Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Öğrencilerin ders sunumlarında tercih ettikleri yazı tipleri

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 113 - 137, 31.05.2022
https://doi.org/10.52538/iduhes.1065510

Abstract

Akademik hayatın vaz geçilmez unsurlarından biri öğrencilerimiz için ders sunumları hazırlamaktır ve bu konuda akademisyenlerin sağ kolu PowerPoint® Microsoft Office programıdır. PowerPoint® sunumları eğitimde kullanımı ile ilgili çalışmalar 1990’ların ortalarında literatürdeki yerlerini almaya başlamıştır. Ders slaytlarının en önemli yapı taşının yazı tipi olduğu belirtilmiştir. Slaytların hızlı okunmasında yazı tipi seçiminin önemli olduğu bildirilmiştir. Bununla birlikte öğrencilerin sunumlarda tercih ettiği yazı tipleri ile ilgili çalışmalar kısıtlı sayıdadır. Yazı tipleri harflerin uçlarındaki dekoratif eklerin olup olmamasına göre ikiye ayrılırlar. “Serif” yazı tipinde harfin uçlarına dekorasyon amaçlı bir çıkıntı eklenmektedir (Times New Roman gibi). Daha sade görünümlü ve bu çıkıntının olmadığı yazı tipleri de “sans serif” yazı tipleridir (Arial gibi). Çalışmamızda sağlıkla ilgili bölümlerde okuyan öğrencilerin derslerdeki PowerPoint® sunumlarında başlık ve metin için tercih ettikleri yazı tipini ve nedenlerini araştırdık. İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi ve Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksekokulu’nda eğitim gören, 16 sınıfta eğitim gören öğrencilere PowerPoint® sunumlarında başlıklarda ve metinlerde 26 farklı yazı tipi arasından tercihlerini öğrenmek amacıyla Microsoft Office Forms®’da (http://forms.office.com) sekiz soruluk bir anket uyguladık. Öğrenciler tercih nedenlerinden kolay ve açıkça okunabilmesi, estetik olması, aşina gelmesi/popüler olması, daha profesyonel ve ilgi çekici görülmesi yanıtlarından bir veya birden fazla seçebilmekteydi. Anketin ulaştığı 1324 öğrenciden 804’ü anketi yanıtladı. Toplamda anketin yanıtlanma oranı %60.7 idi. Başlıklar ve metin için Arial, Times New Roman ve Calibri olmak üzere ilk üç sıralama aynı olmuştur. Verdana da ilk beşte yer almıştır. Bahnschrift başlıklar, Candara da metin için öğrencilerin ilk beşteki diğer yazı tipleriydi. İlk beş tercihi erkek ve kız öğrencilerde farklılık göstermiştir. Ders sunumlarında öğrencilerin hem başlık hem de metin için sans serif grubundaki yazı tiplerini tercih ettiği görülmüştür. Sans serif yazı tipleri özellikle kolay ve açıkça okundukları için seçilmişlerdi. İlgi çekici görünme kriteri hem sans serif hem de serif yazı tipleri için genel görünümle uyumlu bir şekilde en az öneme sahip kriterdi. Öğrencilere geniş bir spektrumda yazı tipi alternatifi sunulan, cinsiyet ve okula göre sans serif ve serif yazı tiplerinin karşılaştırıldığı öğrencilerin yazı tipi tercihlerinin incelendiği bu çalışma bu sunumları hazırlayan öğretim üyeleri/görevlilerin yazı tipi tercihleri ve nedenleri sorularak tamamlanabilir. Hem bilgisayar ekranında hem de basılı şekilde ders notu olarak çıkartıldığında net olarak okunabilecek Verdana, Arial gibi yazı tiplerinin sunumlarda seçilmesi daha makul gözükmektedir. Times New Roman yazı tipi de serif grubunda olmasına rağmen günümüz teknolojisi ile açık bir şekilde okunması ile tercih edilebilir.

Thanks

Microsoft Forms’da çevrimiçi anketin hazırlanmasında yardım eden Dr. İstemihan Çoban’a teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

