evaluation project villwock

8/3/2019 Evaluation Project Villwock

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-project-villwock 1/12

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-Hill’s “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. Villwock’s math class at Cesar Chavez

Academy-Denver and the program being evaluated was Glencoe McGraw-Hill’s

“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-Hill’s “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-Hill’s

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-by-

step process (see Appendix A) to present the information.

Mr. Villwock’s 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. Villwock’s 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 6 th 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 didn’t

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



4. 2.You learn better when Mr. Villwock

5. teaches using PowerPoint slides and

6. writing on whiteboard.

6 6 22 22 3.02

3. You learn better when Mr. Villwock teaches

using PowerPoint slides, and writes using a

writing tablet.

7 11 23 17 2.91

7. 4. You enjoy class more when Mr.

Villwock

8. uses the whiteboard and markers to teach.

12 13 17 13 2.47

9. 5. You enjoy class more when Mr.

Villwock

10. uses PowerPoint slide and writing on

whiteboard

7 8 32 10 2.79

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

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.



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 group’s pre-test scores were on average only two points higher (10.5

compared with 8.5) and in 7th grade the experimental group’s 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

Pre-Test (Mean) Post-Test (Mean) Difference

6-1 (experimental) 10.5 18 7.5

6-2 (control) 8.5 12 3.5

7-1 (experimental) 5.1 17.1 12

7-2(control) 2 8.1 6.1



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) $250 x 5 days = $1,250

Travel and per diem

To Cesar Chavez Academy – Denver and back $20 x 5 days = $ 100

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.



Appendix C – Detail Pre-Test & Post-Test Chart

6-1 Pre-Test 6-1 Post-Test Difference 7-1 Pre-Test 7-1 Post-Test Difference0 17 17 6 19 13

12 20 8 20 24 414 23 9 11 22 110 13 13 1 13 12

16 20 4 1 14 1317 21 4 0 11 114 10 6 6 14 8

19 23 4 4 23 199 10 1 0 19 19

12 23 11 2 12 1012 17 5

Average-pre Average-post Average-Diff. Average-pre Average-postAverage-Diff.

10.45454545 17.90909091 7.454545455 5.1 17.1 12

6-2 Pre-Test 6-2 Post-Test Difference 7-2 Pre-Test 7-3 Post-Test Difference5 14 9 1 11 10

14 20 6 4 11.5 7.515 23 8 5 6 14 7 3 0 14.5 14.55 9 4 7 4 -3

12 10 -2 0 4 44 10 6 1 6 56 5 -1 0 11 11

12 10 2 0 5 5

Average-Pre Average-Post Average-Diff. Average-pre Average-postAverage-Diff.

8.555555556 12 3.888888889 2 8.111111111 6.111111111

evaluation project villwock

Documents