Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Mecanika<br />Development post-mortem and research results for Mecanika, a game to learn Newtonian concepts<br />
The state of science education<br />OECD (2008)<br />Students in physics and mathematics<br />Change how we teach physics<...
Direct instruction<br />
G3. Heavier objects fall faster<br />Mecanika<br />I5. Circular impetus<br />CI2. Force compromise determines motion<br />...
Methodology<br />Control group<br />Experimental group<br />FCI pretest<br />FCI posttest<br />
Results (Paired samples t-test)<br />+1.9%<br />Effect size: d = 0.19<br />N = 82<br />p = 0.08<br />+9.2%<br /><ul><li>Ef...
N = 51
p < 0.001</li></li></ul><li>What this means<br />Gain obtained in a short period<br />No training required<br />The game +...
Played 10/50 levels<br />
Played 20/50 levels<br />
Played 30/50 levels<br />
Played 40/50 levels<br />
What this means<br />Focused impact<br />Does not replace teachers<br />Does the learning happens when playing, or outside...
Methodology<br />FCI posttest<br />FCI pretest<br />FCI post- posttest<br />
Classroom integration<br />+9.2%<br />				+7.3%<br />What this could mean<br />Teachers are changing<br />Debriefings done...
The future<br />Available now for free (French/English)<br />www.gameforscience.ca/physica<br />Research projects<br />Mec...
?<br />francoisbg@gmail.com<br />
Force Concept Inventory<br />Multiple choice questionnaire<br />No mathematics<br />Validated tool<br />Allows comparison<...
Previous work<br />White (1984)<br />SpaceFart: Potvin et al. (2010)<br />Surge: Clark et al. (2011)<br />
Compared to other experiments<br />Compare difference in gain %<br />Modeling Instruction Project<br />“an intensive 3-wee...
Detailed FCI items<br />Game design didn’t focus on all misconceptions<br />Expected items<br />From 42% to 96% after play...
Postmortem<br />Assess learning potential earlier<br />Manipulate multiple force types<br />
Additional findings<br />Retention after 1 month: no significant decrease<br />Boys thought the game was more fun, and the...
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Research results for Mecanika, a game to learn Newtonian concepts, by Francois Boucher-Genesse

534 vues

Publié le

A large body of research in mechanics indicates that interactive engagement teaching methods usually have higher chances of influencing students’ conceptions than direct instruction. A few researchers specifically studied the impact of video games on Newtonian Physics instruction through empirical means, with some limited success. Mecanika is a free online game that sets itself apart from previous work by simply offering puzzling physics situations, without attempting to explain the theory in the game. Students who used the game as homework, facilitated with classroom debriefings and guidebooks, wielded significantly higher gain than a control group on the standard Force Concept Inventory test. Students who only played as homework registered a similar gain, even though Mecanika was never mentioned the classroom. This gain was unexpected, since the game does not make any physics concept explicit, and was designed to be integrated in a classroom setting.
Mecanika trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yCTHV9Qv44
The game: www.gameforscience.ca/physica

Publié dans : Formation, Technologie
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Research results for Mecanika, a game to learn Newtonian concepts, by Francois Boucher-Genesse

  1. 1. Mecanika<br />Development post-mortem and research results for Mecanika, a game to learn Newtonian concepts<br />
  2. 2. The state of science education<br />OECD (2008)<br />Students in physics and mathematics<br />Change how we teach physics<br />More attractive<br />Focus on conceptions<br />Force Concept Inventory<br />
  3. 3. Direct instruction<br />
  4. 4. G3. Heavier objects fall faster<br />Mecanika<br />I5. Circular impetus<br />CI2. Force compromise determines motion<br />CI3. Last force to act determines motion<br />
  5. 5. Methodology<br />Control group<br />Experimental group<br />FCI pretest<br />FCI posttest<br />
  6. 6. Results (Paired samples t-test)<br />+1.9%<br />Effect size: d = 0.19<br />N = 82<br />p = 0.08<br />+9.2%<br /><ul><li>Effect size: d = 0.95
  7. 7. N = 51
  8. 8. p < 0.001</li></li></ul><li>What this means<br />Gain obtained in a short period<br />No training required<br />The game + debriefing + guides are the only factor<br />Is this only due to playing Mecanika?<br />
  9. 9. Played 10/50 levels<br />
  10. 10. Played 20/50 levels<br />
  11. 11. Played 30/50 levels<br />
  12. 12. Played 40/50 levels<br />
  13. 13. What this means<br />Focused impact<br />Does not replace teachers<br />Does the learning happens when playing, or outside of the game?<br />
  14. 14. Methodology<br />FCI posttest<br />FCI pretest<br />FCI post- posttest<br />
  15. 15. Classroom integration<br />+9.2%<br /> +7.3%<br />What this could mean<br />Teachers are changing<br />Debriefings done poorly<br />Game works by itself<br />
  16. 16. The future<br />Available now for free (French/English)<br />www.gameforscience.ca/physica<br />Research projects<br />Mecanika 2?<br />
  17. 17. ?<br />francoisbg@gmail.com<br />
  18. 18. Force Concept Inventory<br />Multiple choice questionnaire<br />No mathematics<br />Validated tool<br />Allows comparison<br />
  19. 19. Previous work<br />White (1984)<br />SpaceFart: Potvin et al. (2010)<br />Surge: Clark et al. (2011)<br />
  20. 20. Compared to other experiments<br />Compare difference in gain %<br />Modeling Instruction Project<br />“an intensive 3-week Modeling Workshop that immerses them in modeling pedagogy and acquaints them with curriculum materials designed expressly to support it.”<br />Modelers: N = 3394, 66 teachers<br />Gain difference: 10% VS 7.4%<br />
  21. 21. Detailed FCI items<br />Game design didn’t focus on all misconceptions<br />Expected items<br />From 42% to 96% after playing the game<br />Other items we didn’t expect to improve<br />
  22. 22. Postmortem<br />Assess learning potential earlier<br />Manipulate multiple force types<br />
  23. 23. Additional findings<br />Retention after 1 month: no significant decrease<br />Boys thought the game was more fun, and the guides were more useful than girls (p < 0.01)<br />No significant difference between genders on gain<br />
  24. 24. Limitations<br />Number of players<br />Play mandatory, but not reinforced<br />Technical problems<br />Number of teachers<br />8 classrooms, but only 2 teachers<br />Teachers were recruited by interest<br />

×