The Point of PowerPoint in SophLit

Results

We gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr. Tim Coburn, our university statistician, in preparing these tables and the demographic tables.

A total of 109 students participated in this study; they were typical of the survey-of-literature classroom at our university: the majority were sophomores and represented a variety of majors, the majority being liberal arts. They were about 20 years old. (In Mimi's English 221, the mean age for the non-PPT class was 20.1; for the PPT class, 20.4. In Jana's English 222, the mean age for the non-PPT class was 21.4; for the PPT class, 20.2.)

Comparative Statistics on Responses to Surveys

English 221: English 222:

Questionnaire Item Statistic
Non-Power Point
Power Point
Non-Power Point
Power Point

This material makes sense to me.

Agree n 126 131 116 132

% 79.2 78.9 67.8 76.7

Neutral n 18 23 25 20

% 11.3 13.9 14.6 11.6

Disagree n 15 12 30 20

% 9.4 7.2 17.5 1.6

Total Responses 159 166 171 172

This material is easier to comprehend than I first thought.

Agree n 93 99 93 105

%
58.5
59.3
54.4
61.0

Neutral n 42 46 45 45

% 26.4 27.5 26.3 26.2

Disagree n 24 22 33 22

% 15.1 13.2 19.3 12.8

Total Responses 159 167 171 172

The way this material was introduced enhanced my learning.1

Agree n 105 90 114 137

% 66.0 54.9 66.7 79.7

Neutral n 45 64 44 30

% 28.3 39.0 25.7 17.4

Disagree n 9.0 10 13 5

% 6.0 6.1 7.6 2.9

Total Responses 159 164 171 172

I feel satisfied with the introduction and presentation of this material.

Agree n 114 117 125 141

% 71.7 71.3 73.1 82.0

Neutral n 38 41 33 24

% 23.9 25.0 41.2 14.0

Disagree n 7 6 13 7

% 4.4 3.7 14.7 4.1

Total Responses 159 164 171 172

I understand this material better than in other classes. 2

Agree n 82 81 75 103

% 51.6 49.1 44.1 60.2

Neutral n 63 69 70 46

% 39.6 41.8 41.2 26.9

Disagree n 14 15 25 22

% 8.8 9.1 14.7 12.9

Total Responses 159 165 170 171

1. Statistically significant for English 222. Chi-square=8.309, 2 d.f., p=.016

2. Statistically significant for English 222. Chi-square=9.559, 2 d.f., p=.008

3. No statistical differences on the others.

Qualitative/anecdotal observations

Jana: I observed a marked difference between the two 222 sections. The non-PowerPoint class was less engaged and less interested in the material. They seemed to feel threatened by the survey/quizzes and lacked confidence in their initial analyses of texts. The PowerPoint class was more enthusiastic, appeared more confident about their abilities to understand new material, and seemed (remarkably) less threatened and uncomfortable about daily quizzes. If morale could be measured, there was a clear difference. Three observations about the quiz, exam, and overall course grades: On many (but not all) the exams and quizzes, the PPT group had more A's & B's and fewer F's than the non-PPT group.

How did each section respond to the series of five affective questions? The results are encouraging. There were statistically significant differences between each 222 section on question #3 ("The way the material was introduced to me enhanced my learning") and question #5 ("I understand this material better than in other classes.") On question #3, the level of agreement for the NPP section is 66.7%, whereas the level of agreement for the PPT section is 79.7%. On question #5, the level of agreement for the NPP section is 44.1, whereas it is 60.2% for the PPT section. Agreement on the other three questions is also higher for the PPT section, but there is not enough evidence supplied by this data to say that the differences are statistically different from what might ordinarily be observed in a random sampling of students.

