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.
Using PowerPoint as a game design tool in science education.
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