journal 1

STUDENT PERSPECTIVES: EXPECTATIONS OFMULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY IN A COLLEGE

LITERATURE CLASS

DR. KATHRYNE SPEAKER

Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Special Education, Language and Literacy

The College of New JerseyEwing, New Jersey

This paper explores students' perceptions through survey aboutthe definition, use and constructivist nature of multimedia use inliterature classes at the collegial level. The culture of schools andstudents has changed. The possibility exists that students' brainsare biologically different as a result of frequent and prolongedinteraction with computers as a dominant source of stimulationand that optimal learning does not take place when only tradi-tional lecture methods are employed in the classroom. Studentexpectations of classroom presentation styles that embrace amore holistic manner of learning than print alone have increasedas the characteristics of the college age learner have changed.This would suggest that by combining text, visual imagery andmultimedia text more elaborate contexts and meanings could beexplored within the classroom setting. Today's college studenthas evolved as a learner and the types of classroom interactionthat they have come to expect have also changed. Literatureinstruction should reflect these changes.

• Does gender affect student expectation of multimedia use inclassrooms?

• Does collegiate year affect expectation of multimedia use inclassrooms?

• Do Education majors have higher expectations than othermajors of multimedia use in literature classrooms?

• Does the use of multimedia by a professor affect a student'scourse decisions?

Although many strides have been made addition, student expectations regardingof late in the usage of and interest in incor- increased use of interactive, multimediaporating multimedia technology into experiences in the classroom havecollege classrooms, there is a lack of increased as the characteristics of collegeteacher preparation in educational tech- age learners have changed with internetnologies that has hindered the exposure (Tapscott, 1998). The shift fromimplementation of these very technologies broadcast media to internet media has cre-in actual classrooms at every level (Doer- ated a communications revolution that ising, Hughes, and Huffman, 2003). In shaping our culture and the college leam-

241

242 / Reading Improvement

er (Coufal, 2002). College students areoften far more skilled at using digital mediathan the professors who are teaching them.Classroom practice often does not meetstudent expectation especially in the areaof integration and use of multimedia. Inaddition, "if language defines a culture andis itself defined because members of a cul-ture use language, is the language of thetwenty-first century defining a new cul-ture or is a new group causing a newlanguage to evolve?" (Coufal, 2002). Con-structivist multimedia instruction mightwell bridge the gap between old skills anda developing language. Knowing whatkinds of expression aid what kinds ofknowledge would allow information to betransmitted in a medium that would makeit easiest for an audience to understand(Lanham, 1995), especially when we knowthat attention begins to lapse 10 to 18 min-utes into any lecture (Johnstone andPercival, 1976). Advances in implement-ing constructivist multimedia methodologyin literature classes should reflect studentlearning style and student expectation.

Multimedia instruction has been definedwithin limits by Peck (1999) as a comput-er controlled combination of two or moremedia types, to effectively create asequence of events that will communicatean idea visually with both sound and visu-al support. A more integrative definitionhas been forwarded by Erwin and Rieppi(1999): a lecture classroom that is internetcompatible and is equipped with dual mul-timedia computers, dual rear projectionscreens, a video disc player, a VCR, CD-Roms, an audio cassette player and anelectronic student polling system with indi-vidual key pads. However, these definitions

only take into consideration the basicinstructional delivery system, not the con-structionist methodology of use that isneeded to create a superior or optimalteaching and learning experience (Harris,2002).

A review of recent research on theimplementation of multimedia implemen-tation in the classroom indicates thatexperts have advocated it as a superiormeans to deliver information, promote stu-dents interaction and graphically organizematerial (DiCecco and Gleason, 2002;Kirylo and Millet, 2000). However theresearch also indicates that there is a highlevel of teacher apprehension about incor-porating multimedia technology intoindividual classrooms due to a lack of pre-service preparation in the use ofeducational technologies (Doering, Hugh-es, and Huffman, 2003). Governmentstatistics from the Office of TechnologyAssessment (OTA) report that only threepercent of teacher education graduates felt"very well prepared" to use technology intheir classrooms (U.S. Congress, 1995).Even more recent reports indicate that only11.3% of the nation's teachers feel theyhave advanced skills to integrate technol-ogy into their daily teaching (Survey,1999). The value of integrating technol-ogy into classrooms at all levels has beenacknowledged in many research studies indifferent disciplines (Agarwal and Day,1998; Stone, 1999).

The present paradigm in colleges ofeducation to require a technology educa-tion course within the education curriculummay not sufficiently address the high lev-els of anxiety, the needed exposure to thetechnologies or the follow up context/con-

Multimedia Teciinoiogy in Literature Class.../ 243

tent scenarios necessary to train teachersto teach with technology. In fact, "few col-leges of education adequately prepare theirgraduates to use information technologiesin their teaching" (Summary, 2000). Eventhough twenty-two states mandate instruc-tion in the use of technology, no actualexperience in using computers to teach isrequired or modeled in most teacher prepa-ration programs (Summary, 2000). In orderto create classroom situations where teach-ers feel well prepared to use technology,instruction needs to be modeled by col-lege professors who have integrated it intotheir own courses. This type of exposure,in addition to the actual hands on learningabout the hardware will scaffold the col-lege students' pedagogy within their ownfuture classrooms toward interactive,authentic learning activities (Doering,Hughes, and Huffman, 2003). Even as weare faced with the task of implementingmultimedia instruction in classrooms, alarger issue looms. The multimedia "hard-ware" must support instruction that iscontextually relevant, interactive and meetsthe needs of the individual learner. Usageshould help create the learning environ-ment, but it is the type of instruction thatis of paramount importance.

Creating an interactive, intellectuallychallenging multimedia environment mustinclude an assessment of the college ageleaner and the changes that technology hasalready evoked in the college age popula-tion. Tapscott (1998) coined the termN-Gen to describe those children who havegrown up with the Internet and "form anintergenerational culture through theiractions online." This group has a numberof defining characteristics. A sampling of

those N-Gen characteristics that is rele-vant to a discussion of multimediaclassroom environments that were identi-fied by Tapscott (1998) included:

• Fiercely independent: having a strongsense of independence, autonomy, andidentity

• Inclusive: moving form a local or anational orientation to a global perspec-tive through virtual communities andawareness

• Fully accessible and opinionated:expecting access to information andexpression of fundamental rights

• Investigative: exploring ideas to under-stand their genesis, and simultaneouslyexploring technology to determine how tomake something work

• Expecting immediacy: accessing andmoving information at light speed, theyexpect to experience more events occur-ring in a minute than was possible off-line

It is these students who are present incollege classrooms and their expectationsand learning styles demand changes in thetraditional chalk and talk paradigm thatstill exists in many lecture halls today. Thepossibilities in a literature classroom tohave the "hardware" support instructionthat is contextually relevant, interactiveand student-catered are wide ranging.

"Students live multi-textual lives insideand outside the classroom, and thisdemands they become versatile learnersable to construct meaning from images andtext they meet head-on." (Piro, 2002) Inaddition, constructing meaning is an indi-vidual thing. Teachers should attempt toorchestrate meaning by creating an envi-


ronment conducive to the construction ofnew meanings by students. The visual,auditory, and non-linguistic infrastructuresthat multimedia instruction can provideallows students to think in visual imagesas well as written language. (Bloom, 2001).This type of instruction speaks to thestrengths of the N-Gen population's learn-ing style and classroom expectations.Literacy is more than the written or spo-ken word. Perhaps Eisner's (1994)definition of literacy serves to enhance ourunderstanding of the importance of multi-media use in literature classes. His view ofliteracy as inclusive of visual imaging orpicture reading sees it as "the ability toencode or decode meaning in any of theforms of representation used in culture toconvey or express meaning". Literacy mustbe connected to the culture and contexts inwhich reading and writing are explored(Hobbs, 1996).

Studies indicate that student use andperception of a multimedia educationalexperience is highly dependent on the atti-tude of the instructor and his or her abilityto provide useful contextual informationin a format that meets the criteria of the rel-evancy and interactivity in a studentcentered approach (Slattery, 1998; Sloan,1997). The quality of the learning experi-ence depends considerably on the designand presentation of instrumental materials(Sanders, Morrison-Shetlar, 2001). Jiangand Ting (1998) explored various factorsthat influenced students' perceptions of thelearning in a multimedia, web-based for-mat and concluded that students learnbetter in an interactive environment. Again,the instructor's use of a multimedia for-mat for discussion and interactive student

participation increased students' perceivedlearning experience.

Methodology

Participants:One hundred fifty students (35 male,

112 female, 3 chose not to identify them-selves) enrolled in Children's Literatureand Storytelling filled out the survey.These students represented both mostmajors and all years at the college becausethe course was offered in the general edu-cation core as a literature credit.

The Course:Children's Literature and Storytelling

explores the development of children asthat development is directly impacted bythe hterature with which they interact. Thecourse explores way to match reader andbook on several levels: content, age, knowl-edge, skill and comprehension. Through athorough examination of trade books ineach genre of children's literature, the stu-dent becomes familiar with many of thechildren's titles now in print and themethodology needed to engage childrenwith the literature. The professor interac-tively uses many forms of multimediaduring class presentations including pow-erpoint, overheads, video, DVD, audio andthe internet. Students are also required togive a presentation employing at least fourforms of multimedia technology.

