Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Effectiveness of PowerPoint-Based Lectures Across
Different Business Disciplines: An Investigation
and Implications
Lisa A. Burke , Karen James & Mohammad Ahmadi
To cite this article: Lisa A. Burke , Karen James & Mohammad Ahmadi (2009) Effectiveness of PowerPoint-Based Lectures Across Different Business Disciplines: An Investigation and Implications, Journal of Education for Business, 84:4, 246-251, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.4.246-251 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.4.246-251
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 178
View related articles
ABSTRACT.
R
hy do some business faculty still walk to class with a piece of chalk and their textbook in hand, whereasothers,withflashsticksdraped around their necks, spend hours with computercarts,PowerPoint(PPT)pre-sentations, and computer projectors? Are some types of business courses taught more effectively using low-tech ratherthanPPT-intensivemethods?And whatdostudentsthinkabouttheeffec-tivenessofPPTapproacheswhenused acrossdifferentbusinesscourses?These questionsspurredthecurrentinvestiga-tion with an eye toward clarifying a mixedbodyoffindingsintheliterature about PPT’s effectiveness and improv-ing undergraduate instructional meth-odsinbusiness.The nature of business disciplines vary; some courses (e.g., management, marketing, business law) are endowed withburgeoningamountsoftext,where-asmorequantitativebusinessdisciplines (e.g.,accounting,statistics,management science, quantitative business analysis, finance) are full of problem solving andapplyingandinterpretingnumbers- orientedscenarios.Eventhoughthecon-tent of business courses vary, the push towardmakingallbusinessclassrooms smart—with computers, computer pro-jectors,Internethookups,andthemost recentPPTversions—seemsubiquitous (Craig&Amernic,2006).Theultimate question is what instructional methods
bestenhancestudentlearningacrossthe variousbusinessdisciplines.
Therefore, in the present study, we soughttogatherquantitativeandqualita-tivedataregardingstudents’perceptions ofeffectivenessofPPTuseacrossdiffer-ent business courses, students’ insights about when and why PPT is effective, and the frequency and nature of PPT use by business faculty. Ultimately, we advanced research propositions using resultsofthepresentstudyandrelevant theoreticalandempiricalworksanddis-cussedimplicationsfromourfindings.
The use of technology is common in today’s classrooms and the demand fortechnology-enhancedlearningenvi-ronments is expected to continue its substantialgrowthoverthenextdecade (Debevec,Shih,&Kashyap,2006;Hall &Elliott,2003).Schrum(2005)report-ed that technological advances have exceeded the most optimistic expecta-tionsbutagreededucationalinstitutions have not yet realized the full poten-tial.Thedeliveryofinformationinthe undergraduate business classroom has changed with the growth and explo-sion of technology. Not surprisingly, researchers are increasingly studying the use of technologies, such as pre-sentation media, in various disciplines including information systems (e.g., Bradley,Mbarika,Sankar,Raju,&Ban-galy, 2007), accounting (e.g., Beets & Lobingier, 2001; Sugahara & Boland,
EffectivenessofPowerPoint-BasedLectures
AcrossDifferentBusinessDisciplines:An
InvestigationandImplications
LISAA.BURKE MOHAMMADAHMADI
UNIVERSITYOFTENNESSEEATCHATTANOOGA UNIVERSITYOFTENNESSEEATCHATTANOOGA
CHATTANOOGA,TENNESSEE CHATTANOOGA,TENNESSEE
KARENJAMES
LOUISIANASTATEUNIVERSITYINSHREVEPORT SHREVEPORT,LOUISIANA
W
ABSTRACT.Theauthorsinvestigated businessfacultymembers’degreeofPower-Point(PPT)useacrossdifferentfunctional areasinabusinessprogramandtheiruse ofspecificPPTfeatures.Theauthorsalso examinedstudents’perceptionsofPPT’s effectivenessacrossdifferentbusiness courses(e.g.,accounting,economics,man-agement,businesslaw,marketing).After discussingthefindings,theauthorsoffer practicaltipsforeffectivelyusingPPT.
