Upload
sikojp
View
65
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
AECT2012 presentation: Siko, J.P., & Barbour, M.K. (2012, November). Design-based research on the use of homemade PowerPoint games. Presentation at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Convention, Louisville, KY.
Citation preview
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
Michael K. Barbour, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Instructional
Technology/Education, Evaluation, and Research Wayne State University, Detroit, MI