22
Using PowerPoint as a Game Design Tool for Science Education Jason Siko Wayne State University
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?
