Impressions of Pre-Service Teachers about Use of PowerPoint Slides by Their Instructors and Its Effects on Their Learning

Abstract

This study aims to explore preservice teachers’ opinions about their instructors’ use of PowerPoint slides during classes. To this end, 10 preservice teachers were selected through convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews were then conducted. The interviews were held one-by-one and audio recorded after having received permission from the interviewees. The recorded audio data was then transcribed and subsequently coded using QDA Miner Lite analytical software. Data analysis was then carried out by two researchers in order to eliminate bias and to enhance objectivity in the qualitative coding process. The findings indicated that the preservice teachers, in terms of the design and content of their instructors’ PowerPoint slides, complained mostly about text inefficiency, whereas they favored the visual aids used in the slides. The findings also indicated that in terms of the perceived effects of using PowerPoint on preservice teachers’ learning, they favored the slides because of their simplification of the content, using PowerPoint as multimedia, using PowerPoint slides as course notes, and for following the course content easier. On the other hand, they complained about instructors’ frequently just reading from the slides verbatim. The findings of the study may inspire instructors to use PowerPoint more effectively in their classes, and thereby to become better role models to the preservice teachers they are instructing.

Keywords

• PowerPoint,Slides,Effect of Slides,Slides Use in Classrooms

References

1. Abdelrahman, L. A. M., Attaran, M., & Hai-Leng, C. (2013). What does PowerPoint mean to you? A Phenomenological study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1319-1326.
2. 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. https://doi.org/10.2190/03gx-f1hw-vw5m-7dar
3. 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(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.09.003
4. Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2008). An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers and Education, 50(1), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.003
5. Atkinson, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Five ways to reduce PowerPoint overload. Retrieved from https://www.indezine.com/stuff/atkinsonmaye.pdf
6. Bamne, S., & Bamne, A. (2016). Comparative study of chalkboard teaching over PowerPoint teaching as a teaching tool in undergraduate medical teaching. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 5(12), 2585.
7. Barbour, R. S. (2001). The role of qualitative research in broadening the ‘evidence base’for clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(2), 155-163.
8. Buchko, A. A., Buchko, K. J., & Meyer, J. M. (2012). Is there power in PowerPoint? A field test of the efficacy of PowerPoint on memory and recall of religious sermons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 688–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.016

9. Chou, P. N., Chang, C. C., & Lu, P. F. (2015). Prezi versus PowerPoint: The effects of varied digital presentation tools on students’ learning performance. Computers & Education, 91, 73-82.
10. Cooper, E. (2009). Overloading on slides: Cognitive load theory and Microsoft’s slide program Power-Point. AACE Journal, 17(2), 127-135.
11. Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation technology and the dynamics of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31(3), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9017-5
12. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.) Sage Publications, Inc.
13. Creswell. J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning. Conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston.
14. Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Universal design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316662104
15. El Khoury, R. M., & Mattar, D. M. (2012). PowerPoint in accounting classrooms: Constructive or destructive? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(10), 240–259.
16. Erdemir, N. (2011). The effect of PowerPoint and traditional lectures on students’ achievement in physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8, 176–189.
17. Fritschi, J. (2008). Examining pre-service instructors’ use of PowerPoint based on pre-service students’ perceptions: A mixed methods study (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Alabama at Birmingham.
18. Garner, J. K., Alley, M., Gaudelli, A. F., & Zappe, S. E. (2009). Common use of PowerPoint versus the assertion-evidence structure: A cognitive psychology perspective. Technical Communication, 56(4), 331–345.
19. Hartnett, N., Römcke, J., & Yap, C. (2003). Recognizing the importance of instruction style to students’ performance: some observations from laboratory research – a research note. Accounting Education, 12(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928032000095446
20. Hertz, B., van Woerkum, C., & Kerkhof, P. (2015). Why do scholars use PowerPoint the way they do? Business Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 273–291.
21. Hill, A., Arford, T., Lubitow, A., & Smollin, L. M. (2012). “I’m ambivalent about it”: The dilemmas of Power-Point. Teaching Sociology, 40(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12444071
22. Hopper, K. B., & Waugh, J. B. (2014). PowerPoint: An overused technology deserving of criticism, but Indispensable. Educational Technology, 54(5), 29–34.
23. Jordan, L. A., & Papp, R. (2014). PowerPoint: It’s not yes or no – it’s when and how. Research in Higher Education Journal, 22, 1–11.
24. Kosslyn, S. M., Kievit, R. A., Russell, A. G., & Shephard, J. M. (2012). PowerPoint® presentation flaws and failures: A psychological analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00230
25. Levasseur, D. G., & Sawyer, 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
26. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2 Edition). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
27. Moulton, S. T., Türkay, S., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2017). Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? Power-Point, Prezi, and oral presentations. PloS one, 12(7), e0178774.
28. Nouri, H., & Shahid, A. (2005). The effect of PowerPoint presentations on student learning and attitudes. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 2, 53–73.
29. Nowaczyk, R. H., Santos, L. T., & Patton, C. (1998). Student perception of multimedia in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4), 367-368.
30. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 27–42). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
31. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32. Parker, I. (2001). Absolute PowerPoint. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.robertgaskins.com/powerpoint-history/documents/parker-absolute-powerpoint-new-yorker-2001-may-28.pdf
33. Pauw, A. P. (2002). Discoveries and dangers in teaching theology with PowerPoint. Teaching Theology and Religion, 5(1), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9647.00116
34. Reedy, G. B. (2008). PowerPoint, interactive whiteboards, and the visual culture of technology in schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2), 143-162.
35. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2012). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (6th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
36. Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint and traditional lec-tures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858–867.
37. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-453). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
38. Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education, 45(2), 203–215.
39. Susskind, J. E. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1228–1239.
40. Tufte, E. R. (2003). PowerPoint is evil. Wired, 11(09). Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2003/09/ppt2/
41. Wecker, C. (2012). Slide presentations as speech suppressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers & Education, 59(2), 260-273.
42. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of educational Psychology, 82(4), 616.
43. Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(4), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379259
44. Worthington, D. L., & Levasseur, D. G. (2015). To provide or not to provide course PowerPoint slides? The impact of instructor-provided slides upon student attendance and performance. Computers and Education, 85, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.002
45. Yilmazel - Sahin, Y. (2009). A comparison of graduate and undergraduate teacher education students’ perceptions of their instructors’ use of Microsoft PowerPoint. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(3), 361–380.