Design-Based Research on the Use of Homemade PowerPoint Games

Jason P. Siko, Ph.D.

Grand Valley State University

Michael K. Barbour, Ph.D.

Wayne State University

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

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

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

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

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?

Round 1 – Unit Review

First Unit Test: t(161) = 1.14; p =.26

Second Unit Test: t(136) = .016; p =.99

Siko, Barbour, & Toker (2011)

Round 1 – Unit Review

Comparison of groups on Second Test F(2, 135) = 0.113; p = .89

Siko, Barbour, & Toker (2011)

Question Analysis – Round 1

First Unit Test

85.8% inter-rater reliability

Siko (accepted – 2012)

Question Analysis – Round 1

Second Unit Test

96.4% inter-rater reliability

Siko (accepted – 2012)

Question Analysis – Round 1

Percentage of total questions for a game rated as “Knowledge” level t(28) = 1.60; p = .12

Siko (accepted – 2012)

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)

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)

Round 2 – Results

First Unit Test: t(137) = 2.306; p = .023

Second Unit Test: t(142) = 2.936, p = .004

Siko & Barbour (under review)

Round 2 – Results

Comparison of groups on Second Test F(2,143) = 4.29, p = .016

Siko & Barbour (under review)

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)

Round 3 – Results

Microthemes: t(103) = 0.93 ; p = .35

Question Writing: t(106) = 0.51 ; p = .61

Round 3 – Results

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.

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

Questions?

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