Evaluation of Interactive Classroom

Alex Villwock

A report submitted to Cesar Chavez Academy Denver May, 2010

Abstract In this evaluation the effectiveness of interactive software is compared to traditional methods. Glencoe McGraw-Hills Interactive Classroom (IC) software is evaluated both for student progress, as well as, satisfaction.

Introduction The evaluation conducted reviews the quality of learning in a mathematics classroom. The evaluation was done in Mr. Villwocks math class at Cesar Chavez Academy-Denver and the program being evaluated was Glencoe McGraw-Hills Interactive Classroom software. Cesar Chavez Academy-Denver uses the Glencoe McGraw-Hill Math Connects series. This series comes with a software program called Interactive Classroom (IC), which is a CD that contains PowerPoint presentations for each section of the Math Connects book. What is being evaluated is the effectiveness of these Interactive Classroom PowerPoint presentations. The evaluation assesses the effectiveness of using PowerPoint to teach math compared with a traditional teaching method (white board and markers). The evaluation systematically analyzes the results from the program to determine whether Glencoe McGraw-Hills Interactive Classroom software is significantly effective or not. This report discusses the implications of using Interactive Classroom in the mathematics classroom, and the impact it has on student learning. The report contains a description of the program, the evaluation method, results, and discussion of results.

Description of the program

Mr. Villwock has three different methods of teaching. The first method is the traditional method, using whiteboard and markers. When using the traditional method Mr. Villwock uses examples, vocabulary, and problems from the book on the whiteboard. He reproduces the examples on the board and shows step by step how to do the problems on the board. The second method that Mr. Villwock utilizes is Glencoe McGraw-Hills Interactive Classroom PowerPoint and markers. Mr. Villwock uses the PowerPoint presentations to present the material. He uses an LCD projector and projects the PowerPoints on his whiteboard and couples using markers and the PowerPoint step-bystep process (see Appendix A) to present the information. Mr. Villwocks third method is using the Interactive Classroom PowerPoint and Wacom Blutooth Writing Tablet (see Appendix B) to write on the board. This third method is the same as the second method of teaching, but rather than physically write on the white board he uses the writing tablet to write on the PowerPoint slides. Mr. Villwock uses I.C. for all of his class (6th grade, 7th grade, Algebra 1). Mr. Villwock wants to determine if I.C. is the best teaching method of all the methods he uses. Mr. Villwocks goal in using I.C. is twofold, he wants to enhance the students 21st century learning and create an efficient learning process.

Evaluation Method The subjects who participated in the evaluation were two 6th grade classes and two 7th grade classes. The class sizes range from 15 20, however I only used the data from students who were in class for the pre-test and post-test. This allowed me to compare the data rather than have extra test scores. I used 6-1 and 7-1 as my two experimental groups

and 6-2 and 7-2 as my control groups to compare. Mr. Villwock administered the evaluation to the students and is the largest stakeholder in the process. The results of the evaluation will also pertain to the principal Mr. Lucas, and will be shared with him. The evaluation process began with the creation of objective based pre-tests and post-tests. The pre-test and post-test were used to obtain information about the change in knowledge over the course of chapter 7. The pre-test was administered to all classes at the beginning of the unit. Students were given a full class period to work on the pre-test and answer it to the best of their ability. The results were written documented but didnt have an effect on their grade. After the pre-test was done, Mr. Villwock taught the lessons using the three different methods. 6-2 (control) and 7-2 (control) were taught using the traditional whiteboard and marker method for the entire evaluation process. 6-1 (experimental) was taught using the Interactive Classroom software and Wacom Blutooth tablet for the entire evaluation process. Lastly 7-1 (experimental) was taught using the Interactive Classroom software, and markers for the entire evaluation process. Following the two-week unit, a post-test was given to the students to test their change in knowledge. All students were allowed to use their notes and the test was identical to the pre-test so that a clear change in knowledge could be determined. The post-test followed the unit instruction and a day of review with a study guide. At the end of the unit an attitude survey was given to all participants. The survey determined their attitude towards the three different teaching methods. All participants had seen all three types of teaching styles up to this point so that they could accurately have an opinion of them. The survey had six questions and determined two different attitudes: which method did they learn better with, and which method did they enjoy

learning from better. After all of the results were given the data was tabulated. The survey is made up of Likert-type questions ranging from 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-agree, 4-strongly agree. Numbers were given to each of the questions so that an accurate average could be given and compared. The surveys purpose was to determine the attitudes of the participants.

Results The survey results were put into a chart and the mean for every question was tabulated. Question 1 and question 4 have to do with the students attitude towards the traditional teaching method of whiteboard and marker. The results showed that with means of 2.77 and 2.47 the traditional method was the least favorite method. Question 2 and question 5 had to do with the I.C. and marker teaching method. This method with mean scores of 3.02 and 2.79 proved to be the favorite method of the students. Question 3 and question 6 had to do with the teaching method that uses I.C. and Wacom tablet. The survey resulted with this method being the second favorite, better than using whiteboard and markers, but worse than I.C. and markers.

1.

