Does the POWER of Computer Generated Presentations POINT to Smarter Chemistry Students

IntroductionIn a society in which our students are bombarded constantly with audio and visual stimuli from the radio, television, video games and the computer, does the classroom have to present information that is equally exciting to maintain the students interest? If so, what is available that would rival these technologies and motivate our students to learn? More importantly is there a tool out there that will be user friendly and not place a time drain on the teacher? Can the techno gadgets of the telecommunications and computer age of the 1980’s and 90’s provide the answer? Statement of the ProblemAs teachers we are forced to use a variety of teaching methods to meet the needs of the varying abilities of our students. This process can be very time consuming and for most teachers time is very limited. To find a method that is beneficial to the students in terms of their understanding as well as one that will maintain their interest in the subject matter is a difficult task. In addition teachers are looking for quality teaching methods that are quick and easy for the teacher to prepare. This combination is virtually impossible to acquire. This research project was developed to determine if the time required to create a quality PowerPoint presentation was a worthwhile endeavor compared to using an overhead to present the material. The investigation was also interested in identifying the method which helps the students to retain the presented material more effectively.1 Objectives of the StudyThe independent variable for this study was the teaching method used (i.e.PowerPoint vs. Overhead). Different sections of the same class as well as students in the same classroom had material presented using the two different presentation methods. The dependent variable of this study was the assessment of student scores following the presentation. The researcher also evaluated opinions of the students regarding the two different presentation methods. Questions posed for this study were the following: 1. Does the power of computer generated presentations point to smarter chemistry students?2. What is the effect of the overhead projector as a teaching method on the retention of the material presented? 3. What is the effect of PowerPoint presentation as a teaching method on the retention of the material presented? 4. Which method best facilitates the retention of the material presented? 5. What is the overall opinion of the students to the use of the overhead projector to present material in the classroom? 6. What is the overall opinion of the students to the use of PowerPoint presentations to present material in the classroom?Historical ContentTechnology is not new to the classroom; in fact, it has been present since the establishment of the formal system of education. In the 1890’s the use of magic lanterns as a presentation tool emerged (Reynolds & Barba, 1996, p.3); it was one of the first optical projectors that used a transparent slide to project still images. The advent of a new century ushered in a variety of new technology into the educational toolbox: industrial film clips, educational radio broadcasts and tape recorders (1910's), slide projectors (1930's), training films and the overhead projectors (1940's). In the fifty’s and2 sixty’s the use of educational movies, projecting microscopes, film loop projectors, and listening stations were considered the newest technological advances. Educational television become the rave of the 1970’s. Probably one of the most exciting eras in the evolution of technology use in the classroom emerged in the 1980’s. It was during this time that camcorders and VCRs appeared on the technology scene. In addition, the personal computer was becoming popular. In the 1990’s the Internet and computer based multimedia added to the available technologies in education (Reynolds & Barba, 1996, p.3). As technology began to further impact all aspects of everyday life, teachers began to seriously question their personal role to incorporate or not incorporate such technologies. Today there are several points to consider when choosing a presentation method: (1) Are overhead transparencies, flip charts, and 35 mm slides becoming a thing of the past? (2) Computer generated slide shows are becoming increasingly more popular... can they replace chalkboards, marker boards, overheads and other more traditional presentation methods? (3) Not only has there been a significant evolution in the types of computer- based technologies available for classroom use, but there has also been a tremendous increase in the cost of implementing these technologies for classroom use. Is the cost of such technologies justified? (4) Are there significant increases in student performance as a result of the implementation of computer technology in the classroom? One emerging computer generated presentation software package is the MicrosoftPowerPoint program. Glenn and Emily Weadock (1997) had this to say about what PowerPoint is and is not in their book Creating Cool PowerPoint 97 Presentations:3 A technical person would probably define PowerPoint as an application program for creating and presenting an electronic slide show or sequence of images. Although that definition is accurate as far as it goes, we prefer to think of PowerPoint as a communication tool that you use to inform and persuade others (p.9).PowerPoint has developed into one of the most popular presentation programs mainly because it is packaged with the Microsoft Office suite of programs. It did not start out as a Microsoft product. In1987, a California company called ForeThought created a program called “Presenter” for Apple Mac II. However, in that same year Microsoft bought the company and “Presenter” was part of the package. In February of 1988, Microsoft released a revised version of this program they called PowerPoint for both Mac and DOS. As with most worthwhile computer programs, PowerPoint went through a number of upgrades until in 1995, Microsoft released its Office 95 package, which included PowerPoint, making Microsoft Office a must have for the computer enthusiast. PowerPoint and Office continue to be upgraded with the most recent improvements being found in PowerPoint XP or PowerPoint 10. (Bajaj, 2000)RESEARCHIn the process of researching computer-generated presentations in the classroom, it becomes evident that there are five areas of focus. 1. Researchers are concerned with how the technology sparks an increase in students’ interest in a subject or how it increases the students’ motivation to succeed in a particular course. 2. Researchers are interested in how the method of presentation might improve the students’ analytical or thinking skills. 