Assessment Instrument:The attitude scale used in this study

consisted of twelve questions using a Lik-ert type response scale asking participantsto strongly agree, agree, render no opinion.

Multimedia Technology in Literature Class.../ 245

disagree, or strongly disagree with state-ments about their attitude toward the useof multimedia in literature classrooms.Identification of gender, year in collegeand major course of study were also solicit-ed for analysis. The survey wasadministered during a regular semesterclass and students were given fifteen min-utes to complete the twelve questions.

The survey asked the students torespond to a variety of statements con-cerning the use of multimedia technologyin the classroom (Chart 1). The survey wasdesigned in such a way that the higher one'stotal score, the more one was adverse to theuse of technology in the classroom. Theupper score limit on the survey was sixtypoints. Conversely, the lower one's over-all score, the more that respondent felt thattechnology was an aid to his or her ownlearning in the classroom. The lower scorelimit on the survey was twelve points. Thesurvey also included an optional section

for comments to allow respondents toexplain more fully their feelings on class-room use of technology. In this way, thosestudents who felt the survey did not askthe appropriate questions to gauge theirfeelings or wanted to qualify their answerscould do so without skipping any surveyquestions. While certain identifiers aboutthe respondents were requested, such astheir year, gender, and major, none of thosecharacteristics was required nor so detailedas to compromise the anonymity of therespondents.

Definition of terms:Education majors versus non-educa-

tion majors: Those students with majorsdesigned for occupation in any field of edu-cation upon graduation were grouped witheducation majors. Those that fell outsidethis realm were grouped with those in thenon-education major category. A full list-

Chart 1

Chart 1 — The surveyPlease fill out the following survey on the use of technology in university classrooms by putting thenumber that corresponds to your opinion in each category.I. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. No Opinion 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree

I find a lecture give by a professor who utilizes technology easier to understand.Certain types of technology are more effective in the classroom than others.PowerPoint presentations are an effective presentation mode.Video/DVD presentations are an effective presentation mode.Overheads are an effective presentation mode.Use of the Internet by a professor during a lecture is an effective presentation mode.Combining various types of technology within a single lecture is an effective teaching tool.I feel I have learned more in classrooms where the professor uses technology regularly.1 am a visual learner.1 choose classes partially based upon an instructor's use of technology.Current college and university students expect a classroom environment that employs technology.Visual backup in a classroom allows me to make more connections with the information being

presented.


ing of all majors included in the study, aswell as how they were grouped is includ-ed in Appendix B.

Visual learners: Those students who iden-tified themselves as learning best whenseeing the object or theme or a repre-sentation therein of what is beingdiscussed.

Technology in the classroom: Visual andelectronic instruments used to further astudent's understanding of a given topic.The technology group referred to in thisstudy includes PowerPoint, overheadimages, VHS/DVD presentations, andthe Internet.

Year: Refers to a student's class standing,such as freshman, sophomore, junior, orsenior.

Results and Analysis:

Generally, the students surveyedfavored technology in the classroom. Mostfelt that it improved their learning experi-ence with the use of Microsoft PowerPoint

and VHS/DVD presentations as the mostpopular ways to convey messages. The datawas broken down into more specific cate-gories including gender, major, and year.

To address the first question of thestudy, that of whether there is a differencebetween male and female college studentsand their respective feelings about tech-nology in the classroom, the sum of eachstudent's responses were analyzed. Theresults included the following: (For fullresults, consult Appendix A.)

The results turned out to be statistical-ly significant at neither the 1 % nor the 5%level. In fact, the comparison of the dataproves that there is little difference basedon gender. The result is not terribly sur-prising considering it is difficult to imaginea reason as to why college-age men wouldrespond to technology differently than col-lege-age women in a classroom setting.One's comfort level with technology mayplay a part in the appeal of technology inthe classroom. Yet, as this control shows,that comfort level is not dependent upongender.

The next question this study hoped toanswer concerned the effect of one's aca-

Chart 2

Chart 2 — Results of controlling the survey for gender*Average male score: 23.91Standard Deviation, male: 6.783n-male: 35Average female score: 24.535Standard Deviation, female: 5.45n-female: 112t-stat for comparing the two data sets: 0.487955p-stat for comparing the two data sets: 0.62779degrees of freedom used: 48.23*nole: l-statistical-tests were used for each data set because af)er analyzing the means and standard deviations of each, it wasdeterniined that neither the distributions nor variances of eaeh were too different from one another.

