, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 419–424 | Cite as

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

Original Paper


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.


Gaming Homemade PowerPoint games Design research Design-based research 


  1. American Chemical Society. (2008). Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom): Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from
  2. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Barbour, M. K., Clesson, K., & Adams, M. (2011a). Game design as an educational pedagogy. Illinois English Bulletin, 98(3), 7–28.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, M. A. J. (2000). Do microthemes improve student learning of biology. Paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association National Convention, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  10. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes, E. R., & Games, I. A. (2008). Making computer games and design thinking. Games and Culture, 3(3–4), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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).Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Newby, P. (2010). Research methods for education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: opportunities for successful learning. Computers and Education, 50(2), 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wong, B. Y. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: a review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grand Valley State UniversityAllendaleUSA
  2. 2.Sacred Heart UniversityFairfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations