An Evaluation of Online Graphing Resources

Anna-Marie Robertson
EDTECH 505 Dr. Ross Perkins July 26, 2011

Table of Contents
Learning Reflection ........................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Purpose of the Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 5 Central Questions ........................................................................................................................ 5 Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 5 Background Information ................................................................................................................. 6 Why use online graphing tools ................................................................................................... 6 Standards of online graphing tools ............................................................................................. 6 People involved in the design and development of online graphing tools ................................. 6 Characteristics of previous graphing tools .................................................................................. 6 Characteristics of online graphing tools ..................................................................................... 7 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation Design ........................................................................................................................... 9 Sample......................................................................................................................................... 9 Validity ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation Question Design ....................................................................................................... 9 Evaluators Program Description.............................................................................................. 10 Results and Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 11 Reliability of Results................................................................................................................. 11 Responses for Online Graphing Tools and Characteristics ...................................................... 11 URLs and Characteristics of Online Graphing Tools (Objectives 2 and 3) ......................... 12 Teacher Rating of Online Graphing Tools and Characteristics (Objectives 1 and 5) .......... 14 Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................................ 16 Immediate Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 16 Long-Range Planning ............................................................................................................... 16 Evaluation Insights.................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A: Online Graphing Resources Evaluation Survey...................................................... 17 Appendix B: Personal Learning Networks ................................................................................... 20 Appendix C: Ratings of Characteristics and Graphing Tools ....................................................... 21 Appendix D: Rubric for Future Online Graphing Tools ............................................................... 23

2|Page

Learning Reflection
In this course I have had the opportunity to work on various projects that have encouraged and solidified my understanding of what evaluation actually is and how to implement it in my professional career. My learning began with the creation of a Google Collection, which I shared with my instructor. This allowed me to more easily share my work as well as continue to work to refine it even after it was submitted for a grade. I utilized this folder to house such work as the Chapter Questions, the Glossary Terms, and the presentation created solely from pictures to depict various glossary terms. Participating in these activities caused me to read, analyze, and integrate the information from the course textbook. This understanding was crucial in the activities surrounding evaluation that were to come. By participating in these preliminary activities, I was able to fulfill several of the AECT standards such as utilizing a variety of assessment measures to determine the adequacy of learning and instruction, selecting appropriate media to produce effective learning environments using technology resources, and using appropriate tools and instructional design principles to develop professional products. As the course progressed, I gradually began to encounter more activity with actual evaluation information. I was given a scenario concerning a Request for Proposals for a laboratory looking to have an evaluation completed that would determine the most appropriate marketing strategies for their product. At first I worked alone to produce an Evaluators Program Design proposal document. Then I was given the opportunity to work with two other classmates to compile our three reports into one fluid proposal. This activity gave me the needed information about proposals and allowed me to see what should go into a proposal by actually completing one. There were several aspects that were covered with this project from developing an EPD Timeline to creating a budget and utilizing Skype to communicate with my partners. The AECT standards that were covered included: using educational communications and instructional technology resources in a variety of learning contexts. The class began to focus more on the final evaluation report with the activity for searching out an evaluation report, sharing it, and then choosing six reports to compare and contrast. This gave me the opportunity to see what a good report was compared to a poor report. Following this activity, the class came together in a discussion forum to identify and compare our findings. I also took part in a summative evaluation activity for which I used a rubric to rate six websites, then worked with a group of classmates to analyze and display the results in a Google Presentation. This gave me needed experience with criterion-referenced measures and statistical analysis, which was great preparation for my final project. I was able to fulfill AECT standards 4.1 Project Management, 5.1 Problem Analysis, and 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation. During these aforementioned activities, I began working on my final project. I was to choose something to evaluate and perform an actual evaluation. That is what this final report is for. By doing this report, I was able to utilize everything I learned in this class. But more than that, I have learned what an evaluation actually is and how it works. I have learned how to prepare an Evaluators Program Description and timeline and to use it as the evaluation progressed. As I prepared this document, I realized just how important these two documents really are. This evaluation I conducted for my final project was an actual evaluation for something my school needed to have done. It served a real-life purpose. This evaluation will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our Math course redesigns which are coming in the near future. We will be able to more fully focus on redesigning our courses instead of spending precious time researching online graphing tools. Almost all of the AECT standards were utilized in the process of working through this final project. 3|Page