Multimedia Technology in Literature Class.../ 247

Chart 3

Chart 3 - Results of controlling the survey for majorAverage education major score: 23.904Standard Deviation, education major: 5.031n-education major:73Average non-education major score: 24.597Standard Deviation, non-education major: 6.483N-non-education major: 77t-stat for comparing the two data sets: 0.7288p-stat for comparing the two data sets: 0.46726degrees of freedom used: 142.54

demic major on his or her opinion of class-room technology. Again, the sum of eachstudent's responses was analyzed. Theresults included the following: (For fullresults and a full list of what was consid-ered an education major as opposed to anon-education major, consult AppendixB.)

This analysis of data also revealed thereto be no statistically significant differenceat the 1% or 5% level between educationmajors and non-education majors. In lightof the overwhelming positive response ofthe vast majority of the students, this resultis not surprising. That is, since most respon-dents indicated that technology aided ititheir learning process, their major shouldnot have a great degree of bearing on theirpreference. Two respondents with majorsthat traditionally are not known for theirtechnological focus. History and English,still had a sum response of 19 and 31,respectively. Each of these sums falls belowthe halfway point of 36 in the survey'srange, indicating at least a mildly positiveattitude toward technology in the class-room.

Another analysis of the data called for

investigating if a difference in opinion ontechnology in the classroom existed acrossyear boundaries. The results of the surveywere again broken up into two groups, con-sisting of seniors and juniors in one group(upperclassmen) and freshman and sopho-mores in another (underclassmen). Eachof the two classes was combined withanother to establish a more robust samplesize, as well as to help even out the over-whelmingly large numbers of sophomoresin the class. The results included the fol-lowing: (For full results, consult AppendixC.)

As with gender and major, class yearseems to have no bearing on one's prefer-ence for technology at the 1% and 5%levels. This is not to say that there is no dif-ference between the students of each yearand their preferences; rather, the differ-ences are just not statistically significant.An inference one can draw from theseresults, though, is that the N-gen group ofstudents to whom Tapscott (1998) refers inhis study must now be completely in col-lege. Otherwise, one would expect to seea distinct difference between those in theirfirst year in college and those in their last.


Chart 4

Chart 4 — Results of controlling the survey for yearAverage upperclassmen score: 24.31667Standard Deviation, upperclassmen: 5.3024n-upperclassmen:60Average underclassmen score: 24.325Standard Deviation, underclassmen: 6.116n-underclassmen: 89t-stat for comparing the two data sets: 0.009663p-stat for comparing the two data sets: 0.992303degrees of freedom used: 137.73

Yet, Statistically, the difference is minor. Ifone were to look at graphs of responsescomparing freshmen to seniors, one wouldfind a slight skew of freshmen toward amore favorable opinion about technologyin the classroom. This difference, though,is too complex to be studied here. Manyconfounders, such as the susceptibility offreshmen to be more impressed by tech-nology they may not have seen in theirhigh schools and thus more in favor of it,exist in this study. Conversely, seniors, hav-ing seen the technology for three years,may have become bored with technologi-cal additions to classroom exercises. The

questions that would address these issueswere not asked on the survey, though, andconsequently those issues cannot be ana-lyzed here.

The final item remaining to be analyzed,that of class choice and the degree of influ-ence technology use in the classroom hadon that choice, is the most interesting of thefour. By comparing students' responses tothe first statement asked about whether alecture given by a professor who utilizestechnology is easier to understand to thetenth statement pertaining to students'course selection and an instructor's use oftechnology, the following data sets were

Chart 4

Chart 4 — Results of comparing statement one to statement tenAverage score on question one: 1.7667Standard Deviation, question one: .79512n-question one: 150Average score on question ten: 3.6466Standard Deviation, question ten: .9739n-question ten: 150t-stat for comparing the two data sets: 18.2525p-stat for comparing the two data sets: 6.4911x10"'°degrees of freedom used: 286.5

Multimedia Technology in Literature Class.../249

created:These results prove to be statistically

significant at both the 5% and 1% levels.If one were to assume that students arerational beings, then one could also assumethat students would enroll in classes thatwere best structured towards helping themlearn. The statistical comparison, then,essentially states that a large majority ofstudents find that technology aids theirlearning process when in the classroom.Paradoxically, though, a majority of stu-dents indicated on the study that theyusually do not pick classes based onwhether the professor utilizes technologyin the classroom. In this way, students seemto be missing out on those classes thatcould best help them learn.