3. With the capability to include sophisticated illustrations and animations in a PowerPoint presentation, can these help students to visualize a concept and make it more applicable? It is possible that these tools can help students build the 4 correct mental images of the concept, helping to limit the number of misconceptions the students might have about it. 4. An extremely important area occupying researchers’ time is the idea that computer-generated presentations increase the achievement of students in courses in which the technology is utilized. Administrators and legislators consider this an important factor because this is a way that the success of a teaching method can be quantified. It can be used to demonstrate if a program is worth the time and money that the government and educational establishment are pouring into it. 5. What are the other perceptions that the students themselves have concerning the use of these technologies in the courses they are taking? What do they see as the benefits and drawbacks of these methods?1. Does PowerPoint or other computer-generated presentation methods increase the motivation and interest of students?Reynolds and Barba (1996) suggest that one of the ways that technology contributes to the learning process is by increasing the motivations of the students. They propose that students enjoy working in a technologically enhanced learning environment (p. 6). One of the first research projects on the effectiveness of computer-generated presentations was begun in 1990 before multimedia presentation software was developed for the educational setting. The study was conducted at the University of Minnesota and was titled “Enhancing Lecture Presentations in Introductory Biology with Computer-Based Multimedia” (Fifield & Peifer, 1994, p. 235). Because there was no presentation software that was easy to use, they created their own. The software they designed was called MacPresentsTM, Multimedia Presentation Manager (MPM). The program 5 incorporated text, picture files, QuickTimeTM computer animations, and videodisc stills and movies. Fifield and Peifer suggest that studies have shown that the effects of illustrations in oral presentations have increased the motivation and interest of students (p. 235). Using this as a basis, they decided to incorporate the same idea into computer-generated presentations. Based on end-of-the-quarter surveys conducted in the introductory biology lecture courses from the fall of 1990 through 1993, students had very positive responses to the multimedia system. Students’ comments included statements about the computer- based illustrations and animations making it easy to see the function and detail as well as making it interesting to the students. One particular student’s response to the survey included the following: “it made me more interested in the material. I told people about it. My friend is taking the class because of it” (p. 239). Fifield and Peifer concluded that computer-based multimedia significantly improved the quality of the lecture courses.Another detailed study by Erwin Mantei (2000, p. 301) conducted at Southwest Missouri State University during the period of 1992 to 1998 compared student performance in physical geology lecture classes using a traditional method of presentation with that using Internet notes and PowerPoint lecture slides. In the traditional setting material was presented using the board and overhead transparencies. Mantei (p. 301) collected exam scores from students presented material using traditional methods, which were used as the control and were collected for ten semesters between 1992 and 1996. The test group was represented by four semesters of the same course from 1997 to 1998. 6 The material presented in the test group was converted into Internet notes that could be accessed on the web along with links to additional web sites allowing students to supplement information about a concept. Lecture presentations were prepared using PowerPoint animated slides. The PowerPoint slides were also made available on the web site. At the end of each semester, students in the test group were given a questionnaire designed to compare the Internet notes and PowerPoint presentations with traditional presentation methods that they had experienced in other courses. The questionnaires suggest that students found the animated PowerPoint format more interesting and that they believed they learned the material better in that format.Another study (Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, Mohundro, and Sayre, 1998, p. 3) explored the perceptions of students to PowerPoint presentations used by college instructors in a Basic Fundamentals of Public Speaking course. Surveys were distributed to students enrolled in the course. The control group consisted of students that had not observed the use of a PowerPoint presentation in the public speaking course while the experimental group had. The survey found that seventy-three percent of those surveyed felt that PowerPoint helped them to maintain interest in the lectures.Sara Bushong (1998, p. 9) wrote a paper on the utilization of PowerPoint presentation software in library instruction. It is her feeling that presentation software can simplify the instruction of complicated topics, as well as being more visually appealing and interesting than the traditional methods like overhead transparencies and handouts. In addition, presentation software can provide a variety of color, clip art, text and photographs that appeal to most audiences. 7 In the article The Smart Classroom verses the Traditional Classroom: What the Students are Saying? (Tornabene, 1997), the researchers collected student responses regarding the different classroom settings. Some of the student responses included the following: “The presentations are much more interesting, easier to follow, and its just more fun with the technology. I believe that because it is more fun, I retain the information better.” Another student said, “I prefer room 110 [the smart classroom] because of the technology you used. It keeps the class interesting. You can get the same old lectures in any of the other classes with the same old overheads. It makes the class go by much faster and probably learn more because of the interest.”Bushong, Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, Mohundro, Sayre, Mantei, Fiefield and Peifer all support the notion that computer-generated presentations can motivate and maintain the interest in students. It may be when the novelty of this new technology wears off, the students may become unimpressed by these methods just as they did with the more traditional overheads. But with the ability to make these presentations more student interactive, much like a computer or video game, perchance the computer presentations will maintain the students' interest and they will remain motivated to learn.2. Can the Use of Computer-Generated Presentations Increase the Thinking and Analytical Skills of the Students that View Them?Based on the premise that students comprehend and recall material better when illustrations are included in the instruction, Steve Fifield and Rick Peifer (1994, p. 236) developed their software to include pictures for their huge lecture classes. They found that this not only increased students’ interest in the subject but also elevated the level of 8 their cognitive or thinking skills. The computer software allowed them to customize images for a particular purpose and to integrate a wide range of media into lecture presentations. The system allowed the use of sophisticated illustrations in lecture, helping students who might otherwise fail to identify the significant points of the illustrations. Animations were also used to give a more realistic representation of structures and processes in which motion and spatial relationships played a key role.Based on end-of-the-quarter surveys conducted in the introductory biology lecture courses from the fall of 1990 through 1993, students had very positive responses to the multimedia system. Students’ comments included statements about the computer-based illustrations being helpful in making the material concrete. Others commented on the animations making it easy to see the function and detail. One student commented, “The AV materials were helpful in showing detail and function that can’t easily be conveyed by speech. Especially helpful were the visuals that conveyed motion” (Fifield and Peifer,1994, p. 239). Fifield and Peifer found that “animations are not only more realistic representation of structures and processes, but they model thinking skills that we want our students to develop” (p.238).In the survey given by Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, Mohundro, and Sayre (1998, p. 11) they found that a large percentage of respondents perceived PowerPoint as a cognitive aid. They determined that sixty-nine percent indicated that PowerPoint assisted in their understanding of the material and sixty-eight percent thought that PowerPoint helped them retain the material. In this study there was no testing done to determine actual cognition or retention. The results are simply the students’ own perceptions of their learning.9 Williamson and Abraham (1995, p. 521) published their study on the effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. The study was divided into three groups: a control group, a lecture animation group, and a group that viewed animation sequences in both lecture and during a scheduled discussion session. The researchers found that conceptual understanding was significantly increased for students who viewed animated sequences depicting particulate behavior. Students who viewed the animations had a more particulate view of matter as was evident from their drawings.PowerPoint and other computer-generated presentation software incorporates animations and illustrations aiding students in developing a better conceptual understanding of concepts and increasing their level of analytical thinking.3. Can Computer-Generated Presentations Help Students Visualize Information or Develop the Correct Mental Images of the Information?Based on the foundation that the lack of understanding of chemistry concepts may be linked to the students’ inability to build complete mental models that visualize particulate behavior, Williamson and Abraham had this to say,Three levels of understanding exist for most chemistry concepts, the sensory, particulate, and symbolic levels. Sensory information derived from a chemical process is explained by chemists in terms of particles, which are then translated into symbols or formulas. The particulate nature of matter is the very essence of theoretical chemistry. Atomic and molecular behavior is an abstract construct that is used to explain most chemical concepts. We know that students have difficulty understanding concepts at the particulate level and that this is the source of many student misconceptions. The inability of students to visualize particulate behavior has been documented.10 Visual aids might help in concept understanding. Static visuals have been used to increase understanding on all levels (sensory, particulate, and symbolic) when the visuals emphasized the particulate nature of matter. However, static visuals fail to depict the dynamic nature of many of the processes investigated in chemistry. With the microcomputer we now have the ability to provide three- dimensional, dynamic sequences of atomic and molecular behavior in contrast to the static two-dimensional models commonly used. The dynamic qualities of animation allow a more detailed view of atomic and molecular behavior to be presented (1995, p. 521).The old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words should be reworded as an animated picture is worth a million words. According to Paivio (Williamson & Abraham, 1995), pictures are coded as both images and words. Animations, which are moving pictures, can possibly be encoded even more deeply creating true mental models. Animations tend to provide more scientifically accurate visualizations of the particle processes not easily understood. It was also found that students viewing static pictures had more misconceptions than those viewing the dynamic animated pictures.The study conducted by Fifield and Peifer (1994) included students’ statements indicating that computer-based illustrations helped them visualize material for tests. One student commented, “I could see what he [the instructor] was talking about and make a mental picture” (p. 239). Another student had this to say, “With DNA, the visual aids helped me to understand structures and I could visualize this when taking my test” (p. 239).The visual aspects of computer-generated presentations not only help increase students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, but can also help students add to their mental structures. Pictures seem to have a greater ability to provide mental anchors upon 11 which additional information can be hung. If the pictures can also move and take the concept from the static world into the dynamic world of nature, it may prove to be an even more substantial anchor. Clark (1993, p. 453) suggests that media itself does not influence learning; however, aspects such as animation or zooming can help students who lack the skill being modeled. This not only gives the students a true image but also reduces the numbers of misconceptions with which the students leave the classroom.4. Does the use of Computer-Generated Presentations Increase Achievement of Students?Although Williamson and Abraham have found some evidence that computer animations might in fact help students to develop a deeper understanding of the particle nature of matter, their study suggests the need for further research. A study conducted byWilson and Dwyer (1996, p. 460) found there were no significant differences in the achievement of students who view static images verses those who viewed animated images. However, there was a link between the animated images and the time students were exposed to the animation. It is possible the longer students are exposed to dynamic visuals, the better they comprehend the information.In Bushong’s study (1998) one aspect she attempted to determine was if students who view a PowerPoint presentation understand and use reference books more effectively than those who only receive an oral explanation. She also wanted to establish if these students received higher grades or scores on the assignment than those who received the lecture explanation only. It was concluded that the students who did not view the PowerPoint presentation felt the instruction they received was more helpful in 12 their understanding of the reference books than those who had the PowerPoint presentation. And the students that viewed the PowerPoint presentation did not score statistically significantly better than those that did not on the assignment. Beets and Lobingier (2000) published a study on students’ performance and preferences for pedagogical techniques. In their study, three different pedagogical techniques were used in an introductory accounting class. The study reviewed class discussions facilitated by a chalkboard and chalk, an overhead projector and black-and- white typed overheads, and a computer-projected presentation with multicolored text and graphics. After one-third of the semester had passed, an exam was administered. Then the techniques were rotated until two-thirds of the semester had passed and another exam was given. The techniques were rotated again and a final exam was given at the end of the course. Daily quizzes were also administered. The students also completed a questionnaire a few days prior to the last exam. After the data were analyzed, it was determined that there were no significant differences in quiz grades or exam grades among the three treatment groups. Christine Ahmed (1998) presented a paper at a conference of the South Dakota Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. The paper was a comparison of PowerPoint versus traditional overheads to determine which is more effective for learning. In the study students in two semesters of a teacher-education class were shown traditional overheads on elements of a comprehensive drug education program for schools. The next two semesters the same presentation was given but using a PowerPoint presentation. At mid semester on the mid term exam, six questions from the presentation 13 were included. It was found that there was very little difference in test scores when comparing the two methods. Another study conducted by Daniels in 1998 (Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, Mohundro, Sayre, 1998) found that there was no significant difference in students’ cognitive performance between classes that used PowerPoint presentations and those that didn’t.However, in Mantei’s study (2000, p. 304) the use of Internet notes and PowerPoint lecture slides resulted in higher exam scores for the students exposed to these methods. Campbell and Leonard (Mantei, 2000, p. 305) also found evidence that computer supported methods could increase student achievement.Except for a few of the research studies, it seems that computer-generated presentations do not significantly increase student achievement. However it has been discussed that this method does have many other advantages. PowerPoint and other computer-generated presentations have the potential to increase motivation and interest. They also have been linked to increased cognitive abilities as well as creating better mental models. It is possible that the questions analyzed in the studies have not concentrated on higher level thinking skills or on the visualizations of the students. This would be an area in which further study is warranted.5. What are Other Perceptions of Students Regarding Computer-Generated Presentations?Students also have been surveyed (Bushong, 1998) to assess their attitudes toward the presentation methods. From the survey, it was determined that students felt that they learn best through a combination of visual and oral explanations. Bushong concluded 14 that presentation software should be used as an enhancement of the instructional process and not the determining factor for student success. Another survey conducted by Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, Mohundro, and Sayre (1998) revealed that the use of technology by teachers actually influenced the way in which the students viewed the teachers’ abilities. Seventy-two percent of those surveyed reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that PowerPoint enhanced the instructor’s delivery and sixty-nine percent thought PowerPoint enhanced the credibility of the instructor. A fascinating factor the survey uncovered was an increase in the students’ interest in learning about the technology themselves. As teachers model the use of the technology, it not only familiarizes the students with the technological tools but also brings about a desire by the students to experiment with that technology. Sixty-two percent felt that the use of PowerPoint in the classroom made them want to learn to use the technology and seventy-one percent wanted to see PowerPoint used in future classes. Hoffman, Rosenzweig, Morris, and Faison (1999) reviewed a program called “Camp Apple.” In reference to the integration of technology into preservice teacher education programs they had this to say,There is a growing consensus that the integration of information technology into the teaching/learning environment can best be addressed through advocating and role modeling. Advocacy implies showing others how technology can be applied to advantage in their teaching by role modeling the use of technology to achieve this objective as well as demonstrate the personal and professional benefit to be derived from its use (p. 542).There is a need for preservice teachers to see technology modeled by their instructors so that they will be comfortable using the technology in their own classrooms 15 someday. There is also a tremendous need for classroom teachers to model the use of technology so that their students will become excited about using the technology as well.The survey conducted by Beets and Lobingier (2001, p. 231) revealed that 33% of the students indicated that they preferred discussions that used a chalkboard, 13% preferred discussions that used an overhead projector, and the remaining 54% indicated a preference for projected software. A significant outcome of the study uncovered the fact that with each of the three methods, those students who experienced their preferred technique had higher exam scores than their classmates who were not exposed to their preferred method. Furthermore, when class attendance was investigated, it was found that students attended class more often when their preferred pedagogical method was used.Even though there is no conclusive evidence on the benefit of using computer- generated presentation methods in the classroom, it would seem that students perceive themselves as benefiting from the experiences in which they are exposed to this technology. As long as the enthusiasm remains for this technology, this positive view of PowerPoint and other similar presentation methods can only be good for the learning environment.CURRENT PRACTICESThe summary of studies that have been conducted thus far regarding computer- generated presentations have found that even though achievement is not increased, there are many advantages to using this technology in the classroom. The capabilities to integrate illustrations and animations not only can help students in their understanding of complex topics but also make the material more interesting for them. To add to the 16 interest factor, along with animations, sounds can also be incorporated into the slide show for a more dynamic effect. In addition, preparing PowerPoint slides requires the instructor to prepare more carefully and to be more organized in his/her presentation (Parks, 1999, p. 207; Jensen & Sandlin, 1992). PowerPoint has the capabilities to integrate many forms of media into one format while eliminating the need for multiple devices such as overhead, white board, and slide projector. With today’s global communications, it is possible to incorporate a PowerPoint presentation into a web site in which the students can access the information from anywhere outside of class. This allows for subsequent review of the material as well as allows students access to preprint copies of the slides that can be brought to class for students to use as they follow along. In Mantei’s study (2000, p. 303) he found that students felt it was easier to learn the presented material if class notes were available to them. The students also believed that the Internet provided a more desirable way to access the notes than if they had to go to the library or to some other source. Time is a real issue for teachers. This research was initiated to determine if the time invested in the assembly of a PowerPoint presentation is worth it. Learning the software takes time, effort, and creativity; utilizing the software to create a presentation takes time, effort and creativity. However, once the better-looking presentation is completed, it can survive repeated use. This is beneficial for teachers who present the same material several times in a day. The PowerPoint format is easy to edit and can be adapted for any audience. It can be used from class to class or from year to year. However, most teachers rarely present the same material in the same way every year. 17 PowerPoint is still favorable because they do not have to start from scratch but can easily make fine adjustments to fit their classes from year to year.Once the