The placement of computers in classrooms a decade ago changed education forever. It allowed a way for students to learn from a device other than that of the old trusty text book. Many of those in education see the written text book as the core of the educational system (Chou, 1993). There are those that argue the great knowledge that has been passed from generation to generation through the use of texts is what education is fundamentally about. What many of them fail to realize is that they are not giving up the use of the precious knowledge found in the texts, but just viewing it in a different media, on a computer. This computerized text book allows teachers to use material that would not traditionally be easily accessed for instruction to add to classroom lectures. The technological advances that allow teachers to have computerized systems in the classroom also allow for more visual explanations (Beck, 1997). The students are not the only ones to benefit with added technology. Teachers also benefit, because it gives them new, fresh ways to present material.
Many instructors feel the pressure to change their present teaching style to adapt to using the multimedia way of teaching (Savage, 1996). This is shown by the building of new classroom facilities with the multimedia equipment built in, and only those who are instructing with the use of this equipment get to use the newer facilities. Using all the technological advances that are available to the instructor is not always the best way to present material to a class. Kussmaul (1996) and his associates have given two basic guidelines to see if a change in teaching style would be beneficial to a given topic. The first is that the learning task to be performed is essential to the course in which it is applied, and the second is to see if the task could be done as well, if at all, with out the amount of technology (1996).
Many instructors are now implementing the use of multimedia into their classroom lectures. Since, it is still a new technological development, of instructors are still trying to master the art of doing presentations with computers. Many instructors are using commercial presentation packages, such as, Power Point or Persuasion (Savage, 1996). The instructors that are using these presentational tools are finding them very beneficial, because of the quality of the appearance of the material they wish to present and that it is easily modified (Savage, 1996). Graphics and illustrations that can be added right in with the text are helpful in explanation of things like the solar system (Savage, 1996).
Many instructors wonder if the technology rich classroom settings are really advancing the students learning. Many are concerned that students will depend on the multimedia presentations to get all the information they need. These instructors think that the outlined presentations will cause the students not to analyze all the material presented by the instructor.
We are now living in the "computer age" where technology makes old practices move aside. In doing all the wondrous things that technology allows us to do are we bettering or hurting ourselves. This is an issue of concern in the classroom, where in many college classrooms computerized presentations have taken the place of standard lectures using the trusty old blackboard. What many are wondering about is if these new presentation styles are helping or hurting the students. My findings should show the differences between the two lecture styles, and that the use of multimedia in the classroom should increase learning.
An independent t test was used to determine whether the lecture style, standard to media supplemented, made a difference in the amount of paraphrasing students used in their notes. It was found that there was significance (t(52) = 1.28, p < .05). The mean for the amount of paraphrasing in the standard lecture was 3.000 and the standard deviation was .800. The mean for the amount of paraphrasing in the Power Point lecture was 2.643 and the standard deviation was 1.193.
An independent t test was used to determine whether the lecture style, standard to media supplemented, made a difference in the major points cited in the students notes. It was found that there was no significance (t(52) = -2.93,p > .05). The mean for the amount of major points cited in the standard lecture was 3.654 and the standard deviation was .977. The mean for the amount of major points cited in the Power Point lecture was 4.357 and the standard deviation was .780.
An independent t test was used to see if year in college made any difference on the amount of detail in the notes taken. I compared freshman to seniors. It was found that there was no significance (t(16) = -.57, p > .05). For class level and amount of detail the mean was 2.750 and the standard deviation was .886 for freshman and for seniors the mean was 3.000 and the standard deviation was .943.
An independent t test was used to see if year in college made any difference on the amount of paraphrasing in the notes taken. I compared freshman to seniors. It was found that there was significance (t(16) = .50, p < .05). For class level and amount of paraphrasing the mean was 3.250 and the standard deviation was 1.389 for freshman and for seniors the mean was 3.000 and the standard deviation was .667.
An independent t test was used to see if year in college made any difference on the major points cited in the notes taken. I compared freshman to seniors. It was found that there was no significance (t(16) = .07, p > .05). For class level and amount of major points cited the mean was 4.125 and the standard deviation was .835 for freshman and for seniors the mean was 4.100 and the standard deviation was .738.
When comparing grade level and the amount of detail, paraphrasing, and major points cited, only paraphrasing showed significance. I would have assumed that the upper classmen, seniors, would have had a high mean score for paraphrasing, but, in fact, the under classmen, freshman, had a higher mean score. Which may be a result of the small sample size.
I faced many limitations in this study. The classes that I collected the data from were accustomed to Power Point lectures. This could have swayed the way in which the participants took the notes. They were used to taking notes from that format and when the class did not have that Power Point format their notes may reflect their unfamiliarity. Also, since the participants knew that I wanted their lecture notes, they could have taken better or worse notes than they would have if they were to be tested over the material. I also think that since I gave the lectures and I am not accustomed to giving a classroom lecture, my lack of experience could have influenced the participants.
In the future I feel that an already established classroom setting could be used, but the regular instructor should use both standard and multimedia, power point, supplemented lectures. I also think that the regular class instructor should give the study lectures, so that the students would not be influenced by a different instructor and the fact that they were taking the notes for a study.
This study can be used as a reference for educators and business persons alike. It shows how people understand what is being lectured about. They may be able to adapt their instruction style to better fit the needs of those they are teaching.
Chou, L., McClintock, R., Moretti, F., & Nix, D. (1993) Technology and Education: New Wine in New Bottles Choosing Pasts and Imagining Educational Futures. {on-line}. Available: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/newwine1.html
Kussmaul, C., Dunn, J., Bagley, M., Watnik, M. (1996) Using Technology in Education. When and Why, Not How. College Teaching, 44, 123-126.
Resnick, Hy. (1994). Introduction: Electronic Tools for Education and Training. Computer in Human Services, 11, 237-244.
Savage, T., & Vogel, K. (1996). Multimedia. A revolution in Higher Education?. College Teaching, 44, 127-131.
Page Last Updated.