Successfully reported this slideshow.
Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Development Post-mortem and Research Results for Mecanika

446 views

Published on

G4LI Games for Learning Day at G4C 2011

Published in: Education, Technology
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

### Development Post-mortem and Research Results for Mecanika

1. 1. Mecanika<br />Development post-mortem and research results for Mecanika, a game to learn Newtonian concepts<br />
2. 2. The state of science education<br />OECD (2008)<br />Students in physics and mathematics<br />Change how we teach physics<br />More attractive<br />Focus on conceptions<br />Force Concept Inventory<br />
3. 3. Direct instruction<br />
4. 4. G3. Heavier objects fall faster<br />Mecanika<br />I5. Circular impetus<br />CI2. Force compromise determines motion<br />CI3. Last force to act determines motion<br />
5. 5. Methodology<br />Control group<br />Experimental group<br />FCI pretest<br />FCI posttest<br />
6. 6. Results (Paired samples t-test)<br />+1.9%<br />Effect size: d = 0.19<br />N = 82<br />p = 0.08<br />+9.2%<br /><ul><li>Effect size: d = 0.95
7. 7. N = 51
8. 8. p < 0.001</li></li></ul><li>What this means<br />Gain obtained in a short period<br />No training required<br />The game + debriefing + guides are the only factor<br />Is this only due to playing Mecanika?<br />
9. 9. Played 10/50 levels<br />
10. 10. Played 20/50 levels<br />
11. 11. Played 30/50 levels<br />
12. 12. Played 40/50 levels<br />
13. 13. What this means<br />Focused impact<br />Does not replace teachers<br />Does the learning happens when playing, or outside of the game?<br />
14. 14. Methodology<br />FCI posttest<br />FCI pretest<br />FCI post- posttest<br />
15. 15. Classroom integration<br />+9.2%<br /> +7.3%<br />What this could mean<br />Teachers are changing<br />Debriefings done poorly<br />Game works by itself<br />
16. 16. The future<br />Available now for free (French/English)<br />www.gameforscience.ca/physica<br />Research projects<br />Mecanika 2?<br />
17. 17. ?<br />francoisbg@gmail.com<br />
18. 18. Force Concept Inventory<br />Multiple choice questionnaire<br />No mathematics<br />Validated tool<br />Allows comparison<br />
19. 19. Previous work<br />White (1984)<br />SpaceFart: Potvin et al. (2010)<br />Surge: Clark et al. (2011)<br />
20. 20. Compared to other experiments<br />Compare difference in gain %<br />Modeling Instruction Project<br />“an intensive 3-week Modeling Workshop that immerses them in modeling pedagogy and acquaints them with curriculum materials designed expressly to support it.”<br />Modelers: N = 3394, 66 teachers<br />Gain difference: 10% VS 7.4%<br />
21. 21. Detailed FCI items<br />Game design didn’t focus on all misconceptions<br />Expected items<br />From 42% to 96% after playing the game<br />Other items we didn’t expect to improve<br />
22. 22. Postmortem<br />Assess learning potential earlier<br />Manipulate multiple force types<br />
23. 23. Additional findings<br />Retention after 1 month: no significant decrease<br />Boys thought the game was more fun, and the guides were more useful than girls (p < 0.01)<br />No significant difference between genders on gain<br />
24. 24. Limitations<br />Number of players<br />Play mandatory, but not reinforced<br />Technical problems<br />Number of teachers<br />8 classrooms, but only 2 teachers<br />Teachers were recruited by interest<br />