Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AECT 2012 - Design-Based Research on the Use of Homemade PowerPoint Games

540 views

Published on

Siko, J. P., & Barbour, M. K. (2012, November). Design-based research on the use of homemade PowerPoint games. A paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Louisville, KY.

The results of a three-year design-based research study involving the use of game design as an instructional strategy will be discussed. Students created games in an environmental chemistry class using MS PowerPoint as their design platform as a low-tech alternative to learning a programming language. In addition to examining the effects of game design as an instructional strategy, the individual justifications for using homemade PowerPoint games, microthemes and question-writing, were also examined in isolation.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AECT 2012 - Design-Based Research on the Use of Homemade PowerPoint Games

  1. 1. Design-Based Research on the Useof Homemade PowerPoint Games Jason P. Siko, Ph.D. Grand Valley State University Michael K. Barbour, Ph.D. Wayne State University
  2. 2. Homemade PowerPoint Games Student-generated game using MS PowerPoint Can be self-contained within .ppt file or have a printable game board and pieces Download at http://tinyurl.com/ugappt
  3. 3. Justifications for use Constructionism  Learning by building  Creation of meaningful artifact Microtheme narratives/WAC  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
  4. 4. But… 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  ~94% of questions “Knowledge”-level
  5. 5. The Study Design research Three iterations (2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12) Environmental Chemistry course (ACS ChemCom curriculum)  Elective science to meet state requirements Trimester system
  6. 6. 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?
  7. 7. Round 1 – Unit Review First Unit Test: t(161) = 1.14; p =.26 Second Unit Test: t(136) = .016; p =.99Siko, Barbour, & Toker (2011)
  8. 8. Round 1 – Unit Review Comparison of groups on Second Test  F(2, 135) = 0.113; p = .89Siko, Barbour, & Toker (2011)
  9. 9. Question Analysis – Round 1 First Unit Test 85.8% inter-rater reliabilitySiko (accepted – 2012)
  10. 10. Question Analysis – Round 1 Second Unit Test96.4% inter-rater reliabilitySiko (accepted – 2012)
  11. 11. Question Analysis – Round 1 Percentage of total questions for a game rated as “Knowledge” level  t(28) = 1.60; p = .12Siko (accepted – 2012)
  12. 12. Round 2 – Unstructured Unit Project Alterations to protocol – first unit test  No longer a review; throughout unit  More time to work; increased completion  Siko et al. (2011)  Fewer days in the computer lab  Fatigue and distractions  Siko et al. (2011); Kafai & Ching (2001)Siko & Barbour (under review)
  13. 13. Round 2 – Structured Unit Project Alterations to protocol – second unit test  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)Siko & Barbour (under review)
  14. 14. Round 2 – Results First Unit Test: t(137) = 2.306; p = .023 Second Unit Test: t(142) = 2.936, p = .004Siko & Barbour (under review)
  15. 15. Round 2 – Results Comparison of groups on Second Test  F(2,143) = 4.29, p = .016Siko & Barbour (under review)
  16. 16. Round 3 – Linking Narrative to Content Exogenous vs. Endogenous Narrative  “Save the princess” / Drill-and-practice  Authentic science practices More instruction on question writing and tying questions to narrative Testing individual justifications (narratives, question writing)Siko & Barbour (under review)
  17. 17. Round 3 – Results
  18. 18. Round 3 – Results Microthemes: t(103) = 0.93 ; p = .35 Question Writing: t(106) = 0.51 ; p = .61
  19. 19. Implications Design Principles:  the project must last throughout the entire unit and not only as a review tool;  provide time for instruction on question writing skills;  allow time for revision, editing, and teacher feedback on narratives and questions;  if it can be done outside of the computer lab, do it outside of the computer lab;  create conditions where students are encouraged to integrate the narrative into the game as much as possible (i.e., avoid “save the princess” and drill-and-practice games); and  give students the objectives as early as possible.
  20. 20. Future Research with Game Design Continue with Question Analysis Different design environments (~languages) Other uses (Drill, Quiz…remove game element) More qualitative research  Perceptions of students  Perceptions of teachers  Level of integration between narrative and questions
  21. 21. Questions?
  22. 22. Contact Information Jason P. Siko, Ph.D.  Assistant Professor of Educational Technology  Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI  sikojp@gmail.com Michael K. Barbour, Ph.D.  Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology/Education, Evaluation, and Research  Wayne State University, Detroit, MI  mkbarbour@gmail.com

×