There are a number of ways to explainthese statistical results, but the most com-pelling reasoning concems course bulletins.In a casual investigation of course bulletinsfrom several colleges, one will find thedegree to which a professor employs tech-nology in a course rarely published.Instead, the paragraph describing thecourse will list subject matter and oftencourse requirements. Students then selectcourses based on this information, as wellas their academic and time requirements.Little thought is paid to in-class use oftechnology. Yet, 134 out of 150 studentsstrongly agreed or agreed with the state-ment that lectures in which professor usetechnology are more instructive. Thus, onecould conclude that students do not makedecisions about classes partially based onthe professor's use of technology becausethat type of information is not available tothem.

Another method of explaining the dif-

ferences between statements one and tenalso relies on course descriptions in a relat-ed but different way. Perhaps studentword-of-mouth also fails to include suffi-cient information on a professor's use oftechnology. Student discussion of classes,be it in person or on websites created forreviewing professors' style of presentation,often does not mention a professor's useof technology. Again, a casual look at afew of these websites indicated that work-load and a professor's ability to keep theclass's attention (linked to technology, butnot explicitly stated) were the most impor-tant aspects in evaluating a class. In thiscase, then, the information about technol-ogy's use in the classroom is not availableto the students. Consequently, they cannotmake an informed decision.

An immediate but effective way to rem-edy this type of situation would be to altercourse descriptions in college bulletins toinclude information on the degree to whichprofessors rely on technology in their class-rooms. A statement indicating that manylectures are given with the aid of Power-Point may appear ambiguous, but thestatement's inclusion does more to aid astudent's decision than the current gener-al omission of technological information.The benefits of publishing this informa-tion even extend to those who dislike aprofessor's use of technology in the class-room. In light of published information,that student would be able to avoid class-es that relied on the use of technology.

Another way to resolve this issue wouldbe for professors to be more informativeabout their use of technology during thefirst few class periods or on the syllabus.Students would then be able to switch


classes during their shopping period andavoid those classes that used technology ina way they found unfavorable to their learn-ing process. Small changes such as thisand editing course bulletin announcementsappear to be cheap but effective remediesto solving this problem.

Limitations

The recommendations of the study can-not guarantee better student placement oreven a better overall learning experience.That is, because information about tech-nology is not widely advertised, it isdifficult to predict how students wouldreact to the information once it is avail-able to them. If it is assumed that theywould behave rationally, one can assumethe students who prefer technology wouldgravitate toward those types of classes. Yet,these assumptions do not take severalissues into account. First and foremost,students have academic requirements andtime restrictions that supercede any of theirdesires for a technology-based classroom.Some students are required to take a cer-tain class for their major and many timesand only one section of the class is offered.In such a case, advertising the degree towhich technology is employed loses itsvalue. Students that need the class to grad-uate will take that class. Any disclosureabout technology would only help the por-tion of the class taking it as an elective.

Another potential problem with adver-tising the amount of technology einployedin the classroom lies with the professorhim or herself. Many times the instructorvaries the degree to which he or she usestechnology from semester to semester.

Moreover, it is difficult to predict exactlywhen or how the technology will beemployed. Lectures on PowerPoint maybe structured, but videos may be cut fromthe class schedule if class time is lost dueto inclement weather or multiple questionsfrom the students. In this way, truth inadvertising in course bulletins may onlybe able to go so far.

In summary, then, this study would rec-ommend including information about theuse of technology in classes in bulletinsand syllabi because students do claim thatthey learn better when a professor utilizestechnology. Yet, it is unclear as to thedegree to which this solution will remedythe gap between students knowing that theylearn more productively when technologyis used and actually picking classes basedon that use. Perhaps a study on the effectsof publishing technological information incourse bulletins is warranted. That study,though, cannot commence until schoolsincorporate the necessary technologicalinformation in their bulletins and othercourse descriptions.


Appendix AAnalysis of Data by Gender

All numbers in bold are percentages; regular text (n) equals the number ot responses

Statement

1 llnd a lecture giveti bya professor who tjtilizestechtiology easier toutiderstanc}Certain types oftechnology are tnoreeffective in theclassrootti than othersPowerPointpresentations are aneffective presentationmodeVideo/DVDpresentations are aneffective presentationmodeOverheads are aneffective presentationmodeUse of the internet by aprofessor during alecture is an effectivepresentation modeCombining various typesoftechnology within asingle lecture is aneffective teaching tool1 feel 1 have teamedmore in classroomswhere the professor usesteehnoloKV regularly1 am a visual learner

1 choose classes partiallybased upon aninstructor's use oftechnoloevCurrent college anduniversity studentsexpect a classroomenvironment thatemploys technologyVisual backup in aclassroom allows me tomake more connectionswith the informationbeing presented

Strongly AgreeMale(M) Female (F)

45.71(n=16)

54.2(19)

28.57(10)

48.57(17)

11.42

(4)

37.14(13)