References

  • Adone Fonts (2021). https://fonts.adobe.com/fonts/source-sans#about-section
  • Ali, H. (2017). Students’ and Instructors’ Perceptions of PowerPoint Use in ELT Classrooms. Master of Arts Thesis, English Language Teaching, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, North Cyprus, 1-142.
  • Apperson, JM., Laws, EL., Scepansky, JA. (2008). An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 50(1), 148–153.
  • Arditi, A., & Cho, J. (2000). Do serifs enhance or diminish text legibility? Invest. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 41(4, Suppl. S), S437.
  • Banerjee, J., Majumdar, D., Pal, SM., Majumda, D (2011). Readability, Subjective Preference and Mental Workload Studies on Young Indian Adults for Selection of Optimum Font Type and Size during Onscreen Reading. Al Ameen J Med Sci, 4, 131-143.
  • Bailey, C. (2015). Serifs and their influence on font legibility: Mean legibility distances for 10 participants. Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada, 1-26.
  • Bernard, ML., Chaparro, BS., Mills, MM., Halcomb, CG. (2003). Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 823-835.
  • Cockburn, T., Matthew, A. (2006). Lecturing Law with Powerpoint: What is the point? Murdoch University Law Review, 13(1), 113-140.
  • Collins, J. (2004). Education techniques for lifelong learning: making a PowerPoint presentation. Radiographics, 24, 1177-1183.
  • Coetzee, WD. (2001). Some empirical research into students' typographical preferences. SAJHE/SATHO, 15(3),111-118.
  • Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, DM., Vaughan, EB. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition,118, 111-115.
  • Elizaveta A. Osipovskaya, EA & Yu.Burdovskaya, E. (2019). Presentation Software Tools in Higher Educational Setting. Proceedings V IFTE (International Forum on Teacher Education), 1137-1144.
  • Fisk, GD. (2019). Slides for Students: The Effective Use of Powerpoint in Education. University of Georgia University Press, 1-62.
  • Gasser, M. & Boeke J. (2005). The influence of font type on information recall. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 181-188.
  • Grobelny, J., Michalski, R. (2015). The role of background color, interletter spacing, and font size on preferences in the digital presentation of a product. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 85–100.
  • Harolds, JA. (2012). Tips for giving a memorable presentation, Part IV: Using and composing PowerPoint slides. Clin Nucl Med, 37(10), 977-980.
  • Hammond, KM. (2019). Experiential Learning and Peer Teaching to Develop PowerPoint Slide, Formatting Skills. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 2(2), 23-41.
  • Haque, E., Haque, M., Bin Razali, HS., Bin İshaak, KI., Bin Ariffin, MA., Bin Ajis, MN., Than, M., Islam, Z. (2018). Effect of Font Style on Memory among the Preclinical Students of UniKL RCMP, Malaysia. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Allied Sciences, 7, 108-113.
  • Hoffmeister, S. (2016). The impact of font type on reading. Senior Honors Thessis, Department of Special Education, East Michigan University, USA, 1-41.
  • Hojjati, N & Muniandy, B. (2014). The Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online Readability and Performance. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5, 161-174.
  • Huang, LS. (2008). Students’ preferences on the design of electronic teaching presentation and their learning style. Master of Education (Educational Technology) Thesis, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 1-85.
  • Jones, AM. (2003). The use and abuse of PowerPoint in Teaching and Learning in the Life Sciences: A Personal Overview. Bioscience Education,2(1), 1-13.
  • Josephson, S. (2008). Keeping Your Readers' Eyes on the Screen: An Eye-Tracking Study Comparing Sans Serif and Serif Typefaces. Visual Communication Quarterly, 15(1-2), 67-79.
  • Kamollimsakul S. (2014). Web Design Guidelines for Text Presentation for Older People: Empirical Evidence from Thailand and the UK. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Computer Science, York University, USA, 1-272.
  • Kardes Selimoglu, S., Poroy Arsoy, A., Ertan, Y. (2009). The effect of powerpoint preferences of students on their performance: A research in Anadolu University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 10(1), 114-129.
  • Kaspar, K., Wehlitz, T., von Knobelsdorff, S., Wulf, T., von Saldern, MA. (2015). A matter of font type: The effect of serifs on the evaluation of scientific abstracts. Int J Psychol, 50, 372-378.
  • Karim, NA. & Shukur Z. 2016. Proposed features of an online examination interface design and its optimal values. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 414-422.
  • Keage, HA., Coussens, S., Kohler, M., Thiessen, M., Churches, OF. (2014). Investigating letter recognition in the brain by varying typeface: an event-related potential study. Brain Cogn, 88, 83-89.
  • Kuchinke, L., Krause, B., Fritsch, N., Briesemeister, BB. (2014). A familiar font drives early emotional effects in word recognition. Brain Lang, 137, 142-147.
  • Lehner-Mittermaier, P. The History and Evolution of PowerPoint, 2020. https://slidelizard.com/en/blog/powerpoint-history-and-versions
  • Ling, J,.van Schaik, P. (2006). The influence of font type and line length on visual search and information retrieval in web pages. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 64(5), 395–404.
  • Mackiewicz, J. (2006) Audience Perceptions of Fonts in Projected PowerPoint Text Slides. Conference: International Professional Communication Conference, IEEE, Washington, USA: 68-76.
  • Massey, P & Lockaby J. (2001). Using Visuals Effectively in the Distance Education Classroom. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 51(1), 278-288.
  • Microsoft technical documentation; Typography; Fonts and typefaces; Font library (2020). https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list
  • Mohamad Ali, AZ., Wahid, R., Samsudin, K., Idris, MZ. (2013). Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type has Effects on Web Text Readability. International Education Studies, 6, 26-35.
  • Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, KS., Jha, GK. (2021). Students' perception and preference for online education in India during COVID -19 pandemic. Soc Sci Humanit Open, 3(1), 100101.
  • Rajapakse, RPSS., Beneragama, CK. (2014). Powerpoint® lectures: How do the first-year graduate students perceive it? Proceedings of the Peradeniya Univ. International Research Sessions, Sri Lanka, 111.
  • Rajapakse, S., & Beneragama, C. (2014). Are the First Year Graduate Students Equipped with the Effective Usage of PowerPoint® for Scientific Appliances? Conference: Global Conference on Contemporary Issues in EducationAt: Las Vegas, USA, 1-2.
  • Sen, P. (2017). Disruption, innovation, and endurance: A brief history of PowerPoint. https://www.hult.edu/blog/brief-history-of-powerpoint
  • Sheedy, JE., Subbaram, MV., Zimmerman, AB., Hayes. JR. (2005). Text legibility and the letter superiority effect. Hum Factors, 47, 797-815.
  • Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & education, 35(3), 175-187.
  • Sin, NBM. (2008). Design criteria for visual presentation produced by non-design lecturers. Master of Science Thesis, Creative Media, Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University, Malaysia, 1-128.
  • Ukonu, MO., Ohaja, EU., Okeke SV, Okwumbu RO. (2021). Interactive effects of institutional requirements and screen vs. Print platforms on preference of Times New Roman and Calibri among university students, Cogent Education, 8(1),1968779.
  • Upchurch, CE. (2017). The Effect of Font Type on Memory for Instruction. Thesis, 2017 University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA, 1-20.
Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 113 - 137, 31.05.2022
https://doi.org/10.52538/iduhes.1065510