initial time is invested in creating a presentation, it has been shown (Mantei, 2000) that the time it takes to present the material may be decreased by as much as twenty percent. Clark (1993, p. 449) found that the use of computers to deliver a lesson could reduce instruction time from thirty to fifty percent. If the presentation of concepts can be done in less time, this might allow more time for other methods of instruction such as laboratory activities or hands-on activities that can further reinforce the topic.With the newness of this technology, it does not come without some flaws--some of which will be worked out with time. Some of the other disadvantages will continue to exist due to the nature of the programs. However, it is possible that disadvantages of computer generated presentations are a worthwhile tradeoff as we add to the available methods for the classroom. Computer-based images can have poor resolution where sharpness and color matter. Technology glitches can cause time delays or even prevent the presentation from taking place at all. Teachers should always have a backup plan handy. Many schools lack the high quality projection systems needed to properly display the presentations and there is a high cost to implement the hardware and software without the benefit of increased retention by students. Computer-generated presentations require a fairly dark room, which can encourage students to sleep or make it hard for note-taking.With time these problems will be reduced or even eliminated as the technology becomes more commonplace. 18 Slide overload, in which too much information is put on a slide, or the use of a lot of bells and whistles, make the slide visually attractive but it says very little of importance and can become a problem. Other problems such as fonts that are too small and backgrounds that are too dark or too distracting can occur. These mistakes can be avoided if teachers remember to keep it simple rather than pretty. It is the content that is most important and the presentation that is secondary. PowerPoint slides can also become a very passive teaching device that does not allow for much freedom in a lecture.This will require some creativity on the part of the teacher but can be prevented by adding animations and interactive slides.The more traditional presentation method, the overhead projector, is still a fixture in many classrooms. Although it has many advantages, it is not without faults.Overhead projectors are fairly inexpensive to purchase and use. They also are very easy to operate and maintain. Overhead projectors can be positioned in the front of the classroom allowing the presenter to maintain eye contact with the audience. This can also be accomplished with computers but sometimes the capabilities of the mouse limit this ability. Overhead projectors can be viewed in a fully lit room eliminating the problems of the darkness that are encountered by PowerPoint users. With an overhead projector, a teacher is not as restricted and if the need arises for a spontaneous discussion, it is easy to use an overhead pen to write or draw as needed. Teachers can also make transparences more exciting by purchasing prepared transparences or by adding their own color. Using overlays can further develop an illustration or concept. This may add to the concept but it is still a static image without the ability to become animated. 19 As with PowerPoint, overhead projector presentations can help instructors to be more organized. Even though they require some additional startup time, they can save time by eliminating the repetition of board work and when the presentation is over, the transparencies can be stored away for future use. Science teachers, especially chemists, have found that the overhead projector can be used to not only project information on transparencies, but can also be used to project other transparent objects or fluids. This facet of the projector makes it a valuable asset to the science classroom. It seems that there are as many disadvantages as advantages to computer- generated presentations. The list of disadvantages for PowerPoint far out weigh those of the much less expensive overhead projection system. How can a product that has so many drawbacks be a reliable tool for education? One of the greatest advantages for a program such as PowerPoint is that it does not have to be a tool used solely by the teacher in which the students are passive participants. PowerPoint can be a tool that the students themselves use to present information to the rest of the class. There are many webquest activities on the Internet that require students in the final steps of their projects to create PowerPoint or some other form of computer presentation. In fact, students as young as first grade, in some schools are being asked to design and present information to their fellow classmates using PowerPoint. (Cheryl Williams President International Society forTechnology in Education, 2001). With a program this simple, it is easy for some of the youngest students to buy into the technology. Students at any level who become involved in PowerPoint presentations, whether it be in grade school or in college, become very excited about their projects. They not only enjoy working with the technology but also tend to be extremely proud of the finished products.20 Another aspect of PowerPoint that adds to its versatility as an educational instrument is the ability to create interactive lessons or tutorials that the students can utilize as classroom projects or as supplemental materials during free time or after school hours (Tomei & Balmert, 2000). The lessons or tutorials can be self-paced and student controlled. They can be used for individual instruction, for group work, for additional practice, or for enrichment activities. The real benefit for this aspect of PowerPoint is that it can be tailor-made to fit the needs of the students as well as the teacher. There are many prepared materials out there for teachers to use in the classroom, but most do not quite fit the needs of the students and teacher totally. This facet of PowerPoint allows the teacher to customize an instrument that satisfies all the needs.21 Research Method In order to determine which presentation method, overhead projector or PowerPoint presentations, is most effective in assisting the students in the retention of the material, the researcher designed the study as follows: the study was conducted during the spring terms of 2002 and 2003 and was conducted during a three week, introductory unit on organic chemistry nomenclature in a high school general chemistry course. To insure that the PowerPoint presentation was more than just a glorified overhead presentation, animated 3-dimensional models of molecules were utilized in the presentation. A preliminary survey was administered to determine which of the methods (overhead projector or PowerPoint) students believed best facilitated learning. The survey also assessed their opinions about the two different approaches. Quizzes were given after the presentations of each section as well as a larger test to evaluate retention at the end of the unit. In 2002, the first period chemistry class was presented information using overhead for the first section of the unit for three to four days. They were then presented information using PowerPoint over the second part of the unit; this also lasted three to four days. The third period class was given information using PowerPoint first and then overhead, while the fifth period class was presented information using PowerPoint for both sections of the unit. The eighth period class only