On the first exam, and the first three quizzes, there were no noticeable differences between the average score for each class. However, on the second and third exams, and on the last five (5) quizzes, there were noticeable (not huge, but noticeable) differences between the average scores for each class. The conclusion I've drawn from the third observation is this: as we approached more difficult texts, the images seem to have been much more useful. In other words, the more difficult and complex the reading assignment, the more useful the image. Conversely, the less complex the material (either by way of content or author's writing style), the less necessary the image. For example, images of the Lake District didn't necessarily help the students read Wordsworth's "nature" poetry. But images of Gothic architecture brought Ruskin's The Stones of Venice to life, as Ruskin draws a comparison between Gothic architecture and capitalist principles of mass production, and in a broader sense, sane, humane living. Ruskin's metaphor didn't work when students didn't know what Gothic architecture looked like. When they did, it amazed them how interesting and relevant this essay became.

Mimi: My results differ from Jana's, and I'm unsure as to the reason. While 66 percent of the students in my non-PPT class agreed that the way the material was introduced enhanced their learning, only 54.9 percent of the PPT class reported this positively, meaning that the non-PPT section was actually more satisfied with the presentation of the material. I was at first discouraged by this finding. Upon reflection, however, I believe I understand this information. The PPT class had to endure my technical floundering. There were times that I had to call the technician into the Distance Learning Classroom because I was having trouble launching the PowerPoint program. Even with this ambiguity, no differences were found to be statistically significant between the two 221 sections. I intend to conduct the study again next fall, and I hope to be more adept at using this technology.

Another factor to consider would be that the course content for 221 is quite different than for 222. In Major British Writers 1 (221), it seems that the instructor must teach culture and literature; in Major British Writers 2 (222), the instructor teaches concepts and literature. However, the real explanation may have to do with the fact that the students in 222 had more quizzes than the students in 221; consequently there are simply more data points to consider. Questions 3 and 5 show some evidence of the same kinds of differences observed with the 222 students, which would probably be enhanced with more data.

Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion

Comparative Statistics on Responses to Surveys
			English 221:		English 222:
Questionnaire Item		Statistic	Non-Power Point	Power Point	Non-Power Point	Power Point
This material makes sense to me.
	Agree	n	126	131	116	132
		%	79.2	78.9	67.8	76.7
	Neutral	n	18	23	25	20
		%	11.3	13.9	14.6	11.6
	Disagree	n	15	12	30	20
		%	9.4	7.2	17.5	1.6
	Total Responses		159	166	171	172
This material is easier to comprehend than I first thought.
	Agree	n	93	99	93	105
		%	58.5	59.3	54.4	61.0
	Neutral	n	42	46	45	45
		%	26.4	27.5	26.3	26.2
	Disagree	n	24	22	33	22
		%	15.1	13.2	19.3	12.8
	Total Responses		159	167	171	172
The way this material was introduced enhanced my learning.1
	Agree	n	105	90	114	137
		%	66.0	54.9	66.7	79.7
	Neutral	n	45	64	44	30
		%	28.3	39.0	25.7	17.4
	Disagree	n	9.0	10	13	5
		%	6.0	6.1	7.6	2.9
	Total Responses		159	164	171	172
I feel satisfied with the introduction and presentation of this material.
	Agree	n	114	117	125	141
		%	71.7	71.3	73.1	82.0
	Neutral	n	38	41	33	24
		%	23.9	25.0	41.2	14.0
	Disagree	n	7	6	13	7
		%	4.4	3.7	14.7	4.1
	Total Responses		159	164	171	172
I understand this material better than in other classes. 2
	Agree	n	82	81	75	103
		%	51.6	49.1	44.1	60.2
	Neutral	n	63	69	70	46
		%	39.6	41.8	41.2	26.9
	Disagree	n	14	15	25	22
		%	8.8	9.1	14.7	12.9
	Total Responses		159	165	170	171

1. Statistically significant for English 222. Chi-square=8.309, 2 d.f., p=.016 2. Statistically significant for English 222. Chi-square=9.559, 2 d.f., p=.008 3. No statistical differences on the others.