Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Benefits of a Game-Based Review Module in Chemistry Courses for Nonmajors Thomas W. Stringfield* and Eugene F. Kramer Department of Chemistry, Blue Ash College, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45236, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Review sessions provide an opportunity for students to reflect on the material they have learned. Game shows can grab the students’ interest and make them invested in the outcomes of their learning. A module developed around game show review was studied in chemistry courses for nonmajors to determine whether benefits could be found in students’ performance, interest in chemistry, and study habits. The module expands on the game-show format in a manner that allows students to write questions, determine solutions, and study review sheets in the days prior to the gameshow review session. The results of this study indicate that the game-based review module has a positive effect on final exam performance, study habits, and student interest in chemistry.
KEYWORDS: General Public, High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Humor/Puzzles/Games
■
would improve student final exam scores, study habits for the final exam, and increase student interest in chemistry.
INTRODUCTION Active learning, through which students become active participants in the learning process, is an important means for the development of student skills. It also encourages the exploration of their own attitudes and values.1 The basic elements of active learning are talking and listening as well as writing and reflecting. These four elements involve cognitive activities that allow students to clarify, question, consolidate, and appropriate new knowledge.2 Games and simulations in particular provide a complex and diverse approach to the learning process and outcomes. They allow for peer feedback in collaborative learning, address affective learning issues, and foster active learning.3 In the literature, several qualitative works report on using games as reinforcement and review activities in the chemistry classroom. These include games such as Jeopardy,4−6 Bingo,7 Concentration,8 Taboo,9 and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,10 among others. The anecdotal evidence presented in the literature indicates an increase in student performance and interest in chemistry. This article presents results from a recent study comparing the use of a game-based review module based on the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire game format11 versus traditional lecture review, which includes both qualitative and quantitative data. In the literature, the games presented have been self-contained, onetime review events; however, in this study, the game review module consists of a series of activities taking place over approximately two weeks of class and culminating in the gameshow review session. For this study, approved by the University of Cincinnati Institutional Review Board, our aim was to determine whether the use of game-based review modules © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
In this study, data were collected from eight sections of a firstterm general organic biochemistry (GOB) course taught by the same instructor at UC Blue Ash College (formerly Raymond Walters College) over the span of two academic years (N = 120). Each section had between 12 and 24 students. This course was designed primarily for allied health and nursing students. Four sections were randomly designated as the “control group” with only traditional lecture and question and answer review methods offered for the final examination; the other four sections (the “intervention group”) experienced a game-based review module as the primary method for preparation for the final exam, with no traditional question and answer review. The same cumulative final examination (with minor modifications depending on slight differences in material coverage from term to term) was given in all sections. All sections were given an introductory (prereview) questionnaire at the start of the course to determine with what level of chemistry background the students were entering the course and their level of interest in chemistry. At the end of the course, all sections were given a questionnaire that allowed students to reflect on their study habits and the review experience they received. (See the Supporting Information for prereview and postreview questionnaires.) Published: November 21, 2013 56
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300678f | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 56−58
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
For the sections in the intervention group, a series of activities (a review module) was prepared in advance of the actual game review. Approximately 7−10 days before the gameshow review session (game day), students were given the opportunity to submit a list of multiple-choice questions that could be used for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and to provide the correct answers to those questions (see the Supporting Information for the assignment to generate gameshow review questions). To diversify the pool of questions and make the review as comprehensive as possible, the students were directed to write one question from each chapter studied and to check that their question tests at least one of the student learning outcomes (SLOs) posted in the course syllabus. Once the questions were collected, those meeting the suggested guidelines were used to create a “master list” of 60−80 possible game-show questions for game day. The master list (without the answers) was posted to Blackboard (for online distribution to students), usually about 48 h before game day. In the class period before game day, students volunteered to be contestants or consult-a-classmate lifelines for the game show, with the rest of the class serving as audience members (ask the audience). During the game itself, the contestant and the audience members viewed each question via a slide presentation. (The template for this was developed by Mark E. Damon for educational use.11) For the game, students functioning as lifelines and audience members were allowed to use their master lists as “cheat sheets”, but the contestants were not. At the end of the course, students were given a questionnaire to reflect on their experiences in the game review, their study routine for the final exam, and their interest in chemistry. For the control group course sections, students were given a homework assignment to generate a list of questions for the review session that would be answered during the review period. The review format was traditional because submitted questions were answered and the students could also raise their hand to ask questions during the review session. At the end of the course, these students were given a questionnaire to reflect on their experiences in the traditional review, their study routine for the final exam, and their interest in chemistry. The data collected from both groups were analyzed using standard SAS software for statistical analysis. The data were analyzed for descriptive statistics, specifically the mean and standard deviation. Independent-group t-tests were also used to compare the results from the control group versus the intervention group. The data set consisted of scores from students who completed final exam in the course.
Table 1. Comparison of Control and Intervention Groups Student Responses (N = 120), % Dimension for Comparison Attended final review session Mean final exam score (SD) Submitted questions prior to review sessiona (p = 0.086) Studied earlier due to review format Interest in subject before the courseb Interest in subject after the courseb
Intervention Group (n = 65)
Control Group (n = 55)
95 71.0 (18.5) 95
92 66.5 (20.3) 33
49 3.19 3.34
25 3.66 3.43
a
Submitting questions was not required for either group. bA 5-point scale was used, with 5 being the highest possible score.