saw presentations on the overhead projector for both sections of the unit.In 2003, the third period chemistry class was presented information using only the overhead projector for the same introductory organic nomenclature unit. The fourth period class was presented material using only PowerPoint presentations for the unit. 22 The sixth period class was presented the material using PowerPoint first and then overhead for the second section of the unit. Finally the eighth period class was presented the information using overhead first followed by PowerPoint. After each intervention a quiz was given (OA and OB). At the end of the unit a larger quiz was administered represented by OC. The experimental design for this research project resembles a quasi-experimental design.2002 2003 Group 1 Period 1 Period 8 S Xppt OA Xoh OB OC Group 2 Period 3 Period 6 S Xoh OA Xppt OB OC Group 3 Period 5 Period 4 S Xppt OA Xppt OB OC Group 4 Period 8 Period 3 S Xoh OA Xoh OB OCS -survey Xppt -intervention using PowerPoint Xoh- intervention using overhead projector OA and OB are quizzes OC-unit testData Collection During the study all three quiz scores were evaluated as percentages. Also tabulated were the rankings the students gave to PowerPoint and overhead out of twelve possible teaching methods given on the survey. Each students’ first semester grade was also included to be used as base line data. The research was conducted during the second semester. The first semester grade was used to determine if the grades the students were earning on the quizzes were of the same level as previous work or if the interventions were making a difference. In addition the responses the students gave to question number seven on the survey, which asked the students to specify which presentation method (PowerPoint or overhead) they thought helped them retain the information better, were evaluated.23 ResultsWhen answering the essential question of “Does the POWER of Computer Generated Presentations POINT to Smarter Chemistry Students?” as well as addressing the lesser questions posed at the inauguration of the study, two variables were scrutinized: the students’ actual performance and the perceived value that they placed on the teaching method. First a z-test analysis of all of the sample groups (using scores from quiz 3, observation C) was analyzed against data from the larger chemistry student population. The z-test, which establishes whether the scores gathered from the sample groups are representative of the overall chemistry group population, revealed with strong confidence(ά=.01) that the four groups studied were indeed representative of the larger chemistry student population (see table 1.)24 Table 1Z-Test ResultsCritical Value of 2.33 with ά=.01Mean St. Dev. z-score Population 66.96 26.06 Group 1 72.24 24.72 0.087 Group 2 66.26 26.36 0.567 Group 3 60.94 27.91 0.914 Group 4 73.34 26.36 0.286Secondly, based on quiz three (OC), a review of the students’ retention level was considered. Mean scores for the four groups are presented below (see Table 2.) (For the sake of comparison, first semester cumulative grade scores are presented as well. As the first semester unit test scores reflect the normative teaching method, this additional information assures that the lower quiz three scores for groups two and three do not indicate a difference due to experimental teaching method.) Overall, these numbers indicate no statistical difference in retention level based on a correlation of the scores.25 Table 2Mean ResultsGroup Quiz 3 Sem.1Group 1 (OH/PP) 45 72.24 90.38Group 2 (PP/OH) 39 66.26 85.54Group 3 (PP only) 35 60.94 85.11Group 4 (OH only) 35 73.34 90.63It can therefore be stated at this point that the study has established that there is little difference in the study groups. This suggests no effect of the two teaching methods (PowerPoint vs. overhead projector) on retention.Attention was next turned to the students' overall perception of the varying methods. In consideration of the study’s focus, student perception of the PowerPoint method versus the overhead projector method was evaluated in particular.Statistical analysis showed that correlating the students preference for either PowerPoint or overhead projector teaching against test scores yields few statistically significant predicative results. The lone exception to this in the study is a negative correlation between students’ perceived non-partiality for the overhead projector method of teaching and their resulting higher scores when taught using the overhead projector method (significance as .30 or higher, df=34). (See Table 3.)26 Table 3PP Preference OH Preference Sem. Q1 Q2 Avg. Sem. Q1 Q2 Avg. Group 1 (OH/PP) -0.20 -0.20 0.03 -0.12 -0.07 0.13 0.11 0.06 Group 2 (PP/OH) -0.06 0.10 -0.32 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.31 -0.15 Group 3 (PP only) 0.03 0.12 0.21 0.12 -0.28 -0.07 0.05 -0.10 Group 4 (OH only) 0.28 0.22 0.15 0.22 -0.13 -0.53 -0.32 -0.33 (Sem.=semester grade percentage, Q1=quiz 1 percentage, Q2=quiz 2 percentage)Though overall, all of the students ranked their preference for PowerPoint as slightly higher (mean of 4.13 on scale of 12) than their preference for overhead projector teaching (mean of 5.49 on scale of 12), these preferences seem to have no overall effect on performance. Therefore, it can be said that a student’s stated preference for the teaching methods of PowerPoint or overhead projector in particular do not serve as an accurate predictor of academic success when teaching with these methods.Because the study revealed this surprising discrepancy between perceptions of thePowerPoint and overhead projector methods of teaching versus the performance, further analysis was conducted in order to obtain more information. A chi-squared analysis of the expected ranking vs. the reality was analyzed. This test revealed that indeed the expected ranking was to be an equal distribution in frequency of the choices presented (chi squared=18.31, critical value=.05, df=10). Nevertheless, students indicated a strong preference for PowerPoint over any other teaching method. (58% ranked PowerPoint in the top 25% of choices when a 33% ranking was expected. Conversely, 32% ranked the overhead projector method in the top25% of choices which matches the expected ranking percentage.) This final analysis 27 indicates that the students maintained a false assumption of the value of the PowerPoint teaching method.DiscussionAfter reviewing the statistical analysis of this study, it would not appear that “the POWER of computer generated presentations POINT to smarter chemistry students.” This study, on the contrary, indicates that students merely think that they are smarter when presented with computer-generated presentations. The results of this study are therefore not only surprising, but contain strong implications when considering future teaching methods. It would appear from this study that newer is not necessarily better. With the dawn of technology, one tends to assume that all things technological will create smarter students, lead to faster learning, and aid in retention. While students, teachers and administrators may be quick to jump on the technology bandwagon, this study reveals that they should proceed with caution. Newer is not necessarily better and old methods seem to work equally fine. Just as magic lanterns were not a panacea for teaching when the method burst on the scene in the 1890’s, one should proceed with caution when concluding that technology may be the instructional cure all in this day.Though the results of this study are somewhat negative when considering the use of technology in