Abstract

References

  • Adone Fonts (2021). https://fonts.adobe.com/fonts/source-sans#about-section
  • Ali, H. (2017). Students’ and Instructors’ Perceptions of PowerPoint Use in ELT Classrooms. Master of Arts Thesis, English Language Teaching, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, North Cyprus, 1-142.
  • Apperson, JM., Laws, EL., Scepansky, JA. (2008). An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 50(1), 148–153.
  • Arditi, A., & Cho, J. (2000). Do serifs enhance or diminish text legibility? Invest. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 41(4, Suppl. S), S437.
  • Banerjee, J., Majumdar, D., Pal, SM., Majumda, D (2011). Readability, Subjective Preference and Mental Workload Studies on Young Indian Adults for Selection of Optimum Font Type and Size during Onscreen Reading. Al Ameen J Med Sci, 4, 131-143.
  • Bailey, C. (2015). Serifs and their influence on font legibility: Mean legibility distances for 10 participants. Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada, 1-26.
  • Bernard, ML., Chaparro, BS., Mills, MM., Halcomb, CG. (2003). Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 823-835.
  • Cockburn, T., Matthew, A. (2006). Lecturing Law with Powerpoint: What is the point? Murdoch University Law Review, 13(1), 113-140.
  • Collins, J. (2004). Education techniques for lifelong learning: making a PowerPoint presentation. Radiographics, 24, 1177-1183.
  • Coetzee, WD. (2001). Some empirical research into students' typographical preferences. SAJHE/SATHO, 15(3),111-118.
  • Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, DM., Vaughan, EB. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition,118, 111-115.
  • Elizaveta A. Osipovskaya, EA & Yu.Burdovskaya, E. (2019). Presentation Software Tools in Higher Educational Setting. Proceedings V IFTE (International Forum on Teacher Education), 1137-1144.
  • Fisk, GD. (2019). Slides for Students: The Effective Use of Powerpoint in Education. University of Georgia University Press, 1-62.
  • Gasser, M. & Boeke J. (2005). The influence of font type on information recall. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 181-188.
  • Grobelny, J., Michalski, R. (2015). The role of background color, interletter spacing, and font size on preferences in the digital presentation of a product. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 85–100.
  • Harolds, JA. (2012). Tips for giving a memorable presentation, Part IV: Using and composing PowerPoint slides. Clin Nucl Med, 37(10), 977-980.
  • Hammond, KM. (2019). Experiential Learning and Peer Teaching to Develop PowerPoint Slide, Formatting Skills. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 2(2), 23-41.
  • Haque, E., Haque, M., Bin Razali, HS., Bin İshaak, KI., Bin Ariffin, MA., Bin Ajis, MN., Than, M., Islam, Z. (2018). Effect of Font Style on Memory among the Preclinical Students of UniKL RCMP, Malaysia. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Allied Sciences, 7, 108-113.
  • Hoffmeister, S. (2016). The impact of font type on reading. Senior Honors Thessis, Department of Special Education, East Michigan University, USA, 1-41.
  • Hojjati, N & Muniandy, B. (2014). The Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online Readability and Performance. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5, 161-174.
  • Huang, LS. (2008). Students’ preferences on the design of electronic teaching presentation and their learning style. Master of Education (Educational Technology) Thesis, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 1-85.
  • Jones, AM. (2003). The use and abuse of PowerPoint in Teaching and Learning in the Life Sciences: A Personal Overview. Bioscience Education,2(1), 1-13.
  • Josephson, S. (2008). Keeping Your Readers' Eyes on the Screen: An Eye-Tracking Study Comparing Sans Serif and Serif Typefaces. Visual Communication Quarterly, 15(1-2), 67-79.
  • Kamollimsakul S. (2014). Web Design Guidelines for Text Presentation for Older People: Empirical Evidence from Thailand and the UK. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Computer Science, York University, USA, 1-272.