Keywords:businesseducation,effective-nessofinstructionalmethods,PowerPoint
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
2006), management communication (Williams, 2004), economics (Rankin & Hoaas, 2001), and across business courses more generally (e.g., James, Burke,&Hutchins,2006).
Asatechnologyapplicationtowhich researchers have given special atten- tion,PPThasreceiveditsshareofcriti-cism in the popular press (e.g., Harris, 2004; Norvig, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Wineburg, 2003). Some researchers believe that although PPT is a useful supplemental tool for a presentation, it has become a substitute for it.Tufte (2003) stated, “At a minimum, a pre-sentation format should do no harm. YetthePowerPointstyleroutinelydis-rupts, dominates, and trivializes con-tent. Thus, PowerPoint presentations toooftenresembleaschoolplay—very loud,veryslow,andverysimple”(¶9). Inaninstructionalenvironment,oneof themorecommoncomplaintsreported, especially by students who see little noveltyinthePPTmedium,dealswith instructorswhodirectlyreadPPTslide materialtostudentstheentireclassperi-od(seeBurke&James,2008).Assuch, studentsmayfindthatthedynamicsof teaching and interaction are lost with suchapassiveapproach.
Although some studies in the class- roomsettinghavefoundpositiveinstruc-tionaloutcomesassociatedwiththeuse ofPPT,suchashigheracademicscores (e.g., Bartsch & Cobern, 2003; Szabo & Hastings, 2000), others have found negativeornoconsequencesassociated withPPTuse(e.g.,Amare,2006;Dan-iels, 1999).As such, the findings have been largely inconsistent. In an expan- sivesurveyeffortinvolving1,223busi-ness students, Ahmadi, Dileepan, and Raiszadeh (2007) found that the posi-tive aspects of using PPT outweighed the negative consequences. More than 73%ofrespondentsindicatedthatPPT slides are helpful in understanding course material. Not only did the stu-dentsinAhmadietal.’sstudyagreewith thepositiveaspectsofusingPPTslides, they also tended to refute the negative aspectsofPPTuse.Morethan74%of studentsdisagreedthatPPTslidesmake it difficult to focus in class, and 83% ofstudentssaidtheydonotmissclass because of the availability of printed PPTnotes(aresultalsofoundbyJames
et al., 2006). However,Ahmadi et al.’s studyalsopointedoutthatstudentsmay rely only on PPT presentations in pre-paring for exams; as such, the authors statedthattheeffectivenessofPPTmay lead to students neglecting their text-booksincourselearning.
Givenmixedfindingsacrosstheedu- cationalresearchregardingPPT’seffec-tiveness, moderating variables may be atplay.Inotherwords,therearepoten-tiallysituationalandstudentpreference variablesthatinfluencewhetherPPTis received favorably by learners. There-fore, in the present study, we sought to gather quantitative and qualitative data regarding students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of PPT across differ-ent business courses, students’ insights about when and why PPT is effective, andthefrequencyandnatureofPPTuse ate business students enrolled in ran-domly selected accounting, business law, economics, finance, information systems or decision sciences, man-agement, and marketing courses at an urban, comprehensive university in the Midsouth were sampled for the study. Only one instructor whose course had beenselectedforsamplingdeclinedhis class’s participation. Thus, data were gathered from 14 of the 15 courses initiallytargeted,foracourseresponse rateof93.3%.