Executive Summary
This report details the results of an evaluation of online graphing tools to be used by teachers at Richard McKenna Charter High School (RMCHS) in preparation of redesigning their online courses in the districts new course management system - Joomla. As time for the Math departments full course redesign approaches, the teachers realized that not only the courses need to be upgraded, but the method for graphing needed to be upgraded as well. It is no longer efficient to have students graphing by hand and sending them to their respective teachers via a scanned image or through a fax machine. However, teachers felt they would rather spend their limited time concentrating on the actual redesign of their courses and not on researching online tools. They were looking for a way to quickly and efficiently find the highest quality interactive, online tools to use in their courses. That was the purpose of this evaluation. The evaluation consisted of two separate surveys sent out through various Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) and online Math groups. The first survey gathered names and websites of online graphing tools currently being used by high school Algebra teachers, as well as their reasons for using these tools. The second survey was sent out through the same PLNs and Math groups asking teachers to rate the characteristics of online graphing tools as reported in the initial survey, in addition to rating the various online graphing tools gathered in the same initial survey. An analysis of the initial survey results indicated that there was no clear consensus of either the graphing tools used or the characteristics for using them. Therefore all of the tools and characteristics were included for rating in the follow-up survey. An analysis of the second survey indicated that most teachers preferred either the Geogebra tools for graphing online or the Wolfram Alpha family of websites. The least preferred was Graphics for the Calculus Class. This was not surprising since these were Algebra teachers completing the survey. The most important category of characteristics was User Interface, which had more Cant Live Without and Important ratings than the other three categories. Following the analysis of the results for characteristics of online graphing tools, a rubric was generated for use in evaluating future online graphing tools and can also be used as a guide in preparing a more generic rubric to be used in any academic discipline. Follow the analysis of the results for the online graphing tools themselves, a database was constructed of the URLs of the indicated tools which will provide both quick access and room for growth.

4|Page

Purpose of the Evaluation

This evaluation is being conducted to find and evaluate online graphing resources in a timely and efficient manner utilizing the power of Personal Learning Networks and Math Groups that are disseminated through the Internet. These resources are needed to replace the current method of student participation in graphing exercises, which is to use paper, pencil, and a straightedge; and to send these back to the teacher via a scanner or fax machine; tools which most students dont have in their homes. The main concern about these online graphing tools is being able to choose the best tool for use in the new Math courses at Richard McKenna Charter High School in the most efficient amount of time. Central Questions The time for development of the new courses is very short and the teachers want to spend the bulk of their time concentrating on the development of their courses and not on researching online, interactive tools. This evaluation examines several issues related to choosing such tools. What tools are other teachers using or having their students use in their high school Math classes? What characteristics do these tools have that cause these teachers to feel the tools are a good choice? Can these characteristics be ranked and grouped into a generic rubric that can be used to evaluate other online tools? What technical aspects must be considered when choosing an online, interactive tool for inclusion in the new Joomla system? Can a database be created to house the tools gathered from other teachers in such a way that other tools can be added at a later date? Stakeholders This evaluation is being conducted primarily for the Math teachers at Richard McKenna Charter High School. The rubric created for use in evaluating other online tools, the database of online graphing resources, and the evaluation of these resources using the rubric will be used to enhance the efficiency of course redesign as the Mathematics Department approaches this phase of the school-wide implementation of the new Course Management System -- Joomla. Additional stakeholders include the school administration as they are interested in the rubric that is generated for use with other online tools across disciplines, and the participants in the survey. A place will be provided in the survey that is sent out through various Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) and Math Groups via the Internet for participants to include their email if they would like a copy of this report which will contain the results of the survey and a database of all online graphing resources gathered.

5|Page

Background Information
Richard McKenna Charter High School (RMCHS) is an online, degree-granting high school located in Idaho. It has been serving Idaho high school students since 2001 and has a fluctuating student base of approximately 750 students. All of the courses offered have been developed by the teachers themselves. Many of the courses are the same now as when they were originally developed ten years ago, including the courses offered in the Math department. The teachers in the Math department will be undergoing a department-wide course upgrade and want to employ more online tools in their courses. Because the time for development is so limited, it was decided that this evaluation would focus on online graphing tools with the ultimate goal of creating a rubric that could be used by any of the teachers as they continue to look for and evaluate future online tools. Why use online graphing tools Graphing is a big part of both the Algebra and Geometry curriculum. Traditionally it is performed using pencil, straightedge, and graph paper in a face to face classroom. At RMCHS its difficult to use these tools because the entire curriculum is delivered and assignments are accepted online. Currently, these graphing assignments are being done in this traditional way and students are required to scan their work and save it as an image to be attached to an assignment or they are required to fax the work to their respective teacher. There have been many complaints regarding the use of these tools because many people just dont have a scanner or fax machine in their home. They have to search them out and many times pay for their use. The teachers at RMCHS feel that utilizing an online graphing tool will eliminate the need to either scan or fax assignments and it will facilitate the students technology skills. Standards of online graphing tools This is an area the teachers were hoping would be addressed in the evaluation. They are not certain what a good online graphing tool should look like. They do know that they want it to be easy to use and to integrate in their existing courses. Aside from that, they are anticipating the creation of the rubric to guide them in this area. A bit of looking for information about standards for online graphing tools netted this evaluation with no research information for the standards of a good online graphing tool. The teachers have decided to rely on the expertise of other high school math teachers at large to assist in the creation of a rubric. People involved in the design and development of online graphing tools There are many different tools available on the Internet for use in graphing situations and each tool is produced by differing authors with differing amounts of credibility. As with any tool that appears on the Internet, the author should be considered for several reasons. The author of the tool determines the reliability, the longevity, and the usability of the tool. When an online teacher creates a course with a link to a tool, such as a graphing tool, for use by the students, he or she needs to feel that this link will be valid for as long as its needed. Broken links in an online course caused by web pages that are taken down or no longer serviced are very annoying and can cause a course to lose credibility. Characteristics of previous graphing tools Traditionally, graphing is completed using a straightedge, a pencil, and graph paper. If a student is 6|Page

fortunate enough, he or she might have access to a graphing calculator. But in a diverse online course environment, a teacher cannot count on a student having access to an expensive piece of equipment like a graphing calculator any more than they can expect them to have a scanner or fax machine. It is for this reason that the Math teachers at RMCHS have commissioned this collection of data and the subsequent evaluation. Characteristics of online graphing tools The products being reviewed are for graphing online. It is expected that the tool chosen for use at RMCHS will simulate what a student would do by hand to produce a graph of an equation. It is further expected that this tool will either be accessible totally online or through a small, cross-platform download. The details of the characteristics of the graphing tool are the focus of the data gathering and subsequent evaluation. Therefore, the important and applicable characteristics of the product in question will be developed through the deployment of the survey and the participation of the survey takers. Objectives During the discussion of the evaluation plan, five main objectives emerged: Objective 1: Determine what should be in an evaluation rubric for online interactive tools. Originally it was discussed that research would be conducted to determine what characteristics should be included in a rubric for grading the effectiveness of different online interactive tools. However, because of the short amount of time given for this evaluation, it was decided that this portion of the evaluation would be completed in conjunction with Objective 2. Objective 2: Determine what online graphing tools other teachers of high school Mathematics are currently using. Teachers at RMCHS in the Math department are about to embark on a complete course redesign and want to incorporate more interactive tools into their lessons for student use. Specifically, they are interested in acquiring data about online graphing tools. However, they dont have time to search for and evaluate all of the possible applications on the Internet. Therefore, it was determined that a survey would be sent to various Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) and Math groups asking for the URL for any online graphing tools they are using. Objective 3: Determine the pedagogical needs of an online tool. There are many teachers in the world that are currently using online graphing tools in their respective courses whether they be online, face to face, or a blend of the two. Teachers are professionals who are constantly applying the principles of evaluation to the tools they use, even if they dont realize they are. It was discussed and decided that a survey would be sent out through several PLNs and Math groups to gather information about the characteristics of online graphing tools currently being used by other teachers. This would provide a starting point for determining the pedagogical needs. Objective 4: Determine the technical aspects of what an online tool needs to have to be able to work with RMCHS new course management system. In conjunction with designing and developing all new math courses to be used in the online courses for RMCHS, the school is also switching to Joomla for their Course Management 7|Page

System. All courses will be designed to accommodate the new system. The teachers are not aware of the technical aspects of this new system since they have not used it yet. It will be important to include this information in the evaluation as it most likely will have a bearing on any online, interactive tools that are recommended for use in the courses. Objective 5: Recommend a list of high-quality, online, interactive tools to be used by students. In addition to wanting to know what tools are currently being used by other high school Math teachers, the teachers at RMCHS also want to know what characteristics of these online graphing tools cause the teachers from the PLNs to use these particular online graphing tools. This information will aid the teachers not only with their search for high-quality, online, graphing tools, but since they desire to incorporate other online tools as well, it is anticipated that these characteristics will be generalized to use with evaluating other tools.

