.

Exam Scores in Cranium, Factoid-Only, and Practice Question Conditions in Study 2.

	Cranium Condition		Factoid-Only Condition		Practice Question Condition
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Exam Score (15 items)	84.44%	8.07%	86.67%	9.43%	85.00%	17.53%
Kinesthetic Items (9 items)	88.89%	9.94%	88.89%	11.11%	83.33%	19.25%
Non-Kinesthetic Items (6 items)	77.78%	17.21%	83.33%	15.22%	87.50%	15.96%

General Discussion

Past research has shown that psychology review games can increase student enjoyment and in some cases improve exam performance. Here, we introduce Cranium, which includes charades, pictionary, and sculpting challenges in addition to trivia-style questions, as an exam review game in general psychology. Like more standard trivia review games, Cranium takes advantage of the self-testing effect, but Cranium also incorporates multisensory and kinesthetic experiences, which we predicted could enhance learning via the enactment effect.

Taken together, our results from Study 1 and Study 2 suggest that Cranium elicits high student engagement and student perceptions of learning, though not necessarily higher than trivia-only or practice question review sessions; all review activities were evaluated relatively favorably. Prior findings indicate that individual differences may influence student preferences for games more so than for other review methods (Neef et al., 2007), an important consideration for instructors wishing to incorporate games in their courses. A benefit of Cranium is that the different types of items may appeal to students with different strengths or personalities; for example, a student who dreads performing in charades may love sculpting or drawing. In addition to the item types we used, there is potential for instructors to incorporate other varieties of Cranium items, such as “Sensosketch” (i.e., drawing a concept with eyes closed) and “Word Worm” (e.g., anagrams, defining difficult terms). Furthermore, while we informally noted higher engagement when using a simultaneous “Club Cranium” format than when teams were assigned questions, the benefits of simultaneous versus turn-based game play should be empirically tested in the future.

Our results add to past research suggesting that games—whether kinesthetic like Cranium or trivia-based—generally elicit high levels of student enjoyment (Kostic et al., 2015; Robison, 2014). While higher enjoyment or “liking” does not unequivocally translate to learning gains, a substantial literature suggests enjoyment can enhance academic achievement, perhaps by increasing intrinsic motivation or promoting flexible learning strategies (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012). For example, more self-regulated learning predicted achievement only for students who reported high enjoyment of a subject (Villavicencio & Bernardo, 2013). With regard to general psychology specifically, students cited videos and participatory demonstrations as the most memorable aspects of the course (VanderStoep et al., 2000). When asked years later about elements of their general psychology course useful in other classes, majors and non-majors alike identified the development of study skills like self-testing (which can be practiced via games; Hard et al., 2019). Therefore, in addition to making class more enjoyable, engagement in games may facilitate students’ motivation, self-regulation, and study skills, as well as make course content more memorable.

Our pilot data do not suggest differences in exam performance between Cranium, trivia-only, and practice question review activities. All three of these activities incorporated self-testing, so it may be that team interaction and kinesthetic learning do not add additional benefits to exam performance over and above self-testing, at least in the short-term design we used. Some research suggests that benefits of active learning are most evident after a delay (e.g., when tested a week later rather than immediately; Roediger & Karpicke, 2016; Schwartz et al., 2011), or more relevant for open-ended than multiple-choice items (Robison, 2014), so future research should address these possibilities. It is also important to note that our sample sizes for both studies were very small, such that analyses were underpowered. With our small sample in Study 2, the extent of students’ prior exposure to material (e.g., number of psychology courses taken) could have overwhelmed any effects of the review activities. Our primary goal was to provide materials for future instructors to evaluate in their classes and empirically; we hope future researchers are able to expand on our pilot data to tease out the benefits of self-testing, team interaction, and the enactment effect. Despite these limitations, our results suggest that introducing Cranium into a general psychology course to add variety to review sessions would “do no harm;” this activity has the potential to engage students and instructors and does not harm exam performance compared to more standard trivia-style or practice question reviews. That is, our pilot data do not suggest Cranium is superior to other review activities in terms of student perceptions or learning outcomes, but that Cranium is one more tool for general psychology instructors wishing to vary review sessions.

