Presentations with PowerPoint, made possible by digitalization, are another step towards more visualization in the history of science communication. This new genre of communicating scientific knowledge to an audience combines several semiotic sign systems and therefore can be analysed as a form of multimodal discourse that integrates pictures, text, design, etc. on the slides, as well as spoken language, gestures, acts of pointing, etc. by the speaker. This study approaches the problem of multimodal discourse – how meaning is constituted by the different modes – empirically from a recipient’s perspective. To reconstruct the meaning-making process, the authors apply eye tracking and other methods of reception research in real-life scenarios as well as in laboratory settings.
BaldryA.ThibaultP.J. (2005) Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook with Associated On-line Course. London: Equinox.
2.
BucherH.-J. (2007) ‘Textdesign und Multimodalität: Zur Semantik und Pragmatik medialer Gestaltungsformen’, in RothK.S.SpitzmüllerJ. (eds) Textdesign und Textwirkung in der massenmedialen Kommunikation, pp. 49–76. Konstanz: UVK.
3.
BucherH.-J. (2011) ‘Multimodalität – eine Universalie des Medienwandels: Problemstellungen und Theorien der Multimodalitätsforschung’, in BucherH.-J.. (eds) Neue Medien – Neue Formate. Ausdifferenzierung und Konvergenz in der Medienkommunikation, pp. 41–79. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
4.
BucherH.-J.KriegM.NiemannP. (2010) ‘Die wissenschaftliche Präsentation als multimodale Kommunikationsform. Empirische Befunde zu Rezeption und Verständlichkeit von Powerpoint-Präsentationen’, in BucherH.-J.. (eds) Neue Medien - Neue Formate. Ausdifferenzierung und Konvergenz in der Medienkommunikation, pp. 375–406. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
5.
BucherH.-J.SchumacherP. (2006) ‘The Relevance of Attention for Selecting News Content: An Eye-tracking Study on Attention Patterns in the Reception of Print- and Online Media’, Communications: The European Journal of Communications Research31(3): 347–68.
6.
DuchowskiA.T. (2007) Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. London: Springer.
7.
GabrielY. (2008) ‘Against the Tyranny of PowerPoint: Technology-in-Use and Technology Abuse’, Organization Studies29(2): 255–76.
8.
HendersonJ.M.. (2007) ‘Visual Saliency Does Not Account for Eye Movements during Visual Search in Real-World Scenes’, in van GompelR.P.G.. (eds) Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain, pp. 537–62. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9.
HolsanovaJ. (2008) Discourse, Vision, and Cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
10.
IttiL.KochC. (2000) ‘A Salience-Based Search Mechanism for Overt and Covert Shifts of Visual Attention’, Vision Research40: 1489–509.
11.
JensenB.K. (ed.) (2002) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. London: Routledge.
12.
KnoblauchH. (2008) ‘The Performance of Knowledge: Pointing and Knowledge in Powerpoint Presentations’, Cultural Sociology2: 75–97.
13.
KosslynS.M. (2007) Clear and to the Point: 8 Psychological Principles for Compelling PowerPoint Presentations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
KressG. (2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.
15.
KressG.Van LeeuwenT. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
16.
LimF.V. (2004) ‘Developing an Integrative Multi-semiotic Model’, in O’HalloranK.L. (ed.) Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives, pp. 220–46. London: Continuum.
17.
LobinH. (2009) Inszeniertes Reden auf der Medienbühne: Zur Linguistik und Rhetorik der wissenschaftlichen Präsentation. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
18.
MayerE.M. (2005) ‘Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning’, in MayerR.E. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, pp. 31–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
NeumannO. (1987) ‘Beyond Capacity: A Functional View of Attention’, in HeuerH.SandersA.F. (eds) Perspectives on Perception and Action, pp. 361–94. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
O’HalloranK.L. (2008) ‘Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing Ideational Meaning Using Language and Visual Imagery’, Visual Communication7(4): 443–75.
21.
PetersS. (2007) ‘Über Ablenkung in der Präsentation von Wissen: Freier Vortrag, Lichtbild-Vortrag und Powerpoint-Präsentation – ein Vergleich’, in SchnettlerB.KnoblauchH. (eds) Powerpoint-Präsentationen: Neue Formen der gesellschaftlichen Kommunikation von Wissen, pp. 37–52. Konstanz: UVK.
22.
Rowley-JolivetE. (2004) ‘Different Visions, Different Visuals: A Social Semiotic Analysis of Field-Specific Visual Composition in Scientific Conference Presentations’, Visual Communication3(2): 145–75.
23.
SchnettlerB.KnoblauchH. (eds) (2007) Powerpoint-Präsentationen: Neue Formen der gesellschaftlichen Kommunikation von Wissen. Konstanz: UVK.
24.
StarkD.ParavelV. (2008) ‘PowerPoint in Public: Digital Technologies and the New Morphology of Demonstration’, Theory, Culture & Society25(5): 30–55.
25.
SwellerJ. (2005) ‘Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning’, in MayerR.E. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, pp. 19–30. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
TurkleS. (2003) ‘From Powerful Ideas to PowerPoint’, Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies9(2): 19–25.
WiebeE.N.SlykhuisD.A.AnnettaL.A. (2007) ‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Scientific Visualization in Two PowerPoint Delivery Strategies on Science Learning for Preservice Science Teachers’, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education5(2): 329–48.