62.85(22)

25.71

(9)

40.0(14)5.71

(2)

31.42

(11)

40.0(14)

36.60

(51)

40.17(45)

39.28(44)

46.42(52)

15.17(17)

7.14

(8)

41.96(47)

30.35(34)

49.10(55)2.67

(3)

15.17(17)

48.21(54)

AgreeM F

42.85(15)

40(14)

57.14

(20)

42.85(15)

51.42(18)

45.71(16)

31.42

(11)

45.71(16)

42.85(15)11.42

(4)

48.57(17)

51.42(18)

52.37(59)

54.46(61)

54.46(61)

50(56)

50.89(57)

50(56)

47.32(53)

41.96(47)

38.39(43)5.35

(6)

58.03(65)

45.53

(51)

No OpinionM F

5.71

(2)

2.85

(1)

8.57

(3)

5.71

(2)

17.14

(6)

8.57

(3)

0

(0)

22.85

(8)

11.42(4)

31.42

(11)

17.14

(6)

8.57

(3)

7.14

(8)

3.57

(4)

4.46

(5)

.89

(1)

19.64(22)

37.5(42)

8.03

(9)

18.75

(21)

8.03

(9)25.0(28)

17.85(20)

3.57

(4)

DisagreeM F

2.85

(1)

0

(0)

2.85

(1)

0(0)

14.28(5)

5.71

(2)

2.85

(1)

0(0)

2.85

(1)34.28(12)

2.85

(1)

0

(0)

2.67

(3)

.89

(1)

1.78

(2)

1.78

(2)

14.28(16)

5.35(6)

1.78

(2)

8.03

(9)

4.46(5)

47.32(53)

8.92(10)

.89

(1)

Strongly DisagreeM F

2.85

(1)

2.85

(1)

2.85

(1)

2.85

(1)

5.71

(2)

2.85

(1)

2.85

(1)

5.71

(2)

2.85

(1)17.14

(6)

0

(0)

0

(0)

.89

(1)

.89

(1)

0

(0)

.89

(1)

0

(0)

0(0)

.89

(1)

.89

(1)

0(0)

18.75(21)

0

(0)

1.78(2)

• 35 men and 112 women were s

Three student responses have been left out of this chart because those students declined to provide their

gender.


Appendix BAnalysis of Data by Major

All numbers in bold are percentages; regular text (n) equals the number of responses

Statement

1 find a lecture given bya professor who utilizesteehnology easier tounderstandCertain types ofteehnology are moreefleetive in theelassroom than othersPowerPointpresentations are aneffective presentationmodeVideo/DVDpresentations are aneffective presentationmodeOverheads are aneffective presentationmodeUse of the internet by aprofessor during alecture is an effectivepresentation mode

Combining various typesof technology within asingle lecture is aneffeetive teaching toolI feel 1 have learnedmore in classroomswhere the professor usestechnology reKularlvI am a visual leamer

1 choose elasses partiallybased upon aninstructor's use oftechnoloeyCurrent college anduniversity studentsexpect a classroomenvironment thatemploys technology

Visual backup in aclassrtMim allows me tomake more conneetionswith the informationbeing presented

Strongly AgreeEducation Non-Majors Education(ED) • Majors

( N M ) "

39.72(29)

43.83(32)

41.09(30)

39.72(29)

10.95(8)

9.58(7)

47.94(35)

28.76(21)

49.31(36)1.36(1)

23.28(17)

52.05(38)

38.96(30)

42.85(33)

35.06(27)

55.84(43)

16.88(13)

19.48(15)

48.05(37)

31.16(24)

46.75(36)5.19(4)

16.88(13)

42.85(33)

Agree

ED NM

52.05(38)

52.05(38)

54.79(40)

58.90(43)

56.16(41)

50.68(37)

43.83(32)

49.31(36)

36.98(27)6.84(5)

57.53(42)

43.83(32)

48.05(37)

49.35(38)

53.24(41)

36.36(28)

46.75(36)

46.75(36)

41.55(32)

36.36(28)

40.25(31)9.09(7)

53.24(41)

48.05(37)

No Opinion

ED NM

5.47(4)

1.36(1)

2.73(2)

0(0)

20.54(15)

34.24(25)

5.47(4)

17.80(13)

9.58(7)

31.50(23)

13.69(10)

2.73(2)

7.79(6)

5.19(4)

7.79(6)

3.89(3)

16.88(13)

27.27(21)

6.49(5)

20.77(16)

7.79(6)

23.37(18)

20.77"(16)

6.49(5)

Disagree

ED NM

1.36(1)

0(0)

1.36(1)

0(0)

10.95(8)

5.47(4)