  • Kardes Selimoglu, S., Poroy Arsoy, A., Ertan, Y. (2009). The effect of powerpoint preferences of students on their performance: A research in Anadolu University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 10(1), 114-129.
  • Kaspar, K., Wehlitz, T., von Knobelsdorff, S., Wulf, T., von Saldern, MA. (2015). A matter of font type: The effect of serifs on the evaluation of scientific abstracts. Int J Psychol, 50, 372-378.
  • Karim, NA. & Shukur Z. 2016. Proposed features of an online examination interface design and its optimal values. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 414-422.
  • Keage, HA., Coussens, S., Kohler, M., Thiessen, M., Churches, OF. (2014). Investigating letter recognition in the brain by varying typeface: an event-related potential study. Brain Cogn, 88, 83-89.
  • Kuchinke, L., Krause, B., Fritsch, N., Briesemeister, BB. (2014). A familiar font drives early emotional effects in word recognition. Brain Lang, 137, 142-147.
  • Lehner-Mittermaier, P. The History and Evolution of PowerPoint, 2020. https://slidelizard.com/en/blog/powerpoint-history-and-versions
  • Ling, J,.van Schaik, P. (2006). The influence of font type and line length on visual search and information retrieval in web pages. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 64(5), 395–404.
  • Mackiewicz, J. (2006) Audience Perceptions of Fonts in Projected PowerPoint Text Slides. Conference: International Professional Communication Conference, IEEE, Washington, USA: 68-76.
  • Massey, P & Lockaby J. (2001). Using Visuals Effectively in the Distance Education Classroom. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 51(1), 278-288.
  • Microsoft technical documentation; Typography; Fonts and typefaces; Font library (2020). https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/font-list
  • Mohamad Ali, AZ., Wahid, R., Samsudin, K., Idris, MZ. (2013). Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type has Effects on Web Text Readability. International Education Studies, 6, 26-35.
  • Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, KS., Jha, GK. (2021). Students' perception and preference for online education in India during COVID -19 pandemic. Soc Sci Humanit Open, 3(1), 100101.
  • Rajapakse, RPSS., Beneragama, CK. (2014). Powerpoint® lectures: How do the first-year graduate students perceive it? Proceedings of the Peradeniya Univ. International Research Sessions, Sri Lanka, 111.
  • Rajapakse, S., & Beneragama, C. (2014). Are the First Year Graduate Students Equipped with the Effective Usage of PowerPoint® for Scientific Appliances? Conference: Global Conference on Contemporary Issues in EducationAt: Las Vegas, USA, 1-2.
  • Sen, P. (2017). Disruption, innovation, and endurance: A brief history of PowerPoint. https://www.hult.edu/blog/brief-history-of-powerpoint
  • Sheedy, JE., Subbaram, MV., Zimmerman, AB., Hayes. JR. (2005). Text legibility and the letter superiority effect. Hum Factors, 47, 797-815.
  • Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & education, 35(3), 175-187.
  • Sin, NBM. (2008). Design criteria for visual presentation produced by non-design lecturers. Master of Science Thesis, Creative Media, Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University, Malaysia, 1-128.
  • Ukonu, MO., Ohaja, EU., Okeke SV, Okwumbu RO. (2021). Interactive effects of institutional requirements and screen vs. Print platforms on preference of Times New Roman and Calibri among university students, Cogent Education, 8(1),1968779.
  • Upchurch, CE. (2017). The Effect of Font Type on Memory for Instruction. Thesis, 2017 University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA, 1-20.
There are 44 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Clinical Sciences
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Kaan Yücel 0000-0001-9606-8808

Publication Date May 31, 2022
Submission Date January 31, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 5 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Yücel, K. (2022). Öğrencilerin ders sunumlarında tercih ettikleri yazı tipleri. Izmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal, 5(1), 113-137. https://doi.org/10.52538/iduhes.1065510

227151960619606                 19629                   19630 1995319957 

19952  19958  20682 

20686


23848