Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education.
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