We also surveyed business faculty members. In an effort to obtain a suf-ficient sample size of the business fac-ulty who use PPT in the classroom, we surveyed faculty at three compa-rablebusinessschools,allofwhichwere urban, comprehensive, and similarly tieredAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiate SchoolsofBusiness-accreditedbusiness schoolslocatedintheUnitedStates.In all,51ofthe101surveyswerereturned, and 2 were eliminated for incomplete data,resultinginafinalfacultyresponse
Over a 2-week period of time, instructors administered questionnaires tostudentsinclass.Atthediscretionof the individual course instructor, some studentsreceivedextracreditorpartici-pation points for completing the ques-tionnaire. As students could theoreti-callyencounterthesurveyinmorethan oneclass,thequestionnaireinstructions directedstudentsnottofilloutasecond survey but rather to return the blank questionnaire to the instructor in the event of having completed the survey in a different course. The difficulties inherentingatheringvalidcoursesize, attendance (on day of survey admin-istration), and survey duplication data fromavarietyofinstructorsnotdirectly involvedwiththestudyregrettablypre-cludedthecollectionofdatanecessaryto calculateameaningfulstudentresponse rate. Of the 262 surveys we collected, 32wereeliminatedasunusablebecause ofincompleteorinvalidinformationor because the survey respondents were classified as graduate students or were not business majors. This elimination process resulted in a final sample size of230students.
RESULTS
IntermsofbusinessfacultyPPTuse acrossbusinesscourses,Table1shows thatthemostfrequentfacultyresponse wasnever (32.7%), indicating that a third of faculty did not use any type of slideware support in their courses. Yet,thesecondmostfrequentresponse
TABLE1.BusinessFaculty Members’PowerPointUse (N=49)
Response Frequency Use(%)
Never 16 32.7 Infrequently 4 8.2 Moderately
infrequently 5 10.2 Moderately
frequently 4 8.2 Frequently 7 14.3 Always 13 26.5
from faculty about their use of PPT in the business classroom wasalways (26.5%).Coupledwith14.3% frequent-ly usingPPTintheclassroom,approxi-mately41%offacultyinoursampleare heavyPPTusers.
Table2illustratesthatthemostheav- ilyusedPPTfeaturesinbusinessclass-es included slide backgrounds (79%), inclusion of concept examples (76%), charts (73%), and different colored fonts(70%).Giventhereadyavailabil-ity of PPT background templates, the use of backgrounds and different font colorsisnotsurprising.Yet,inappropri-ate background and text contrasts and abuseofmultiplecolorsinPPTcanbe problematic(Sloboda,2003).
Instructorsinoursampleusedsound effects (3%), videos (3%), and anima-tions (27%) far less, which according to some research is probably a for-tunate finding. For example, Bartsch andCobern(2003)comparedtheeffec-tiveness of overheads, basic PPT (text only),andexpandedPPT(withgraphics andsounds);theyfoundstudentsscored significantly better at the end of the semesterinthebasicPPTconditionon contentrecall.Moremoderatelyusedin oursamplewereslidetransitioneffects (46%),graphics(i.e.,clipart;46%),and discussion questions posted on slides (42%).Thelatterfindingisencouraging
givenpriorresearchthatsupportseffec-tive questioning for student learning and the active engagement of learners (Bloom, 1956; Savion & Middendorf, 1994;Wilen,1987).
The business students were then askedtoratetheperceivedeffectiveness ofPPTpresentationsinvariousbusiness classes to determine whether its use is moreeffectiveincertaintypesofcours- es.Specifically,studentsratedeffective-ness of PPT use for lecture instruction inaccounting,businesslaw,economics, finance, information science or deci-sion science (including statistics and management science), management, and marketing disciplines. Students responded using a 6-point Likert-type scalerangingfrom1( PPTisveryinef-fective) to 6 (PPT is very effective). Table3displaysthemeanscores,sam-ple sizes for each discipline, standard deviationsbydiscipline,andtheresults oftteststhattestedmeanvaluesagainst aneutralvalueof3.5.
As the overall mean scores in Table 3 indicate, PPT presentations were perceived as being most effective in the management discipline, followed closely by marketing and economics. Business law, information systems or decision science, and finance received more moderate ratings, whereas accounting received the lowest per- ceivedeffectivenessratingofthedisci-plines studied. In fact, accounting was the only discipline that was rated sig-nificantlylowerthananeutralvalueof
3.5, indicating that PPT was perceived by undergraduate students to be inef-fective for the accounting discipline. Perceptions of PPT’s effectiveness in the finance discipline did not signifi-cantly differ from the neutral value, whereastheremainingdisciplineswere allratedsignificantlyhigher(e.g.,more effective)thanthetestvalueequatingto neutrality.