For many students, a general psychology course is the only psychology course they will ever take; for others, general psychology is their introduction to their chosen field. In either case, this course is an essential opportunity to excite students about psychology. The activities in Cranium—sculpting the hippocampus out of clay, trying to get teammates to guess “Phineas Gage” from a charade, or drawing the basal ganglia—might be one strategy for making exam reviews memorable and engaging in an introductory course.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This activity was presented in a teaching demonstration at the Southwest Teachers of Psychology 2019 meeting (Albuquerque, NM). This article has not been published elsewhere, nor has it been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Marion Perlmutter and the Psych 111 Graduate Student Instructors for assistance with development of some Cranium items, Dr. Jennifer Jefferson for helpful discussions, and Dr. Bogdan Kostic for sharing example materials for the mock exam.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: KLG was supported by a St. Edward’s University Summer Presidential Excellence Grant for her work on this project.

Notes

References

Abramson

C. I.

Burke-Bergmann

A. L.

Nolf

S. L.

Swift

(2009). Use of board games, historical calendars, and trading cards in a history of psychology class. Psychological Reports, 104, 529–544. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.104.2.529-544

Ackil

J. E.

(1986). PhysioPursuit: A trivia-type game for the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 91–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1302_13

Boyle

E. A.

Hainey

Connolly

T. M.

Gray

Earp

Ott

Lim

Ninaus

Ribeiro

Pereira

(2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003

Boyle

E. A.

MacArthur

E. W.

Connolly

T. M.

Hainey

Manea

Kärki

van Rosmalen

(2014). A narrative literature review of games, animations and simulations to teach research methods and statistics. Computers & Education, 74, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.004

Bramesfeld

K. D.

Good

(2016). C’est La Vie! The Game of Social Life: Using an intersectionality approach to teach about privilege and structural inequality. Teaching of Psychology, 43, 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316662758

Burkley

(2009). Mythbusters: A tool for teaching research methods in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739586

Eastwick

P. W.

Buck

A. A.

(2014). Too much matching: A social relations model enhancement of the pairing game. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314537980

Eaton

Uskul

A. K.

(2004). Using The Simpsons to teach social psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 277–278.

Engelkamp

Jahn

. (2003). Lexical, conceptual and motor information in memory for action phrases: A multi-system account. Acta Psychologica, 113, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(03)00030-1

10.

Gibson

(1991). Research methods jeopardy: A tool for involving students and organizing the study session. Teaching of Psychology, 18, 176–177. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1803_13

11.

Hard

B. M.

Lovett

J. M.

Brady

S. T.

(2019). What do students remember about introductory psychology, years later? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000136

12.

Keutzer

C. S.

(1993). Jeopardy© in abnormal psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 45–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_11

13.

Kostic

Groomes

D. R.

Yadon

C. A.

(2015). Game shows as review activities: The impact on course evaluations and student perceptions. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1, 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000039

14.

Merwin

M. M.

(2003). Forbidden words: A strategy for studying psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 242–244.

15.

Middlecamp

M. K.

(2003). Uncover the disorder: A review activity for abnormal psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 62–63.

16.

Neef

N. A.

Cihon

Kettering

Guld

A. B.

Axe

Itoi

DeBar

. (2007). A comparison of study session formats on attendance and quiz performance in a college course. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-006-9037-3

17.

Paul

S. T.

Hollis

A. M.

Messina

J. A.

(2006). A technology classroom review tool for general psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 276–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3304_8

18.

Pekrun

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12

19.

Plass

J. L.

Homer

B. D.

Kinzer

C. K.

(2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50, 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533

20.

Robison

F. F.

(2014). It’s a game! Evaluation of a classroom game to enhance learning in an introductory counseling course. Comprehensive Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.2466/07.08.IT.3.10

21.

Roediger

H. L.

Karpicke

J. D.

(2016). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

22.

Scarlet

Ampolos

(2013). Using game-based learning to teach psychopharmacology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 12, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2013.12.1.64

23.

Schwartz

B. L.

Son

L. K.

Kornell

Finn

(2011). Four principles of memory improvement: A guide to improving learning efficiency. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21, 7–15.

24.

Sera

Wheeler

(2017). Game on: The gamification of the pharmacy classroom. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 9, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.046

25.

Stansbury

J. A.

(2017). Virtual learning environments in social psychology: Using The SIMs3 to teach self-related processes. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317692615

26.

Stansbury

J. A.

Munro

G. D.

(2013). Gaming in the classroom: An innovative way to teach factorial designs. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312475037

27.

Vanags

George

A. M.

Grace

D. M.

Brown

P. M.

(2012). Bingo! An engaging activity for learning physiological terms in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311430639

28.

VanderStoep

S. W.

Fagerlin

Feenstra

J. S.

(2000). What do students remember from introductory psychology? Teaching of Psychology, 27, 89–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2702_02

29.

Villavicencio

F. T.

Bernardo

A. B. I.

(2013). Positive academic emotions moderate the relationship between self-regulation and academic achievement. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02064.x