8|Page

Evaluation Design
The goal-based model of evaluation was used in the design of this project because clear objectives were given at the outset of this evaluation. These objectives, listed in Background Information, have driven the design of the assessment tools, the data gathering, data analysis, and the reporting. The main overarching objective of this evaluation was to obtain information about online graphing tools. This information would then be used to generate a list of high-quality, online, interactive tools to be used by online students and their teachers at RMCHS. Online assessment tools, designed through the use of Google Forms, were used for the data gathering because this evaluation is being conducted during the summer when most teachers are not in their regular classrooms. To facilitate this, the assessment tools would be disseminated through online Personal Learning Networks, thus providing the ability to target High School Math teachers specifically. An online search of Math Groups and Personal Learning Networks for Math teachers netted the evaluation population. All of these sources were used to disseminate the assessment tools (see Appendix B). Sample Two separate surveys were used to gather the data. The twenty-one respondents of the initial survey constitute the evaluation sample for the first survey. The eighteen respondents of the second survey constitute the evaluation sample for that survey. It is not known if these are the same respondents as most responses for the first survey were anonymous and no personal information was gathered in the second survey. An opportunity was given at the beginning of the second survey for the respondent to take the first survey if they had not already. Validity The initial survey began by determining if the respondent was a High School Algebra teacher, thus immediately validating the rest of the survey. If a respondent was not a High School Algebra teacher, they were given two choices: they could end the survey, or end the survey and leave their email so as to receive a copy of this report. Once the respondents were validated as being a High School Algebra teacher, they were filtered again by responding to a question that asked if they use any online graphing tools, websites, or software including but not limited to online graphing calculators, graphing websites, etc. If they answered no to this question, then they ended the survey and were given the opportunity to leave their email as before. Evaluation Question Design Once a respondent was validated in the initial survey, they were given an opportunity to share their online resources with the URL, and the characteristics of these tools that they felt were important (see Appendix A). They were given five slots on the survey to share this information for both the URL and the characteristics. These were open ended questions and were designed to fulfill objectives 2 and 3 as listed in the Background Information. The second survey was designed from the information gathered from the initial survey. There were two parts to this second survey. The first part listed all of the characteristics that the respondents of the initial survey felt were important for an online graphing tool. The characteristics were separated into four main categories to make the survey more organized. Each respondent was asked to rate every characteristic as Cant live without this feature, Important feature, Nice to have feature, This feature doesnt matter to me, or this feature shouldnt be a concern (See Appendix C part 1). This part of the survey was designed to help fulfill objective 1 and 5 as listed in the Background Information. 9|Page

The second portion of this survey listed all of the resources and the URLs gathered from the first survey. Respondents were asked to rate each tool as I do use this tool with my students, I would definitely like to use this tool with my students, I would consider using this tool with my students, I would NOT use this tool with my students, or I did not look at this tool (see Appendix C part 2). This part of the survey was designed to help fulfill objectives 1 and 5 as listed in the Background Information. Objective 4 (see Background Information) was not addressed in this evaluation because the school technical administrator was not available for an interview as he does not work during the summer months. This part of the evaluation can be completed at a later time. Evaluators Program Description Below is a table outlining the implementation of this evaluation including dates when different parts of the evaluation were completed.
Date 6/24/2011 6/27/2011 7/1/2011 7/2/2011 7/2 - 7/15/2011 7/16/2011 Day Friday Monday Friday Saturday Saturday Task Discuss project with Dr. Perkins to solidify idea for evaluation. Write EPD and Timeline Timeline and Evaluation's Program Description (EPD) due by midnight. Develop survey for teachers, which includes questions about what online graphing tools they are currently using and why. Deploy survey to PLN teachers. Collect data Make a tally of the websites provided. Include the name and URL of the website, as well as the number of times it was suggested. Organize and prepare this for use in the second survey Tally the suggestions provided by teachers as to what should be included in a rubric for evaluating online tools. Organize and prepare this for use in the second survey Prepare and deploy the second survey to the same population as before. Collect data Analyze and compile data for online graphing tool characteristics and for graphing tool use from survey two. Prepare graphs, charts, and tables Begin writing final report. Complete writing final report. Proofread. Turn in final report. Email final report to all stakeholders. Final Evaluation Report Due

7/16 - 7/22/2011 7/25/2011 7/26/2011 7/27/2011 7/28/2011 7/29/2011 8/1/2011

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Monday

10 | P a g e

Results and Analysis

Reliability of Results The surveys used for this evaluation were deployed through various Personal Learning Networks and Math Groups via the Internet (see Appendix B). This was done to assure specifically targeting high school math teachers. The total population size of these groups is not known because the population of such groups is in a constant state of flux. A total of 21 responses to the first survey over a period of fourteen days were received and a total of 18 responses to the second survey over a period of seven days were also received. The first survey filtered the participants so that only high school Algebra teachers would respond (see Evaluation Design). This filtering assured that the URLs and characteristics would be valid responses from teachers who are currently practicing in the field. Current teachers at RMCHS were not polled as they are all on summer break and not available at the time of survey deployment. The first question in the initial survey asked participants if they currently teach High School Algebra. There were three choices they could choose from (see Appendix A, Question 1). Of the 21 participants, 16 said they are currently teaching High School Algebra, three said they were not High School Algebra teachers but would like to participate in the survey, and finally two said they did not teach High School Algebra and chose to end the survey. The next question asked respondents in which environment they teach High School Algebra (see Appendix A, Question 2). There were three specific choices and an other category where respondents could type in an explanation. Six people chose this category. Of the 21 participants, 15 chose one of the pre-defined answers, and the rest chose to type in their own response. It is interesting to this evaluator that there is such a diverse interpretation of what constitutes teaching high school Algebra, but it was anticipated. The two respondents that chose I do not teach H.S. Algebra are two of the three respondents that chose to participate in the survey even though they dont teach HS Algebra. If the respondents wanted to receive the results of this evaluation, they had to go through the survey to get to the point where they could leave their email address. These two respondents are not included in any of the further analysis. The third question asked respondents if they use any online graphing tools or websites to teach graphing concepts. Of the 21 respondents, 12 responded positively, 7 responded negatively and ended the survey, and the two respondents that chose to participate for reasons stated above were left blank. After undergoing this filtering process there are now twelve respondents that are valid high school Algebra teachers that use online graphing tools. Responses for Online Graphing Tools and Characteristics When this evaluation was initially discussed, it was determined that a list of online graphing tools would be collected from current high school Algebra teachers and a rubric, created from research, would be applied to them to determine which ones would best fit the needs of RMCHS Math Department teachers. However, with the short time allotted for this evaluation, it was further decided to collect information about the reasons why the participants used the reported online graphing tools in the same survey with the collection of the URLs. This information could then be used to develop the rubric to be used in the future when other tools are evaluated. The results from the initial survey concerning the collection of characteristics and URLs for online graphing websites are summarized below.

11 | P a g e

0 Ease of Use Clarity of graphs Sophistication of Output Free Feature Rich Cross Platform Strong Community Open Source Interactive (can be Dynamic (The look changes Can plot multiple graphs Plots relations as well as Fluent equation entry Plots experimental data Does regression curves Prevents unnecessary Visualization Developed by math teachers Comprehensive Intuitive
Can prepare resources in advance

URLs and Characteristics of Online Graphing Tools (Objectives 2 and 3)

Characteristic of Graphing Tool

In general, there was not a clear consensus of the best or most important characteristic of an online graphing tool (see Appendix A, #5). Figure 1 below summarizes this data. Of 39 characteristics listed, only four were mentioned by more than one respondent and only one of these was mentioned by more than two respondents. It is clear that Ease of Use is the most important characteristic of an online graphing tool for use in a high school Algebra class.

Figure 1
Gives multiple Can export graphics views to Holds students interest Safety of site instant visual dynamics provides download graphics Drop Down visual menus Input line for graphing Visual icons Students can move graphs Lines can be displayed in

12 | P a g e

Tally

As was the case with the characteristics, there was not a clear consensus of any one online graphing tool to be used in a high school Algebra class (See Appendix A, #4). Figure 2 below summarizes this data. However, five respondents did state that they use Geogebra with their students. This is the largest grouping of responses for any one URL for online graphing tools. The next closest grouping is two responses each for four different URLs. Of these four different URLs, three of them (for a total of six responses) were from the Wolfram Alpha family of websites. All other URLs listed had only one response each.

Online Graphing Tool

6 5 4 3 2 1 Tally 0

Figure 2

Because there was no clear consensus for either the Graphing Tool itself or the Characteristics of a good online graphing tool, it was decided to use all of them in the second survey.

13 | P a g e

Teacher Rating of Online Graphing Tools and Characteristics (Objectives 1 and 5) In analyzing the data for characteristics of online graphing tools from the second survey, the category This feature should not be a concern was used once by only one respondent. All other responses were in the other four categories. (See Appendix C, part 1). Figure 3 below summarizes this data. The User Interface is slightly more important to respondents than the other categories with a mean of 7.05 respondents compared to a mean response of 6.67 for Accessibility, 6.44 for Program Features and 5 for Collaboration (see Figure 4). This data was calculated as a total mean of both the Cant Live Without and Important features together. The feature with the highest rating was Input Line for graphing equations as 11 respondents out of 18 felt they could not live without this feature. The most Important feature was Instant visual dynamics with 13 out of 18 respondents.

Web based (no download) Visualization Visual icons Prevents unnecessary repeated activity Intuitive Interactive (can be manipulated by user) Input line for graphing equations Ease of use Dynamic (The look changes) Drop down visual menus Clarity of graphs USER INTERFACE

Part 1: Characteristics of Online Graphing Tools

Mean of CLWO and Important 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Students can move graphs and have the Sophistication of output Safety of site provides download graphics Plots relations as well as functions Plots experimental data Lines can be displayed in standard or Instant visual dynamics Gives multiple representations, not just Fluent equation entry Feature rich Does regression curves Developed by math teachers for math Comprehensive Can prepare resources in advance or use Can plot multiple graphs Can export graphics views to documents PROGRAM FEATURES Strong community COLLABORATION Open source Free Cross platform ACCESSIBILITY 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mean of CLWO and Important

Figure 4

Four characteristics had as high or higher scores in the Nice to Have and Doesnt matter to me category than in the other two positive categories. They are: Visual icons 9/18 Drop down visual menus 9/18 Lines in standard and slop/int 9/18 Developed by math teachers 11/18

This feature shouldn't be a concern This feature doesn't matter to me Nice to have feature Important feature Can't live without this feature Figure 3

14 | P a g e

Graphing Tools Average of Do Use, Definitely Use, and Consider Use

Geogebra Applets

The Geometer's

Wolfram Alpha

Graphics for the

Geogebra PB Works

WSU Graphing Tool

GraphSketch.com

Geogebra Webstart

Part 2: Graphing Tool Use

Wolfram Alpha Demonstrations Wolfram Alpha Algebra Wolfram Alpha Wiris Web Graphing WSU Graphing Tool Waldo Maths The Geometer's Sketchpad Shodor Quick Math MacKichan Interactive Mathematics GraphSketch.com Graphs of Functions and Algebra Graphmatica Graphics for the Calculus Geogebra Webstart Geogebra PB Works Geogebra Applets French Geogebra Cool Math Advanced Graphing Figure 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 I would not use this tool with my students I would consider using this tool with my students I would definitely like to use this tool with my students

Figure 6

There are three websites that had 50% or more teachers that would NOT use this website with their students (see Figure 6): Graphics for the Calculus Classroom ........ 57% Waldo Maths ............................................. 56% Wiris .......................................................... 50%

I do use this tool with my students

15 | P a g e

Wolfram Alpha

Wolfram Alpha

Waldo Maths

Web Graphing

In Part 2 of the second survey, teachers were asked to rate the . graphing tools collected in the initial survey (see Appendix C, part 2). Six websites earned 100% across the board for use in the classroom. These included all but one of the Geogebra websites and all of the Wolfram Alpha websites (see Figure 6).

Cool Math

Interactive

Graphs of

120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

MacKichan

Quick Math

Graphmatica

Geogebra

Shodor

Wiris

Conclusions & Recommendations

Immediate Conclusions One of the objectives of this evaluation was to create a database of highly-rated, online graphing tools. After reviewing the results of the Graphing Tool Use analysis (see bullets under Figure 6), it is recommended that the following graphing tools not be included in the database: 1) Graphics for the Calculus Classroom, 2) Waldo Maths, and 3) Wiris. Another objective of this survey was to create a rubric for rating future graphing tools. After reviewing the results of the Characteristics of Graphing Tools analysis (see bullets under Figure 4), it is recommended that four of them not be included in the rubric: 1) Developed by math teachers for math teachers and students, 2) Lines can be displayed in standard or slope/intercept form, 3) Drop down visual menus, and 4) Visual icons. Since the school technical coordinator was not available at the time of this evaluation, it is recommended that he be contacted when school resumes for information regarding technical aspects of deploying any online graphing tool in the new Course Management System.

Long-Range Planning Once the rubric for grading online graphing tools is accepted and put into use, it should be used to aid in development of a more general rubric that can be used to grade any online, interactive tool for use in online courses. This will allow other academic discipline teachers to utilize this tool. Other online graphing tools should be searched out, graded using the rubric, and added to the database. This database will be a fluid and dynamic teacher resource.

Evaluation Insights Because of the limited amount of time to conduct the evaluation, the proper research for comparison rubrics was not conducted. This is an area that could have a significant impact on the results of this survey since only 21 teachers participated. Also, because the survey was conducted during the summer months, the teachers at RMCHS were not available for inclusion in the survey. This is another area that could have a significant impact on the results of this evaluation. The Database of Online Graphing Tools can be found at: http://edu.symbaloo.com/mix/onlinegraphingtools The Rubric can be found as Appendix D in this report.

16 | P a g e

Appendix A: Online Graphing Resources Evaluation Survey

Shown below are the questions from the first Google Survey that was sent out to members of various Personal Learning Networks via the Internet (See Appendix B). Note: Question 6 asked respondents to provide their email address if they wanted a copy of this final evaluation report sent to them. For purposed of identity privacy, this question and its answers have been omitted from this report. This survey can be seen live at: http://bit.ly/oVPlk3

1. Do you teach High School Algebra?

Respondents No, I don't teach High School Algebra. (ends survey) No, I don't teach High School Algebra, but I would Yes, I teach High School Algebra 2 3 16

2. In which environment do you teach High School Algebra?

Respondents I don't teach H.S. Algebra I teach H.S. Algebra twice a week to home school I teach another academic subject I teach a gifted child of tens years old Did teach it for years Other: I teach H.S. Algebra exclusively online I teach H.S. Algebra in a blended environment (part- I teach H.S. Algebra in a face to face classroom 1 4 10 1 1 1 1 2

3. Do you use any online graphing tools or websites to teach graphing concepts?
Blank No, I don't use any online graphing tools Yes, I use at least one or more online 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Respondents

17 | P a g e

4. Please share at least one online graphing tool, website, or software that you use to teach graphing concepts. Provide the URL (required) and a description if you choose. (There were five spaces given for respondents to use.)
# of Name of website Respondents 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Cool Math Advanced Graphing Geogebra Geogebra Applets French Geogebra PB Works Geogebra Webstart Graphics for the Calculus Classroom Graphmatica Graphs of Functions and Algebra GraphSketch.com Interactive Mathematics MacKichan Quick Math Shodor The Geometer's Sketchpad Waldo Maths WSU Graphing Tool Web Graphing Wiris Wolfram Alpha Wolfram Alpha Algebra Wolfram Alpha Demonstrations

URL
http://www.coolmath.com/algebra/21-advancedgraphing/index.html http://www.geogebra.org/cms/ http://dmentrard.free.fr/GEOGEBRA/Maths/accueilmath.h tm http://math247.pbworks.com/w/page/20517424/Algebrawith-GeoGebra http://www.geogebra.org/webstart/geogebra.html http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/graphics.html http://graphmatica.com/ http://www.analyzemath.com/precalculus.html http://www.graphsketch.com/ http://www.intmath.com/functions-and-graphs/graphsusing-jsxgraph.php http://www.mackichan.com/ http://www.quickmath.com/webMathematica3/quickmath/ http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/ http://www.dynamicgeometry.com/ http://www.waldomaths.com/Cubic1NLW.jsp http://www.sci.wsu.edu/math/math107/Grapher/cjgrapher. html http://www.webgraphing.com/ http://www.wiris.com/es/quizzes http://www.wolframalpha.com/ http://www.wolframalpha.com/examples/Algebra.html http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/

5. Characteristic of Online Graphing Tool

18 | P a g e

# of Respondents Characteristic of Graphing tool from survey 5 Ease of Use I I 2 I I I I 2 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Clarity of graphs Sophistication of Output Free Feature Rich Cross Platform Strong Community Open Source Interactive (can be manipulated by user) Dynamic (The look changes based on user input) Can plot multiple graphs Plots relations as well as functions Fluent equation entry Plots experimental data Does regression curves Prevents unnecessary repeated activity Visualization Developed by math teachers for math teachers and students Comprehensive Intuitive Can prepare resources in advance or use on the spot (versatile) Gives multiple representations, not just graphs Can export graphics views to documents Holds students interest Safety of site instant visual dynamics provides download graphics Drop Down visual menus Input line for graphing equations Visual icons Students can move graphs and have the equations change Lines can be displayed in standard or slope/intercept form

19 | P a g e

Appendix B: Personal Learning Networks

1) Linked In Math Connection Group http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Math-Connection1872005?mostPopular=&gid=1872005&trk=eml-anet_dig-h_gn-tpd-cn 2) Linked In Math E-learning Software http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Math-Elearning-Software-1036537?trk=myg_ugrp_ovr 3) The Educators PLN - Math Teachers Group http://edupln.ning.com/group/mathteachers/forum/topics/online-graphing-resources# 4) Twitter @mathchat 5) Edutopia: Online Learning (group) http://www.edutopia.org/groups/online-learning/61963 6) Edutopia: STEM Education (group) http://www.edutopia.org/groups/science-technology-engineering-mathematics-education/61964 7) Math Future http://groups.google.com/group/mathfuture 8) Natural Math https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/naturalmath 9) Diigo group: Maths 2.0 http://groups.diigo.com/group/webmaths 10) EdWeb group: Web 2.0 Tools http://www.edweb.net/Communities/Fantastic%20Websites%20for%20Educators/Discussions/ 11) The Future of Education http://www.futureofeducation.com/forum

20 | P a g e

Appendix C: Ratings of Characteristics and Graphing Tools

Shown below are the results of the second survey. In this survey, two sections were included. One section asked respondents to rate the characteristics of the online graphing tools from the first survey using the five categories shown in the table below. The second section asked them to rate the resources gathered from the first survey using the categories as shown on the next page. The URLs were provided in the survey. This survey can be viewed live at: http://bit.ly/mWCrFY
Characteristics of Online Graphing Tools ACCESSIBILITY Cross platform Free Open source COLLABORATION Strong community PROGRAM FEATURES Can export graphics views to documents Can plot multiple graphs Can prepare resources in advance or use on the spot (versatile) Comprehensive Developed by math teachers for math teachers and students Does regression curves Feature rich Fluent equation entry Gives multiple representations, not just graphs Instant visual dynamics Lines can be displayed in standard or slope/intercept form Plots experimental data Plots relations as well as functions provides download graphics Safety of site Sophistication of output Students can move graphs and have the equations change USER INTERFACE Clarity of graphs Drop down visual menus Dynamic (The look changes) Ease of use Input line for graphing equations Interactive (can be manipulated by user) Intuitive Prevents unnecessary repeated activity Visual icons Visualization Web based (no download) Can't live without this feature 5 7 2 0 7 11 9 2 0 4 3 4 5 3 1 3 2 3 7 1 7 10 2 4 9 11 9 8 4 3 7 2 Important feature 8 10 8 10 7 5 8 11 5 7 9 12 8 13 8 8 12 8 5 11 10 8 7 7 7 4 8 9 10 6 10 10 Nice to have feature 4 1 6 6 4 2 1 5 8 6 5 2 5 2 8 6 4 4 3 6 1 0 9 7 2 3 1 1 4 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 This feature doesn't matter to me 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 7 This feature shouldn't be a concern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 | P a g e

Graphing Tool
Cool Math Advanced Graphing Geogebra Geogebra Applets French Geogebra PB Works Geogebra Webstart Graphics for the Calculus Classroom Graphmatica Graphs of Functions and Algebra GraphSketch.co m Interactive Mathematics MacKichan Quick Math Shodor The Geometer's Sketchpad Waldo Maths WSU Graphing Tool Web Graphing Wiris Wolfram Alpha Wolfram Alpha Algebra Wolfram Alpha Demonstrations

URL

I do use this tool with my students

I would definitely like to use this tool with my students

I would consider using this tool with my students

I would not use this tool with my students

I did not look at this tool

http://www.coolmath.com/algebra/21-advancedgraphing/index.html http://www.geogebra.org/cms/ http://dmentrard.free.fr/GEOGEBRA/Maths/accuei lmath.htm http://math247.pbworks.com/w/page/20517424/Al gebra-with-GeoGebra http://www.geogebra.org/webstart/geogebra.html

2 7 2 1 7 1

2 6 0 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 3 1 0 0 0 2 2 0

3 2 2 8 3 1 4 5 4 5 3 2 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 6

3 0 2 0 1 4 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 3 9 3 2 4 0 0 0

8 3 12 5 5 11 11 10 9 9 10 9 7 2 9 9 10 10 3 5 6

http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/graphics.html http://graphmatica.com/

1 2

http://www.analyzemath.com/precalculus.html http://www.graphsketch.com/ http://www.intmath.com/functions-andgraphs/graphs-using-jsxgraph.php http://www.mackichan.com/ http://www.quickmath.com/webMathematica3/quic kmath/ http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/ http://www.dynamicgeometry.com/ http://www.waldomaths.com/Cubic1NLW.jsp http://www.sci.wsu.edu/math/math107/Grapher/cj grapher.html http://www.webgraphing.com/ http://www.wiris.com/es/quizzes http://www.wolframalpha.com/ http://www.wolframalpha.com/examples/Algebra.h tml http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ 2 2 1 3 1 6 2 2 1 0 8 6 6

22 | P a g e

Appendix D: Rubric for Future Online Graphing Tools

EXCELLENT ACCESSIBILITY Cross platform Free Open source COLLABORATION Strong community PROGRAM FEATURES Can export graphic views to documents Can plot multiple graphs Can prepare resources in advance or use on the spot (versatile) Comprehensive Does regression curves Feature rich Fluent equation entry Gives multiple representations, not just graphs Instant visual dynamics Plots experimental data Plots relations as well as functions provides download graphics Safety of site Sophistication of output Students can move graphs and have the equations change USER INTERFACE Clarity of graphs Ease of use Input line for graphing equations Interactive (can be manipulated by user) Intuitive Prevents unnecessary repeated activity Visualization Web based (no download) ADEQUATE POOR NOT PRESENT

23 | P a g e