You are here

Home » Content

Effects of the PowerPoint methodology on content learning

Journal Name:

  • Intangible Capital

Publication Year:

  • 2013
DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.370

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Purpose: This study focuses on whether the use of PowerPoint technology as the main resource to convey information has an effect on students’ learning compared with classes taught without this technology. Design/methodology/approach: The sample consisted of 205 psychology students, divided into four groups, who were taught an ordinary Educational Psychology lesson. In two of these groups, a PowerPoint presentation (19 slides) was used to deliver the contents, while in the other two the same contents were delivered by the professors with the only aid of the blackboard. After the lesson, students’ learning was assessed by means of a questionnaire consisting of ten multiple-choice items. Findings: Results showed significant differences (p < 0.000), with the scores of the groups without PowerPoint an average of 19% higher than the groups with PowerPoint. Originality/value: The use of technology can have a very positive influence on learning, provided that its use fits the circumstances inherent in learning.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-effects-powerpoint-methodology-content-learning.pdf
  • 1
184-198
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

ALI, A.; ELFESSI, A. (2004). Examining student’s performance and attitudes toward the use of
information technology in a virtual and conventional setting. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 2(3). Available at: http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/2.3.5.pdf
AMARE, N. (2006). To slideware or not to slideware: Students’ experiences with PowerPoint vs.
Lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36(3): 297-308.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/03GX-F1HW-VW5M-7DAR
APPERSON, J.M.; LAWS, E.L.; SCEPANSKY, J.A. (2006). The impact of presentation graphics on
students’ experience in the classroom. Computers and Education, 47: 116-126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.09.003
BABB, K.A.; ROSS, C. (2009). The timing of online lecture slide availability and its effect on
attendance, participation, and exam performance. Computers and Education, 52(4):
868-881. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.009
BARLETT, R.M.; STROUGH, J. (2003). Multimedia vs. traditional course instruction in
introductory social psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30(4): 335-338.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3004_07
BLOKZIJL, W.; ANDEWEG, B. (2005). The effects of text slide format and presentational quality
on learning in college lectures. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference
Proceedings, 288-299. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
BROWN, B.; LIEDHOLM, C. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of
microeconomics? The American Economic Review, 92(2): 444-448.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282802320191778
CLADELLAS, R.; CASTELLÓ, A. (2010). Aportes y perjuicios de las TIC’s a la educación.
Congreso de Alfabetización mediática y culturas digitales.
DRIESSNACK, M. (2005). A closer look at PowerPoint Feature Article. Journal of Nursing
Education, 44(8): 347.
DZIUBAN, C.D.; HARTMAN, J.L.; MOSKAL, P.D. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Center for
Applied Research. Research Bulletin, 7.
-
ERWIN, T.D.; RIEPPI, R. (1999). Comparing Multimedia and Traditional Approaches in
Undergraduate Psychology Classes. Teaching of Psychology, 26(1): 58-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2601_18
FARKAS, D. (2006). Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck design. Information
Design Journal + Document Design, 14(2): 162-171.
GRABE, M. (2005). Voluntary use of online lecture notes: Correlates of note use and note use
as an alternative to class attendance. Computers and Education, 44: 409-421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.005
HUBERTY, C.J. (2002). A history of effect sizes indices. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 67: 227-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062002002
JONES, A. (2006). Scavenger hunt enhances students’ utilization of blackboard. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 2(2): 86-99.
LOWRY, R.B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures – Effect upon student performance.
University Chemistry Education, 3: 18-21.
LOWRY, R.B. (2003). Through the bottleneck. ILTHE Newsletter, 11, summer, 9.
MACKIEWICZ, J.; MASTARONE, G.; LEE-KIM, J. (2006). What’s Not to Like? Business Student’s
Opinions about PowerPoint Slide Design”, Proceedings of the 2006 Association for Business
Communication Annual Convention, 1-9.
MACKIEWICZ, J. (2008). Comparing PowerPoint experts’ and university students’ opinions
about PowerPoint presentations. Journal Technical Writing and Communication, 38(2):
149-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/TW.38.2.d
MAYER, R.; MORENO, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1): 43-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
MCLAREN, C. (2004). A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and
classroom business statistics experiences. Decision Sciences, 2(1): 1-10.
MITCHELL, A.; HONORE, S. (2007). Criteria for successful blended learning. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 39(3): 143-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850710742243
MORENO, R.; MAYER, R. (2002). Verbal Redundancy in Multimedia Learning: When Reading
Helps Listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1): 156-163.
NEVILLE, H. (2004). In defense of PowerPoint. Computer, 37(7): 98-99.
RIFFELL, S.; SIBLEY, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate
biology courses: an evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers and Education, 44(3):
217-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.005
RUSELL, T.L. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Raleigh NC: North Caroline
State University.
SAVOY, A., PROCTOR, R.W.; SALVENDY, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint and
traditional lecture. Computers and Education, 52: 858-867.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005
SCHULMAN, A.H.; SIMS, R.L. (1999). Learning in an Online Format versus an In-Class Format:
An Experimental Study. Technological Horizons in Education, 26(11): 54-56.
STEIN, K. (2006). The do’s and don’ts of PowerPoint presentations. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 106(11): 1745-1748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.029
STONER, M. (2007). PowerPoint in a new key. Communication Education, 56(3): 354-381.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520701342052
SUSSKIND, J. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in classroom: enhancing student’s self-efficacy and
attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2): 203-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.005
SUSSKIND, J. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s Power: Enhancing student’s self-efficacy and
attitudes bur not their behavior, Computers & Education, 50(4): 1228-1239.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.001
SZABO, A.; HASTINGS, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we
replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35: 175-187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00030-0
TUFTE, E. (2003). PowerPoint is Evil. PowerPoint Corrupts. PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely.
Wired Magazine, 11(9): 118-119.
VERNADAKIS, N., ANTONIOU, P., GIANNOUSI, M., ZETOU, E.; KIOUMOURTZOGLOU, E. (2011).
Comparing hybrid learning with traditional approaches on learning the Microsoft Office
Power Point 2003 program in tertiary education. Computers and Education, 56: 188-199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.007
VERONIKAS, S.; SHAUGHNESSY, M. (2005). An interview with Richard Mayer. Educational
Psychology Review, 17(2): 179-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3952-z

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com