research results for mecanika, a game to learn newtonian concepts, by francois boucher-genesse
TRANSCRIPT
MecanikaDevelopment post-mortem and research results for Mecanika, a
game to learn Newtonian concepts
The state of science education
• OECD (2008)
– Students in physics and mathematics
– Change how we teach physics
• More attractive
• Focus on conceptions
• Force Concept Inventory
Direct instruction
G3. Heavier objects fall faster
Mecanika
I5. Circular impetus
CI3. Last force to act determines motion
CI2. Force compromise determines motion
Methodology
FCI pretest
FCI posttest
Control group
Experimental group
Results (Paired samples t-test)
+1.9%• Effect size: d = 0.19
• N = 82
• p = 0.08
+9.2%• Effect size: d = 0.95
• N = 51
• p < 0.001
What this means
• Gain obtained in a short period
• No training required
• The game + debriefing + guides are the only factor
• Is this only due to playing Mecanika?
Played 10/50 levels
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Kinematics 1st Law 2nd Law 3rd Law Forces -Gravitation
Forces -Contact
Dif
fere
nce
in g
ain
(ex
p-c
trl)
Played 20/50 levels
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Kinematics 1st Law 2nd Law 3rd Law Forces -Gravitation
Forces -Contact
Dif
fere
nce
in g
ain
(ex
p-c
trl)
Played 30/50 levels
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Kinematics 1st Law 2nd Law 3rd Law Forces -Gravitation
Forces -Contact
Dif
fere
nce
in g
ain
(ex
p-c
trl)
Played 40/50 levels
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Kinematics 1st Law 2nd Law 3rd Law Forces -Gravitation
Forces -Contact
Dif
fere
nce
in g
ain
(ex
p-c
trl)
What this means
• Focused impact
• Does not replace teachers
• Does the learning happens when playing, or outside of the game?
FCI post-posttest
Methodology
FCI pretest
FCI posttest
Classroom integration
+9.2%
+7.3%
• What this could mean– Teachers are changing
– Debriefings done poorly
– Game works by itself
The future
• Available now for free (French/English)
www.gameforscience.ca/physica
• Research projects
• Mecanika 2?
Force Concept Inventory
• Multiple choice questionnaire
• No mathematics
• Validated tool
• Allows comparison
Previous work
• White (1984)
• SpaceFart:Potvin et al. (2010)
• Surge: Clark et al. (2011)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
gain
(%
)
Control
Experimental
Compared to other experiments
• Compare difference in gain %
• Modeling Instruction Project
– “an intensive 3-week Modeling Workshop that immerses them in modeling pedagogy and acquaints them with curriculum materials designed expressly to support it.”
– Modelers: N = 3394, 66 teachers
• Gain difference: 10% VS 7.4%
Detailed FCI items
• Game design didn’t focus on all misconceptions
• Expected items– From 42% to 96%
after playing the game
• Other items we didn’t expect to improve
Postmortem
• Assess learning potential earlier
• Manipulate multiple force types
Additional findings
• Retention after 1 month: no significant decrease
• Boys thought the game was more fun, and the guides were more useful than girls (p < 0.01)
• No significant difference between genders on gain
Limitations
• Number of players
– Play mandatory, but not reinforced
– Technical problems
• Number of teachers
– 8 classrooms, but only 2 teachers
– Teachers were recruited by interest