teaching, this is not to say that high technology teaching methods are bad. This paper has already illuminated how previous studies have shown that technologically advanced methods tend to hold students’ interest more. Heightened interest alone in the classroom can indeed lead to increased learning.28 Therefore, as revealing as the results of this present study are, one might use these findings as a springboard for future research. It would be interesting to determine which teaching methods combine to hold student interest and to match student perception with performance, which would then lead to an optimal teaching environment. Students already concede that a combination of teaching methods is desired (Bushong, 1998) when learning. Time should be taken then to find the best combination. In a day and age where learning is critical, preparation time for teachers limited, funding uncertain, and student retention vital, determining the best possible method of teaching should be a paramount concern to legislators, educators, students and administrators alike. CONCLUSIONIt is important to the marketability of our students that they are exposed to the computer technology available. Whether the technology is modeled by the teacher or the students are actually using it for an assignment, they need the exposure. But there can be too much of a good thing. During this research project it was evident that the three weeks of organic presentations was becoming mundane and the students were losing interest in the information. Even though the presentation contained animated examples of the molecules being discussed, if a teaching method is overused it will lose its appeal. In the beginning of the unit, those students who were presented the 3-D molecules thought that they were very interesting, but after three weeks the novelty was beginning to wear off.From the student surveys it was determined that many students viewed both overhead and PowerPoint presentations as being a very organized way of presenting information. Some of the students suggested that the color and animation capabilities of 29 PowerPoint are more interesting compared to the black and white overheads that many students view as boring. The colorful backgrounds and the ability to add sound effects to the PowerPoint presentations appealed to many students though these aspects apparently distracted some students. Students perceive pictures, animations, and sound effects as helping them remember the information better. They also feel that the concepts are easier to understand with the 3-D models. Because of the slide show method of PowerPoint, some students are not as overwhelmed by the information on one slide. There is much more information viewed at a time with overheads, even if the strip tease method is used in which only a little of the information is revealed at a time. The end result can be a lot of information on the screen at one time. Another consideration when using PowerPoint is that students write down information at different rates; this leaves some students finished and bored or distracting others, while some students are still taking notes. This can also reduce the amount of discussion and explanation of the concepts. However this can be avoided if copies of the notes are given to the students ahead of time. This could actually facilitate more discussion and student involvement.An important characteristic of computer technology is that it changes on a daily basis. Tomorrow computers will be faster and smarter and the capabilities will be even greater. The overhead projector was not invented without any flaws; it has evolved since the 1940’s. Computer technologies will continue to metamorphosize and become better tools for use in many different ways in education. There are many options when it comes to choosing a computer presentation program. PowerPoint is one of the most popular because it is a Microsoft product. Equally good are programs such as Adobe Persussion, 30 Corel Presentations, HyperStudio, Gold Disk Astound, and DeltaGraph Pro. So not only does the technology improve over night, but there is also a great variety to choose from.When it comes to the classroom, it is important for teachers to use their time wisely. So when it is time to try a new method in the classroom, teachers want to know if the time put into the project is justified. Since a PowerPoint presentation takes more time to prepare initially than it does to create overhead transparencies, is it worth it? Research may eventually provide answers to this question, but teachers may also wish to consider other positive aspects of this new technology. However, based on a meta analyses of media research conducted by Clark “even if the occasional study finds in favor for a particular media the study is most likely confounded by uncontrolled aspects of the content, instructional strategies or novelty other than the media” (1993).PowerPoint can be so much more than just glorified overheads. It can bring the students to a whole new world of animation and sound. It can be used to illustrate the particle nature of matter in ways that make it clear to them. Students are using the technology as it infuses every aspect of their lives. They will be using computers in the workforce whether they are working at McDonalds, as an automotive technician, or for a huge corporation. If they do not use and see the technology used in the educational environment, will they be ready to enter a technology-rich society? According to Reynolds and Barba:Computers and related technologies will be required of all adults as these technologies become part of daily life. Teachers who allow students to use technology as part of the learning process, and those who model problem solving using technology are providing for their students a basis for life-long learning (1996).31 Computers can take the two-dimensional presentation of the chalkboard, white board, or even the overhead and turn static presentation into dynamic animations that bring the concepts to life, hopefully becoming implanted in the students’ mental network.“Technology is not an end in itself but rather a vehicle that can compliment traditional styles of teaching”(Reynolds & Barba, 1996). As with anything there can be too much of a good thing. Technology can be overused in education and that would be a shame. It should be integrated into the curriculum along with the tried and true techniques of the past and those innovations that are yet to come. “Educators must accept the computer and its software not as replacements for the content of the disciplines at the core of the curriculum but as useful extensions that compliment the content”(Reynolds & Barba, 1996). If Clark is right, it may never be known if the method of presenting material is responsible for the performance of the students exposed to that method. The best possible stance to take then would be to incorporate a variety of styles that keep the students guessing and hopefully learning. It is possible that exceptional teachers will incorporate a diversity of teaching methods into their curriculum. Regardless of the outcome of this study, educators should continue to use more than just one teaching method including PowerPoint presentations, overheads, homework assignments, lab exercises, hands-on activities and many other methods to touch all the different learning styles present in the classroom. 32 REFERENCESAhmed, C. (1998, November). PowerPoint versus traditional overheads. Which is more effective for learning? Sioux Falls, SD: Conference of the South Dakota Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED429037). Anderson, W., & Sommer, B. (1997, November). Computer-based lectures using powerpoint. The Technology Source. Retrieved (March 22, 2002) from the World Wide Web: http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show+article&id=503.Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., Mohundro, S., & Sayre, W. (1998). Rewards and liabilities of presentation software as an ancillary tool: Prison or paradise? New York, NY: National Communication Association. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED430260). Bajaj, G. (2000, November). PowerPoint memorabilia. Retrieved (March 8, 2002) from the World Wide Web: http://www.indezine.com/products/powerpoint/ ppmem.html.Beets, S.D., & Lobingier, P. (2001, March/April). Pedagogical techniques: Student performance and preferences. Journal of Educations for Business, 231-235.Bushong, S. (1998, June). Utilization of powerpoint presentation software in library instruction of subject specific reference sources. Kent State University: Master Research Paper. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED423914).Clark, R. (1993). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research,53,445-459.Fifield, S., & Peifer, R. (1994, February). Enhancing lecture presentations in introductory biology with computer-based multimedia. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 235-239.Hoffman, E., Rosenzweig, L., Moris, J., & Raison, C. (1999). Integrating technology into preservice teacher education method courses: A unique business/university partnership for staff development. Retrieved (November 3, 2003) from the World Wide Web: http://www.uvm.edu/~jmorris/portfolio/campapple.html How to prepare effective overhead projector presentations; one picture is worth a thousand words. Rutherford, NJ: National Audio-Visual Supply. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED353967). Jensen, R., & Sandlin, P. (1992). Why do it? Advantages and dangers of new waves of computer-aided teaching/instruction. Journal of Accounting Education, 10, 39- 60.33 Mantei, E. (2000, March/April). Using internet class notes and powerpoint in the physical geology lecture. Journal of College Science Teaching, 301-305.Parks, R. (1999). Macro principles, powerpoint, and the internet: four years of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of economic education, 200-209.Raines, Peggy & Willis, Elizabeth M(2001, September). Technology in secondary teacher education. The Journal Online. Retrieved (March 4, 2002) from http://tsearch1.epnet.com/topicssearch/fulltext.asp?HotNum=13&bguery=TS+Education %2D%2.Reynolds, K., & Barba, R. (1996). Technology for the Teaching and Learning of Science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Schenone-Stevens, M Carla (1996). Powerful presentations with powerpoint. San Diego, CA: Annual Meeting of the Speech and Communication Association. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED404699).Tomei, L., & Balmert, M. (2000, August). Creating an interactive powerpoint lesson for the classroom. The Journal Online. Retrieved (January 23, 2002) from http://www.thehournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprint version.cfm?aid=2964Tornabene, Ladona (1998). The smart classroom verse the traditional classroom: What the students are saying? South Dakota. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED421963).Weadock, G., & Weadock, E. (1997). Creating Cool PowerPoint 97 Presentations, Foster City, CA: IDG Books Worldwide.William, Richard (1991). Technologies for teaching (Report No ISBN-)-86397- 258-6). Payneham, Australia: TAFE National Centre for Research and Development. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED344582).Williams, C. (2001, July). Education Technology. Subcommitte on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education US Senate.Williamson, V., & Abraham, M. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521-534.34 Wilson, F., & Dwyer, F. (2000). Effect of time and level of visual enhancement in facilitating student achievement of different educational objectives. Denver, CO: Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED455798).35 APPENDIX A The following is a copy of the survey given to students at the beginning of the research study. SURVEYPOWERPOINT VS OVERHEADRate the following on a scale of 1-5 with five being the best.1. The material presented in class on _____(date)______1 2 3 4 5 using PowerPoint.2 The material presented in class on ______(date)______1 2 3 4 5 using the overhead.3. What aspects of PowerPoint did you like best?4. What aspects of the overhead presentation did you like best?5. What aspects of the PowerPoint did you not like?6. What aspects of the overhead presentation did you not like?7. Which of the presentation methods, PowerPoint or overhead, do you think helped you to retain the information better?8. Of the following methods of presenting information in the classroom, which do you think allows for the best retention of that information? Rank them in order from best to worst: PowerPoint, overhead, video, lecture, lab exercises, hands on exercises, research, student presentation of material, group discussion.Best 1. ______4. ______7.______2. ______5. ______8.______3. ______6. ______9.______(worst) 36 APPENDIX BThe following is a sample of the overheads used in the overhead presentations for this research study. AROMATIC HYDROCARBONSUnsubstitutedCH3SubstitutedAlkane - saturated hydrocarbon that are the least complex form of organic compounds.  The name of an alkane ends in “-ane” alkanes are soluble in nonpolar solvents. as the molecular mass of the alkane increases the boiling point increases.  general molecular formula for an alkane is:CnH2n+237 APPENDIX C The following are samples of two of the PowerPoint slides used in the PowerPoint Presentations for this research study. Each of the organic models found on this slide are linked to a three dimensional molecule obtained from www.people.ouc.bc.ca/woodcock/molecule/molecule.html.UNSUBSTITUTEDCH3 SUBSTITUTED- saturated hydrocarbon that are the least complex form of organic compounds.  The name of an alkane ends in “-ane”  alkanes are soluble in nonpolar solvents.  as the molecular mass of the alkane increases the boiling point increases.  general molecular formula for an alkane is: CnH2n+238 APPENDIX D The following is an example of the three dimensional molecule that was linked to the cyclohexene molecule in one of the PowerPoint slides used in the study. This image would spin or rotate. You can also highlight a bond or atom that is being discussed. You could change the color of the molecule. It made the presentation very interactive. 39 APPENDIX E Quizes 1 and 2 given after the first two sections of the organic unit.Gen. Chemistry Intro to Organic Chemistry Quiz Name:______Classify each of the following hydrocarbons as aliphatic, cyclic, saturated, unsaturated, or aromatic. All categories that the compound belongs to should be listed.1. H2C=CH-CH=CH22. 3. 4. CH3CH2CH2CH2CH2CH35. CH3-CH2-C C-CH=CH2 Name the following compounds.6. number 4 from above.7. CH3CH3-CH-CH-CH3CH3GEN CHEMISTRY ORGANIC QUIZ PART 2 NAME:______Classify the following compounds as alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, or cycloalkanes.1. H2C=CH-CH=CH2 2. 3. CH3CH2CH2CH2CH2CH34. CH3-CH2-C C-CH=CH2 5. Name each of the compounds in questions 1-4 above. APPENDIX F40 The following is a copy of the unit test (quiz) given at the end of the introductory organic unit.41 42 43

Does the POWER of Computer Generated Presentations POINT to Smarter Chemistry Students

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support