To help understand why students view PPT as effective in some courses but not others, we asked business stu-dents enrolled in a training and devel-opmentcourse,studentswhowerethen studying adult learning principles, to offer further insight. The findings are listedintheAppendix.The20students inthetrainingclasswereasked,“What isgoodaboutfacultyusingPPTinthe classroom?” and “What is bad about using PPT in the classroom?” Individ-ual responses were clustered and pre-sented back to the class and students could vote for the items they agreed withmost,allowingformultiplevotes. Althoughthedataarelimitedbysample size, it is interesting that the most fre-quentlycitedpositiveattributesofPPT includeditsabilitytohelporganizeand structurecontentandtopresentcourse-relevant visuals, pictures, and graphs. PPT’s organizational strengths have beencitedinotherstudies(e.g.,Griffin,
element Frequency Use(%)
Slide
backgrounds 26 78.8 Soundeffects 1 3.0 Animations 9 27.3 Different
coloredfonts 23 69.7 Graphics 14 42.4 Slidetransitions 15 45.5 Examplesof
concepts 25 75.8 Discussion
questions 15 45.5 Application
problemsor
exercises 22 33.3 Charts 24 72.7 Videos 1 3.0
TABLE3.StudentPerceptionsoftheEffectivenessofPowerPoint PresentationsAcrossBusinessDisciplines
Discipline n M SD t df p
Accounting 173 2.94a 1.92 –3.817 172 .000
Businesslaw 178 4.32b 1.67 6.559 177 .000
Economics 199 4.83b 1.48 12.662 198 .000
Finance 129 3.82 1.83 –1.129 128 .261 Informationor
decisionscience 187 3.97b 1.96 3.271 186 .001
Management 210 5.06b 1.29 17.454 209 .000
Marketing 172 4.89b 1.51 12.053 171 .000
Note.Allitemsuseda6-pointLikert-typescalerangingfrom1(PowerPoint is very ineffective) to6(PowerPoint is very effective).Respondentsweregiventheoptionofanswering“don’t know,”whichresultedinadifferentsamplesizeforeachbusinessdiscipline.
aMeanissignificantlylowerthantheneutralvalueof3.5atthep<.05level.bMeanissignificantly
higherthantheneutralvalueof3.5atthep<.05level.
2001).Theseattributesshareacommon conceptual element: the ability to cut through a mass of course content and clearly present the most important informationinaconciseformat.Given cognitive load theory’s implications (Chandler&Sweller,1991),itmaybe that this PPT attribute plays a role in facilitating students’ short-term recall. Although the students were also asked abouttheconsassociatedwithPPT(see theAppendix),mostoftheseresponses appearmorerelevanttohowPPTisused (ineffectively) by individual instructors (e.g.,readingslidestostudents).
DISCUSSION
Althoughsomeadministrators,facul- ty,andauthorsbemoanoutdatedteach-ing methods in certain disciplines, it may be that these disciplines are best taughtusingnonsophisticatedmethods. Studentdatainthepresentstudylends credence to the idea that PPT-based lecturesmaynotbeequallyappropriate or effective in all business disciplines, likelybecauseofthevaryingnatureof thecontentbeingtaught.Wefoundthat whereas one in three business faculty membersdonotusePPTatall,approxi-matelytwoinfivebusinessfacultyare frequentusersofPPT.Theiruseofspe-cific PPT features appears fairly con-gruent with effective practices in PPT instruction (use of graphics, pictures, charts,examplesratherthandistracting sounds). However, the students in the present study perceived PPT as more effectiveinsupportingcertainbusiness course content, such as management, marketing, and economics compared with accounting.We offer our insights astowhyPPTslidesarenotconsidered effectiveinquantitativebusinessclasses andsomepracticaltipsforinstructors.
