Using PowerPoint as a Game Design 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 pieces

Template 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 (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

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 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(n = 62)

B – 2 sections(n = 37)

3rd B – 2 sections(n = 32)

A – 4 sections(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