1.36(1)

2.73(2)

4.10(3)

42.46(3'l)

5.47(4)

0(0)

3.89(3)

1.29(1)

2.59(2)

2.59(2)

18.18(14)

5.19(4)

2.59(2)

9.09(7)

3.89(3)

44.15(34)

9.09(7)

1.29(1)

Strongly Disagree

ED NM

1.36(I)

1.36(1)

0(0)

1.36(1)

1.36(1)

0(0)

1.36(1)

1.36(1)

0(0)

17.80(13)

0(0)

1.36(1)

1.29(1)

1.29(1)

1.29(1)

1.29(I)

1.29(1)

1.29(1)

1.29(1)

2.59(2)

1.29(1)

18.18(14)

0(0)

1.29(1)

73 education majors and 77 non-education majors participated in this study.•Education majors include Special Education. Physical Education. Open Options Education. Music Educalion, Math Teaching. Healthand Physical Education. English / Secondary Education. Elementaiy Education / Spanish. Elementary Education / Sociology,Elementary Education / Psychology, Elementary Education / Music. Elementary Education / Music. Elementary Education / Math.Elementary Education / History, Elementary Education / English. Elementary Education / Art, Elementary Education/ Math, Science,and Technology, Early Childhood Education / Math, Science, and Technology, Early Childhood Education / Spanish. Early ChildhoodEducation / Psychology. Early Childhood Education / Math, Early Childhood Education / English. Deaf Education / Psychology. DeafEducation / Elementary Education Psychology, Chemistry Teaching, Biology Teaching. Biology and Secondary Education. ArtEducation.

**Non-education majors include Psychology. Philosophy, Nursing. Music. Media Sociology. Mechanical Engineering. Math.Marketing. Law and Justice. Joumalism, [nformation Systems Management, History, Health and Exercise Science. Graphic Design.General Business / Psychology. General Business. Finance. English. Criminology and Justice Studies. Computer Science,Communication Studies, Chemistry. Business Management. Business Information Systems. Business / Accounting, Business.Biology. Art History, Art/Graphic Design, Accounting.


Appendix CAnalysis of Data by Collegiate Year

All numbers in bold are percentages; regular text (n) equals the number of responsesKey: F= Freshman, So = Sophomore, J = Junior, and Se = Senior

Siaiemem

lectinolog*

Cpnain typesol echnotagv

; ' • - ' "

nreseniations

°-S'nT.,o.

piesenlfliior

ComCning

learned more

protessor

requlart,

am a visual

dauespartally

tedinotogr

Current

universilystudents

dassroom

ttiatemploys

VisualDackup in aIlll

bemg

presented

» 0

..,„

. 1 . 1

•• '

••'•

IBie

»

rM M

(1?)

(1)

(1)

31.11

( ' )

Stronghj Agree

So J Se

44.77

30)

rU 2 3

3 S 4 t

(11)

_ . ,

14,

. . .

.•31 i 16)

S1.72

( . »

IS)

„.,

i6l ' 61 (51

I'Oi (3i

3S.32

43 2t

m

4.47

(31

49.2S

(331

2s.n)

M.06

(18)

(1)

(5)

H.B3

( f )

, . . 1

24.13

41,37

12)

0

(01

44.82

(131

F

31.lt

77.27

t7)

(11)

(12)

(101

(14)

63.63

27,27

16)

0

(0)

(t')

».ts

(15)

AgreeSo J

44.77

(301

41 .S3

(27)

138)

1321

(32)

(31)

43,21

(29)

13.43

(9)

(35)

4 0 2 9

(37)

61.29

(19)

6 1 2 9

(19)

US)

(t3)

(16)

„.>

(t6)

(1*)

29.03

19)

10)

(t6)

3«.7O

(t2)

Se

6S.S1

(19)

44.12

(13)

(.7,

, M |

|I81

(15)

(9)

(11)

41.27

(14)

(!)

(15)

S1.72

(15)

F

13,t3

13)

4.M

(1)

(0)

10)

(S)

(11)

(0)

(!)

909

(!)

27.27

(B)

13)

0

10)

NoO

So

7,46

(5)

4.47

(3)

(3)

m

(20)

(4)

(15)

10.44

17)

23.U

(16)

(12)

t M

(6)

3.21

(1)

0

(0)

(1)

(1)

(*)

(10)

(0)

te.i2

(5)

6,45

(!1

31.70

(t!)

16)

3.22

Se

344

(1)

3.44

(1)

1*)

(0)

( t )

15)

(S)

2413

(')

6,B9

(!)

