Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education.

on

  • 600 views

Siko, J. P. (2011, May). Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education. Presentation at the Canadian Network of Innovation in Education Conference, Hamilton, ON.

Siko, J. P. (2011, May). Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education. Presentation at the Canadian Network of Innovation in Education Conference, Hamilton, ON.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
600
Views on SlideShare
600
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education. Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education. Presentation Transcript

    • Using PowerPoint as a GameDesign Tool for Science Education Jason Siko Wayne State University
    • Homemade PowerPoint Game  Student-generated game using MS PowerPoint  Can be self-contained within .ppt file or have a printable game board and piecesTemplate can be found at: http://it.coe.uga.edu/wwild/pptgames/
    • Justifications for use Constructionism  Learning by building  Creation of meaningful artifact Microtheme narratives  Concise narratives focus thoughts and ideas Question-writing  Process of writing questions, determining answer, & creating plausible alternatives forces students to analyze and synthesize content  With practice, students write higher-order questions
    • Prior Research Parker (2004)  Middle school grammar – showed pre/post gains, but not as much as control Barbour et al. (2007)  U.S. History – NSD Clesson, Adams, & Barbour (2007)  British Literature – NSD Barbour et al. (2009)  Analysis of questions from Barbour et al (2007) study  ~93% of questions “Knowledge”-level
    • Methodology – Siko, Barbour, & Toker (inpress)In this study we set out to answer the following research questions: Do students reviewing for a chemistry test by generating homemade PowerPoint games perform better on multiple- choice tests than students who use a traditional worksheet review guide? Do students who have used this technique more than once perform better than those who have never constructed homemade PowerPoint games or have only constructed games once?For these two research questions, we developed the following hypotheses: Ho: No difference in student performance H1: A positive difference in student performance
    • Methodology Two 50-question unit tests t-test between control and treatment groups ANOVA to compare performance of students who made games for both units, one unit, or not at all
    • Setting Large Midwestern suburban high school Environmental Chemistry course (ACS ChemCom curriculum)  Elective science to meet state requirements Trimester system 3 Teachers
    • SettingTable 1Distribution of Control and Treatment Groups Among Teachers A-C Unit 1 Unit 2Trimester Control Treatment Control Treatment1st A – 2 sections (n = 37) B – 2 sections (n = 44) C – 1 section (n = 20)2nd A – 3 sections B – 2 sections (n = 62) (n = 37)3rd B – 2 sections A – 4 sections (n = 32) (n = 69)
    • Results Do students reviewing for a chemistry test by generating homemade PowerPoint games perform better on multiple-choice tests than students who use a traditional worksheet review guide?
    • Results First Unit Test: (t = 3.069, p = 0.087)
    • Results Second Unit Test: (t = -2.114, p < 0.05)
    • Results Do students who have used this technique more than once perform better than those who have never constructed homemade PowerPoint games or have only constructed games once?
    • Results Results of ANOVA (F = 2.286, p = 0.106)
    • Discussion First statistically significant result with homemade PowerPoint games Largest sample size to date More higher-order questions  Barbour et al. (2009) – 94% Knowledge-level  Siko (in progress) – 63% Knowledge-level
    • Second Iteration Ongoing throughout 2010-2011  Same course and content  Two vs. Three teachers  Same instrument  Same research questions  Plus 1 more…
    • Alterations to protocol No longer a review; throughout unit  Revisions; increased completion  Siko et al. (in press) Fewer days in the computer lab  Fatigue and distractions  Siko et al.; Kafai & Ching (2001)
    • Alterations to protocol More structure  Due dates for drafts  Minimum number of higher-order questions (~10/5/5)  Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006); Mayer (2004) Drafts and Revisions  More time to complete, revise, provide feedback  Lotherington & Ronda (2010)
    • Second Iteration - Results so far First Unit – not as structured  Same results (Control slightly better, NSD) Examined other factors that might influence performance  Quasi-experimental design (placement into control or treatment group)  Prior performance in math and science influence chemistry performance  Tai et al. (2006); Barthel (2001); Andrews & Andrews (1979)
    • Second Iteration - Results so far Multiple Regression examining factors predicting score on instrument  Overall GPA, Algebra GPA, Biology GPA, prior test performance in class  Performance on prior tests only statistically significant predictors Second Unit – more structure  In progress
    • Implications For practitioners:  More time than traditional review  Boundaries on file size, narratives  Spend more time on questions; less in lab Further research:  Continued analysis of questions  Project grade vs. Test grade  Motivational tool (compare low performers)  Test other justifications
    • Questions?
    • Contact Information Jason Siko – sikojp@gmail.com Michael Barbour – mkbarbour@gmail.com