Strongly Disagree Disagree (2) (1) (3) Agree

Strongly Agree (4) 12 19 17 2.77 Mean

2. 1.You learn better when Mr.Villwock 3. teaches using whiteboard and markers. 9

4. 2.You learn better when Mr. Villwock 5. teaches using PowerPoint slides and 6. writing on whiteboard. 3. You learn better when Mr. Villwock teaches using PowerPoint slides, and writes using a writing tablet. 7. 4. You enjoy class more when Mr. Villwock 8. uses the whiteboard and markers to teach. 9. 5. You enjoy class more when Mr. Villwock 7 10. uses PowerPoint slide and writing on whiteboard 11.6. You enjoy class more when Mr. Villwock teaches using PowerPoint slides, and 12. writes using a writing tablet. 8 18 11 18 2.61 8 32 10 2.79 12 13 17 13 2.47 7 11 23 17 2.91 6 6 22 22 3.02

The next table shows the results of the pre-test and post-test. After all of the pre-test and post-test scores were collected the averages were found for each test. The next step consisted of finding the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores. Both control groups had minimal change in comparison to their peer groups (experimental). The 6th grade control group had a difference of 3.5 in comparison to the 6th grade experimental group which had 7.5. The 7th grade control group had a change of 6.1 in comparison to the change of the 7th grade experimental group of 12.

Pre-Test (Mean) 6-1 (experimental) 6-2 (control) 7-1 (experimental) 7-2(control) 10.5 8.5 5.1 2

Post-Test (Mean) 18 12 17.1 8.1

Difference 7.5 3.5 12 6.1

Discussion The evaluation revealed that the use of Interactive Classroom significantly improved the learning process. The results from the pre-test and post-test show that when students learned via Interactive Classroom they improved theirs scores significantly more than the control group that used traditional methods. In both grades the experimental group preformed slightly better on the pre-test. In 6th grade the experimental groups pre-test scores were on average only two points higher (10.5 compared with 8.5) and in 7th grade the experimental groups pre-test scores were only around 3 points higher than the control groups (5.1 compared with 2). Though there were only minimal differences on the pre-test, the post-test resulted in much greater differences. In 6th grade, the experimental group scored 18 out of 25, compared to the control group who scored a much lower 12 out of 25. This difference is the difference of having an average of 72% versus 48%. The seventh grade groups resulted in an even more drastic change: 17.1 out of 25 (experimental) compared to 8.1 out of 25 (control). These scores are a difference of having an average of 68.4% versus

32.4%. The results from the pre-test and post-test prove significantly that it is much better to teach using Interactive Classroom than it is to teach using traditional methods. The survey looked at the students personal opinions of the different teaching methods. The survey looked at two different viewpoints of the students: which method the student learned better from and which method the student enjoyed more. The results demonstrate that overall students prefer the use of I.C. over traditional methods. When looking at which method the students thought taught them better, I.C. received higher marks (3.02 and 2.91) in comparison with traditional methods (2.77). These results showed the students perceived that using I.C. improved their learning. The results were repeated when looking at which method the students enjoyed, (2.79 and 2.61 using I.C.), (2.47 using traditional methods). Based on the results from the pre-test, post-test, and survey, it is suggested that math classes at Cesar Chavez Academy-Denver continue implementing Interactive Classroom in the classrooms. The benefits of using I.C. include higher test scores and improved student attitude towards learning. The results were significant in showing that I.C. is a very effective teaching aid.

Budget Alex Villwock (Evaluator) Travel and per diem To Cesar Chavez Academy Denver and back $20 x 5 days = $ 100 $250 x 5 days = $1,250

Total cost

$ 1350

Appendix A Interactive Classroom Interactive Classroom is a teaching aid for the math class. I.C. uses PowerPoint to demonstrate all of the steps used when solving problems. I.C. goes over vocabulary, equations, and examples. The screenshot below shows an example of how I.C. lays out the problems.

Appendix B Wacom Blutooth Tablet The Wacom Blutooth Tablet is a device that allows the user control of the computer using the tablet to control the screen and blutooth technology to connect. The tablet is used in the classroom so that the teacher can walk around the classroom and still write on the board. This allows the teacher to freely roam the room rather than be attached to the whiteboard at all times.

6-1 Pre-Test 0 12 14 0 16 17 4 19 9 12 12

6-1 Post-Test Difference 17 17 20 8 23 9 13 13 20 4 21 4 10 6 23 4 10 1 23 11 17 5

7-1 Pre-Test 7-1 Post-Test Difference 6 19 13 20 24 4 11 22 11 1 13 12 1 14 13 0 11 11 6 14 8 4 23 19 0 19 19 2 12 10 AverageDiff. 12

Average-pre Average-post Average-Diff. 10.45454545 17.90909091 7.454545455 6-2 Pre-Test 5 14 15 4 5 12 4 6 12 6-2 Post-Test Difference 14 9 20 6 23 8 7 3 9 4 10 -2 10 6 5 -1 10 2

Average-pre Average-post 5.1 17.1

7-2 Pre-Test 7-3 Post-Test Difference 1 11 10 4 11.5 7.5 5 6 1 0 14.5 14.5 7 4 -3 0 4 4 1 6 5 0 11 11 0 5 5 AverageAverage-pre Average-post Diff. 2 8.111111111 6.111111111

Average-Pre Average-Post Average-Diff. 8.555555556 12 3.888888889

Appendix C Detail Pre-Test & Post-Test Chart