There may be several reasons why PPT slides are less effective in the quantitative business disciplines. Lec-tures in quantitative courses, such as accounting, finance, and management or decision science, often have two components: (a) information regarding varioustopicsand(b)themodeldevel-opment and model solution. Although PPTslidescouldeffectivelybeusedin theinformationalpartofthesecourses, model development and model
solu-tionsdonotlendthemselvestotheuse of PPT. If PPT’s feature strength is to cut through and help organize con-tent, then disciplines rife with theory (e.g., management) benefit the most. In such conceptual courses, instructors may help students discern must-know informationfrommoreancillarycourse information by organizing and synthe-sizingthemostimportantmaterialina structuredvisualPPTformat.However, fordisciplinesinwhichmathematicalor quantitativeapplicationofcentralideas is emphasized, instructors often need to repeatedly demonstrate step-by-step examples of how to apply models or churn through certain formulas. Hav-ingstudentsseeproblemsbeingworked out in real time—as they work along with the instructor—is often easily accomplished using other media such asachalkboard,whiteboard,document camera,oroverhead.
Intheirreviewofresearchonmathe-maticsteaching—aquantitativesubject —BrophyandGood(1986)statedthat to enhance skill efficiency in math-ematics, the instruction must include modelingbytheteacherusinginstruc-tor-directed, product-type questions delivered in a rapid-pace format, allowing for substantial amounts of error-free practice for students. Given this,theinstructorinquantitativebusi-ness disciplines likely plays a central role for which arguably PPT may be unnecessary,adistraction,oreven,an interference.Tofurtherdiscernthebest mediasupportpracticesforquantitative business courses, we suggest future research using a pre–post experimen-tal comparison group design in which researchersexaminelesssophisticated methodsforinstructioninquantitative business disciplines including prob-lems worked using an overhead pro-jector, the chalkboard, or perhaps a document camera. This type of work wouldhelpadvancebusinesseducation researchandteachingpractices.
In terms of practical tips, we sug-gest instructors most importantly seek a mixed use of active learning meth-ods(e.g.,case,discussion,lecture,short video clip, experiential exercise, field trip, small group application exercise) as much as possible, thus avoiding the dreaded, monotonous reading of PPT
slides to students. Indeed, research showsthatretentionandtransferplum-superficial dump of information is not thegoalinbusinesseducationbutrather a deeper discussion of concepts, ideas, and interactive exchange and applica- tionofideas.Thus,evenifPPTcandis-till large amounts of concepts in these businessdisciplines,itremainsinstruc-tionally relevant that faculty members engage students in active learnings, applications, interactive exercises, and discussionsofthewhyandhowofbusi-nessconcepts.
In terms of slide design,Alley, Sch-reiber, Ramsdell, and Muffo’s (2006) research supports the use of at least a 28-pointfont,theuseofasans-seriffont (e.g.,Arial)insteadofaseriffont(e.g., Times New Roman), and left justifica-tionoftheslideheadlinetitles.Alleyet al.foundthatstudentswereabletoretain more information when typographical componentsstressedkeylearningpoints and abbreviated slide content was not effective. We recommend that instruc-torsnotbeluredbyirrelevantbellsand whistles or gaudy color combinations for slide text and backgrounds. Instruc-torsshouldalsobecautiousofanimated clipart,soundeffects,irrelevantpictures, or cartoon inserts (Bartsch & Cobern, 2003); they are distracting to student concentration.Otherhelpfultipsweoffer includethefollowing:
1. Ensure the background slide and text colors contrast for trouble-free viewing. For example, a light beige backgroundwithadarkfontcolorwill beeasyforstudentstosee(andrequire lessinkforthemtoprintvs.adarkslide backgroundandlighttext).
2. Limit the use of color on slides. Three colors should be sufficient: one for the slide background, one for the textcolor,andperhapsoneaccentcolor.
(e.g., no more than five bullet points). Slidesneedtobecuesforaninstructor’s lecture,notthelectureitself.