Regarding course performance, the average of the final exam scores for the 65 students who took the final exam in the game review sections was 71.0%, (SD = 18.5) and the average final exam scores for the 55 students who took the final exam in the control group sections was 66.5% (SD = 20.3). There was a marginally significant difference (t = 1.755; df =43; p = 0.086) between the control group and intervention group. Although the submission of questions was not required for either group, the postreview questionnaires indicated that 95% of intervention students submitted questions for the game-based review, while only 33% of control group students submitted questions in advance for the traditional question and answer review. Written responses on the questionnaires indicated that part of the reason for the low number in the traditional group was because students felt no need to prepare questions in advance when they could simply raise their hand during the review to ask their question. This was not possible for the game-based review. When students in the intervention group were asked whether the review session caused the students to study for the final exam earlier than they otherwise would have, 49.0% agreed, while about 25.5% were neutral, and 25.5% disagreed. This stands in contrast to the control group with the traditional review, in which only 25% of the students agreed that the review spurred earlier studying, approximately 30% were neutral, and approximately 43% disagreed. The creation of a “special event” for the review session in the intervention sections, coupled with the closely guided review module, may have given students more motivation and better means for preparing more thoroughly both for the game and for the final exam, and this resulted in a higher percentage of students stating that they studied earlier in the intervention group. Finally, on the issue of student interest in chemistry, marked differences again emerged between the control sections and the intervention sections. Students were asked to rank their interest in chemistry on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 = very interested, 1 = not at all interested) both at the start of the term and again at the end of the term (Figure 1). The initial average level of interest in the intervention sections was 3.19 (SD = 1.090), considerably lower than the level of initial interest in the control group sections, 3.66 (SD = 0.776). However, by the end of the term, those numbers narrowed significantly. The average level of interest in the game-show intervention sections rose to 3.34 (SD = 1.139), and in the traditional sections it had fallen to 3.43 (SD = 0.974). Even though the absolute level of interest in the game-show review sections still ended up lower than the traditional sections, the trend to higher interest observed in the intervention sections was encouraging.
■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The study was designed to examine whether the method of review had any effect on three main factors: final exam performance, study habits, and interest in chemistry. This, of course, assumed that the students actually participated in the review process. There were 120 students who participated in the study, 65 in the intervention group and 55 in the control group. According to the end-of-course questionnaires, 95% of students in the intervention (game) session attended the review session, while 92% attended the traditional question and answer style review (Table 1). These numbers indicate that there was no significant difference in review attendance, and that most students attended the review regardless of the review type. This is not surprising because both types of review were held during normal class time, so students did not need to make special accommodations in order to attend the review. 57
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300678f | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 56−58
Journal of Chemical Education
■
REFERENCES
(1) Bowen, H. R.; Eison, J. A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom, ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report No. 10; George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development: Washington, DC, 1991. (2) Meyers, C.; Jones, T. B. Promoting Active Learning, Strategies for the College Classroom; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, 1993. (3) Ruben, B. D. Simulations, Games, and Experienced Based Learning: The Quest for a New Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Simul. Gaming 1999, 30, 498−505. (4) Keck, M. A Final Exam Review Activity Based on the Jeopardy Format. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 483. (5) Mabrouk, P. An Exciting Approach to Student Learning in Analytical Chemistry: It’s Jeopardy! Chem. Educ. 1996, 1, 1−8. (6) Deavor, J. Chemical Jeopardy. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 430. (7) Crute, T. Classroom Nomenclature GamesBINGO. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 481. (8) Nowosielski, D. Use of a Concentration Game for Environmental Chemistry Class Review. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 239−240. (9) Capps, K. Chemistry Taboo: An Active Learning Game for the General Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 518. (10) Deavor, J. Who Wants to Be a (Chemical) Millionaire? J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 467. (11) Damon, M. E. PowerPoint Games: Who Wants to be a Millionaire.ppt. http://jc-schools.net/tutorials/Ppt-games/ (accessed Nov 2013).
Figure 1. Student interest in chemistry prereview and postreview.
■
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The use of a game-show review module in four sections of firstterm general organic biochemistry for nonmajors has resulted in increased student performance on the final exam (71.0% average) when compared to four sections of the same course with the same final exam, but a traditional review session consisting primarily of question-and-answer and discussion of old lecture topics (66.5% average). According to survey results, more students (49%) felt that they studied earlier for the final exam in the game-show review sections, compared to only 25% in the traditional sections. It should be noted that the design of the game-show review module encourages students to ask questions before the review session. First, the context in which the game-based review takes place promotes student participation because students want to win the game. In the traditional review, students are more passive and not as invested in the outcome. Second, the design of the module takes advantage of the fact that the traditional review format allows students to ask questions during the review, while the game-show format does not. Finally, the survey results also indicate that game-show review sessions did succeed in increasing the level of interest in chemistry, and a similar trend was not observed in the traditional review sections. During each game review, the Electronic Media Department of our college recorded the game review and later edited it into a “game show” that was entitled “Who Wants an A in General Chem”. The four game shows were made available in DVD format, but not in time for these sections to use them as another way to review for the final exam. However, it is possible that having these videos available to check-out from a library or posted online can provide a supplemental resource for students in future sections of GOB chemistry, and whether using those videos results in higher performance in GOB chemistry may be the subject of further investigation.
■
Article
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
Sample assignment to generate questions for game sections; question list excerpt for game review session; prereview and postreview questionnaires. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: thomas.stringfi
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. 58
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300678f | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 56−58
