This document discusses using PowerPoint games as an educational tool for science learning. It describes how students can create self-contained PowerPoint games to review course content. Prior research on using games had mixed results, with some studies finding no significant differences in student performance compared to traditional reviews. The document outlines a study that found students who reviewed with a homemade PowerPoint game performed better on a chemistry test than those using a worksheet. It also discusses implications and areas for further research.

1. Using PowerPoint as a Game
Design Tool for Science Education
Jason Siko
Wayne State University

2. Homemade PowerPoint Game
 Student-generated game using MS
PowerPoint
 Can be self-contained within .ppt file or have
a printable game board and pieces
Template can be found at: http://it.coe.uga.edu/wwild/pptgames/

3. 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

4. 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

5. Methodology – Siko, Barbour, & Toker (in
press)
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

6. 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

7. Setting
 Large Midwestern suburban high school
 Environmental Chemistry course (ACS
ChemCom curriculum)
 Elective science to meet state requirements
 Trimester system
 3 Teachers

8. Setting
Table 1
Distribution of Control and Treatment Groups Among Teachers A-C
Unit 1 Unit 2
Trimester Control Treatment Control Treatment
1st 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)

9. 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?

10. Results
 First Unit Test: (t = 3.069, p = 0.087)

11. Results
 Second Unit Test: (t = -2.114, p < 0.05)

12. 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?

13. Results
 Results of ANOVA (F = 2.286, p = 0.106)

14. 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

15. Second Iteration
 Ongoing throughout 2010-2011
 Same course and content
 Two vs. Three teachers
 Same instrument
 Same research questions
 Plus 1 more…

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. Questions?

22. Contact Information
 Jason Siko – sikojp@gmail.com
 Michael Barbour – mkbarbour@gmail.com