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.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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?

7. 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)

8. Round 1 – Unit Review
 Comparison of groups on Second Test
 F(2, 135) = 0.113; p = .89
Siko, Barbour, & Toker (2011)

9. Question Analysis – Round 1
 First Unit Test
85.8% inter-rater reliability
Siko (accepted – 2012)

10. Question Analysis – Round 1
 Second Unit Test
96.4% inter-rater reliability
Siko (accepted – 2012)

11. Question Analysis – Round 1
 Percentage of total questions for a game
rated as “Knowledge” level
 t(28) = 1.60; p = .12
Siko (accepted – 2012)

12. 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)

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. Round 2 – Results
 Comparison of groups on Second Test
 F(2,143) = 4.29, p = .016
Siko & Barbour (under review)

16. 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)

17. Round 3 – Results

18. Round 3 – Results
 Microthemes: t(103) = 0.93 ; p = .35
 Question Writing: t(106) = 0.51 ; p = .61

19. 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.

20. 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

21. Questions?

22. 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