24.t3

U)

(5)

«

(0)

F

4.54

(t)

0

(0)

(0)

(0)

(3)

( t )

(0)

4.54

(1)

S.09

(2)

4S45

(10)

(1)

«

(Q)

0

(0)

0

(0)

(!)

(0)

(B)

, »

(1)

1.49

(1)

149

|1)

U 2 0

139)

0

(0)

ree

(.45

(!)

3.22

(t)

( ' )

(1)

m

(0)

, . ,

12.90

(*)

6.4S

(!)

4).t6

114)

(4)

3.22

(1)

Se

3.44

(t)

0

(0)

(0)

(D

(»

(1 |

10.34

(3)

3.44

(t)

41.37

(15)

12)

0

|0|

SBongf^Dsagrae

F So J Se

0

<0)

0

(0)

(0)

(0)

10)

(0)

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

22.7

(5)

, . i

0

2.3t

(!)

2.91

(2)

1)

(D

(!)

1.49

( )

0

(0)

0

(01

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

II

(0)

1)

I"!

1492 :

110)

1

t 9

D

(0)

0

(0)

(0)

, ,

(0)

(0)

3.44

«)

0

(0)

2.30 3>.O3

0! 01

0 3 U

22 Freshmen, 67 Sophomores. 31 Juniors, and 29 Seniors took thesurve>.One student's responses have been left out ol'this lable as he or she declined to provide his or hor istanding.


Works Cited

Agarwal, R.& A.E. Day. (1998, Spring). Theimpact of the internet on economic education.Journal of Economic Education, 29, 99-110.

Bloom, P. (2001). How children learn the mean-ings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Coufal, K. (2002, August). Technology teachingor mediated learning, part II, 1990s: Literacylinkage and intervention contexts. Topics inLanguage Disorders, 11 (4), 29-55.

DiCecco, V. & Gleason, M. (2002, July-August).Using graphic organizers to attain relationalknowledge from expository text. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 35(4), 306-321.

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003,Spring). Preservice teachers: Are we thinkingwith technology? Journal of Research on Tech-nology in Education, 35(3), 342-362.

Eisner, E. (1998). The kind of schools we need.Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Erwin, TD. & Rieppe, R. (1999). Comparing mul-timedia and traditional approaches inundergraduate psychology classes. Teachingof Psychology, 26, 58-61.

Harris, C. M. (2002, Summer). Is Multimedia-based instruction hawthorn revisited? Is thedifference the difference? Education, 122 (4),839-844.

Hobbs, R. (1997). Expanding the concept of liter-acy. In R. Kubey (ed.). Media Literacy in theInformation Age. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-action Press. 163-183.

Jiang, M. & Ting, E. (1998, April). Course design,instruction, and students' online behaviors: Astudy of instructional variables and studentperceptions of online learning. Paper present-ed at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association. San Diego,CA. (ERIC No. ED 421 970.

Johnstone, A.C. & Percival, F. (1976, Summer).Attention breaks in lecture. Education inChemistry, 13, 49-50.

Kirylo, J. & Millet, C. (2000, Winter). Graphicorganizers: An integral component to facilitat-ing comprehension during basal readinginstruction. Reading Improvement. 37(4) 179-181.

Lanham, R.A. (1995, September). Digital literacy.Scientific American, 273,198-213.

Peck, D.D. (1999). Pocket Guide to Multimedia.Albany: Delmar Publishers.

Piro, J.M. (2001). The Rembrandt teaching pro-ject: Promoting multiple literacies in teachingand learning. Art Education, 54(3), 12-17.

Sanders, D. W. & Morrison-Shetlar, A. (Spring,2001.) Student attitudes toward web- enhancedinstruction in an introductory biology course.Journal of Research on Computing in Educa-tion, 33(13), 25.

Slattery, J.M. (1998). Developing a Wed-assistedClass: An Interview with Mark Mitchell.Teaching of Psychology, 25(2), 152-155.

Sloan, A. (1997). Learning with the web: Experi-ence of using the world wide web in a learningenvironment. Computers and Education,28(4), 207-212.

Stone, L. (1999, Summer). Multimedia instructionmethods. The Journal of Economic Education.30(13), 265

Summary of Findings and Recommendations fromReport to the President on the use of technol-ogy to strengthen K-12 education in the UnitedStates, President's Committee of Advisors onScience and Technology, Panel on Education-al Technology, March, 1997. (2000). In R. D.Pea (ed.). Technology and Learning. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass. 3-19.

Survey of Technology in the Schools. (1999).Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Edu-cation Technology.

Tapscott, D. (1999).Growing Up Digital: The Riseof the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.(1995).Teachers and Technology: Making theConnection (OTA-HER-616). Washington,DC: US Government Printing Office.

journal 1

Documents