Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building a Better Mousetrap: How Design-Based Research was Used to Improve Homemade PowerPoint Games

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is a review of a three-cycle, design-based research study that explored the relationship between the pedagogical research and the actual implementation of a game design project using Microsoft PowerPoint. Much of the initial literature on using homemade PowerPoint games showed no significant improvement in test scores when students created these low-tech games, despite the fact that the game project was grounded in sound pedagogical strategies. After each iteration changes were made to better reflect the recommendations from the literature, and at the end of the study, students creating games were performing statistically higher on tests than their counterparts who did not create games. Limitations of the study are discussed, as well as ideas for future research in the area of student-generated games as an instructional approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Chemical Society. (2008). Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom): Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=557&content_id=CTP_005518&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid.

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. K., Rieber, L. P., Thomas, G. B., & Rauscher, D. (2009). Homemade PowerPoint games: a constructionist alternative to WebQuests. TechTrends, 53(5), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. K., Thomas, G., Rauscher, D., & Rieber, L. (2010). Homemade PowerPoint games. In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Playing games in schools (pp. 333–347). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. K., Clesson, K., & Adams, M. (2011a). Game design as an educational pedagogy. Illinois English Bulletin, 98(3), 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. K., Kinsella, J., & Rieber, L. (2011b). Secondary students, laptops and game design: Examining the potential of homemade PowerPoint games in a blended learning environment. Georgia Social Studies Journal, 1(2), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. A. J. (2000). Do microthemes improve student learning of biology. Paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association National Convention, Orlando, FL.

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, E. R., & Games, I. A. (2008). Making computer games and design thinking. Games and Culture, 3(3–4), 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., Franke, M. L., Shih, J. C., & Ching, C. C. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., Peppler, K. A., & Chiu, G. M. (2007). High tech programmers in low-income communities: Creating a computer culture in a community technology center. In C. Steinfield, B. T. Pentland, M. Ackerman, & N. Contractor (Eds.), Communities and technologies 2007 (pp. 545–563). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of video games in the classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalili, N., Sheridan, K., Williams, A., Clark, K., & Stegman, M. (2011). Students designing video games about immunology: insights for science learning. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotherington, H., & Ronda, N. S. (2010). Gaming geography: Educational games and literacy development in the Grade 4 classroom. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(3).

  • Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Portland, OR.

  • Newby, P. (2010). Research methods for education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. S. (2004). Evaluating the impact of project based learning by using student created PowerPoint games in the seventh grade language arts classroom. Instructional Technology Monographs, 1. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/itm/archives/fall2004/JPARKER.HTM.

  • Prensky, M. (2010). Educating the millennial generation. In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Playing games in school (pp. 7–32). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: a socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A., Poling, N., Frey, C., & Johnson, M. (2014). A synthesis on digital games in education: what the research literature says from 2000 to 2010. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(2), 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: opportunities for successful learning. Computers and Education, 50(2), 559–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodger, S. H., Bashford, M., Dyck, L., Hayes, J., Liang, L., Nelson, D., Qin, H. (2010). Enhancing K-12 education with alice programming adventures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey.

  • Sheridan, K., Clark, K. C., Peters, E. (2009). How scientific inquiry emerges from game design. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009, Charleston, SC, USA. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/30835.

  • Siko, J. P. (2013). Is it the intervention or just the students themselves? The influence of a game design project on student performance. EdTechnology Ideas, 1(2). Retrieved from http://edtechnologyideas.com/education-technology-journal-issue-2/

  • Siko, J.P., & Barbour, M.K. (2013). Game design and homemade PowerPoint games: an examination of the justifications and a review of the research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22(1), 335–362.

  • Siko, J. P., & Barbour, M. K. (2014). Design research using game design as an instructional strategy. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(3), 427–448.

  • Siko, J. P., & Barbour, M. K. (2015). The sum is greater than the parts: deconstructing homemade PowerPoint games. Computers in the Schools, 32(3/4), 167–182.

  • Siko, J., Barbour, M. K., & Toker, S. (2011). Beyond Jeopardy and lectures: using Microsoft Power Point as a game tool to teach science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(3), 303–320.

  • Simkin, M. G., & Kuechler, W. L. (2005). Multiple-choice tests and student understanding: what is the connection? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3, 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T., Myers, A., & Culley, M. (2010). Enhanced learning and retention through “Writing to Learn” in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 37(1), 46–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, A., Yang, S. J., Hwang, W. Y., Huang, C. S., & Tern, M. Y. (2014). Investigating the role of computer-supported annotation in problem-solving-based teaching: an empirical study of a Scratch programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 647–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: a review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, F. Y., & Pan, K. J. (2014). The effects of student question-generation with online prompts on learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 17(3), 267–279.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA

    Jason P. Siko

  2. Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA

    Michael K. Barbour

Authors
  1. Jason P. Siko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael K. Barbour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael K. Barbour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siko, J.P., Barbour, M.K. Building a Better Mousetrap: How Design-Based Research was Used to Improve Homemade PowerPoint Games. TechTrends 60, 419–424 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0092-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0092-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation