Rethinking PowerPoint Slide Design for Multimedia Learning

Abstract

This analysis investigates two differential PowerPoint slide designs—presentation and teleprompter—for multimedia learning. Eye tracking measures assessed differences in fixations. Participants demonstrated greater fixation counts for teleprompter slides, measures of aesthetic liking evidenced that slides incorporating imagery resulted in more pleasurable learning experiences, and visually-based slides influenced more reflective learning and greater activation of information processing. The results offer practical advice for instructors wishing to increase the slide design effectiveness for improved multimedia learning.

Keywords

multimedia learning slideware technology presentations PowerPoint

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alley

Neeley

K. A.

(2005). Discovering the power of PowerPoint: Rethinking the design of presentation skills from a skillful user’s perspective. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon, June 12-15. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alley,%20M.,%20%20Neeley,%20K.%20.%20Discovering%20the%20power%20of%20PowerPoint:%20Rethinking%20the%20design%20of%20presentation%20slides%20from%20a%20skillful%20users%20perspective.%20In%20Proceedings%20of%20the%202005%20American%20society%20of%20engineering%20education%20annual%20conference%20and%20exposition,%20Portland,%20Oregon,%20June%201215.

Axtell

Maddux

Aberasturi

(2008). The effect of presentation software on classroom verbal interaction and on student retention of higher education lecture content. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 21–33. http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/ijttl.html .

Blijlevens

Thurgood

Hekkert

Chen

L. L.

Leder

Whitfield

T. W. A.

(2017). The aesthetic pleasure in design scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000098

Boyd

R. L.

Schwartz

H. A.

(2021). Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: The past, present, and future states of the field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967028

Bucher

Niemann

(2012). Visualizing science: The reception of PowerPoint presentations. Visual Communication, 11(3), 283–306. http://doi.org/10.1177/1470357212446409

Burke

James

(2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569908317151

Chen

Epps

Ruiz

Chen

(2011). Eye activity as a measure of human mental effort in HCI. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1145/1943403.1943454

Chi

M. T. H.

Wylie

(2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

Clark

J. M.

Paivio

(1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076

10.

Cooper

(2009). Overloading on slides: cognitive load theory and microsoft’s slide program PowerPoint. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 17(2), 127–135. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/28143/

11.

Coulson

Harvey

(2013). Scaffolding student reflection for experience-based learning: A framework. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752726

12.

Dake

(2005). Aesthetics theory. In Smith

K. L.

Moriarty

Kenney

(Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: theory, methods, and media (pp. 3–22). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.

13.

Davies

Higgins

K. M.

Hopkins

(eds.) (2009). A companion to aesthetics. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.

14.

Depaepe

(2000). Order in progress: everyday educational practice in primary schools, Belgium, 1880 - 1970. Leuven University Press.

15.

Duarte

(2008). Slide:Ology: The art and science of creating great presentations. O’Reilly Media.

16.

Endicott

(2000). Growing up with PowerPoint. Presentations, 61–66. https://www.indezine.com/stuff/guppt.pdf.

17.

Garrett

(2015). Powerpoint outside class: The impact of slide design on student use. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515598521

18.

Herting

D. C.

Pros

R. C.

Tarrida

A. C.

(2020). Habit and social influence as determinants of PowerPoint use in higher education: A study from a technology acceptance approach. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799021

19.

Inoue-Smith

Wang

(2016). College-based case studies in using PowerPoint effectively. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1127745. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1127745

20.

Knight

Paroutis

Heracleous

(2018). The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on meaning making in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 894–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2727

21.

Levasseur

D. G.

Sawyer

J. K.

(2006). Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. Review of Communication, 6(1-2), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358590600763383

22.

Mann

Robinson

(2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802042911

23.

Mayer

R. E.

(1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1

24.

Mayer

R. E.

(2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

25.

Mayer

R. E.

Sims

V. K.

(1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Education Psychology, 86(3), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389

26.

Medina

(2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home and school. Pear press.

27.

Motamedi

(2019). The promises of presentational technology for teaching and learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 13(3), 416–419. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v13i3.13175

28.

Nelson

R. S.

(2000). The slide lecture, or the work of art ‘history’ in the age of mechanical reproduction. Critical Inquiry, 26(3), 414–434. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1344289. https://doi.org/10.1086/448973

29.

Paivio

(1971). Imagery and deep structure in the recall of English nominalizations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviors, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80086-5

30.

Paivio

(1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.

31.

Penciner

(2013). Does PowerPoint enhance learning? Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15(2), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.2310/8000.2013.130756

32.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Boyd

R. L.

Jordan

Blackburn

(2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin.

33.

Perusso

Blankesteijn

Leal

(2020). The contribution of reflective learning to experiential learning in business education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(7), 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1705963

34.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

35.

Reiber

L. P.

(1990). Animation in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298250

36.

Rello

Baeza-Yates

Dempere-Marco

Saggion

(2013). Frequent words improve readability and short words improve understandability for people with dyslexia. Proceedings from the International Federation for Information Processing Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_15

37.

Reynolds

(2012). Presentation Zen: simple ideas on presentation design and delivery (2nd ed.). New Riders.

38.

Savoy

Proctor

R. W.

Salvendy

(2008). Information retention from PowerPoint and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005

39.

Shapiro

E. J.

Kerssen-Grip

Gayle

B. M.

Allen

(2006). How powerful is powerpoint? Analyzing the educational effects of desktop presentational programs in the classroom. In Gayle

Preiss

Burrell

Allen

(Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: advances through meta-analysis (pp. 61–76). Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Tausczik

Pennebaker

(2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676

41.

Vazquez

Chiang

(2014). A picture is worth a thousand words (at least): The effective use of visuals in the economic classroom. International Review of Economics Education, 17, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2014.08.006

42.

Wang

Mendori

Hoel

(2019). Strategies for multimedia learning object recommendation in a language learning support system: verbal learners vs. Visual learners. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(4-5), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1543085

43.

Zagermann

Pfeil

Reiterer

(2016). Measuring cognitive load using eye tracking technology in visual computing. Proceedings of the sixth workshop on beyond time and errors on novel evaluation methods for visualization, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993901.29939