4.Toomanyslidespresentedineach class period are overwhelming to stu-dents.An instructor must have a good reason for showing each slide. Deter-mine the most important topics of a presentationandprioritizeslidesonthe basis of the importance of the topic to be presented. Also, avoid including itemsthattheaudiencealreadyknows.
5. Do not put the slides on a timer. Each slide requires a different amount oftimeforpresentation.
6. If possible, use a well-designed diagram or graph to illustrate points. A good diagram or graph can explain muchbetterthantext.
7.Becautiousinusingthepreexist-ingslidesprovidedbythepublisher,as some slide sets simply replicate text-book examples or limit text content to keyheadingsandsubheadings.Prepare personalslides,modifyslidesprovided bythepublisher,orincorporaterelevant nontextbook information and exam-ples to fit lectures. Incorporate recent research findings or integrate nonbook examplesinthePPTslides.
8.DonotletthePPTslidesbecome thelecture.Theslidesshouldbeanaid to the lecture but not the lecture itself. Theslidescanalsobeusedasalaunch-ingpointforclassdiscussions.
TomotivatestudentstousePPTslides asapreparationtoolforanin-classles-son, faculty can provide an abridged version of the full slide presentation thatisusedinclass(Jamesetal.,2006). Otherideastomotivatestudentsinclude (a) using fill-in-the-blanks on slides, (b) formulating slide content as ques- tionsratherthanstatements,(c)includ-ing open-ended brainstormtionsratherthanstatements,(c)includ-ing slides, (d) assigning students to co-lead class lectures,and(e)havingquizzesonslide material (James et al.; Murphy, 2002; Quible,2002).Takentogether,oursug-gestionssupporttheuseofPPTdesign features that allow for student involve- mentandsupportcontentrecalltoposi-tivelyimpactstudentlearning.
Moving forward, we encourage professional development opportu-nities to enhance instructors’ use of PPT for instruction. Faculty may find
informal learning methods (James et al., 2006) helpful for improving their use of instructional tools. For exam-ple, instructors could observe or talk with other instructors recognized for theirteachingeffectiveness.Theycould also engage in a self-directed search for ideas related to presentations and meetingssuchasthosepresentedby3M MeetingNetworkorAResearchGuide forStudents.
CONCLUSION
The present investigation into the effectiveness of PPT in the business classroomreiteratesacontinuingtheme in the study of business management: Itdepends.Onthebasisofourprelimi-nary data, PPT’s effectiveness across businesscoursesdependsonthenature of course content and student prefer-ence variables. Although technology mayfacilitatethedeliveryofcertaindis-ciplinecontent,itpotentiallyappearsto distract, not fit, or make unnecessarily awkwardthedeliveryofotherbusiness content.Assuch,theroleoftechnology inundergraduatebusinesseducationcan benefitfromcontinuedstudy.
NOTES
LisaA.Burkeisanassociateprofessorinthe Department of Management at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. She teaches human resource management courses and publishes in theareasofmanagementeducationandmanage-menttraining.
KarenJamesisaprofessorinthedepartment ofManagementandMarketingatLouisianaState University in Shreveport. She teaches courses in marketing and publishes in the areas of visual advertising strategies, negative advertising, viral marketing,andtechnologyineducation.
Mohammad Ahmadi is a professor in the Department of Management at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He teaches statistics andoperationscoursesandpublishesintheareasof technologyandeducationandteachingexcellence. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lisa A. Burke, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Department of Man-agement, 615 McCallie Avenue, Office 400-G, Chattanooga,TN37403,USA.
E-mail:Lisa-Burke@utc.edu.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi,M.,Dileepan,P.,&Raiszadeh,F.(2007).
Is PowerPoint evil? Students’ perceptions.
ReviewofBusinessResearch,VII(4),15–19.
Alley,M.,Schreiber,M.,Ramsdell,K.,&Muffo, J.(2006).Howthedesignofheadlineinpresen-tationslidesaffectsaudiencereaction. Techni-calCommunication,53,225–234.
Amare, N. (2006). To slideware or not to
slide-ware: Students’ experiences with PowerPoint vs. lecture.Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,36,297–308.
Bartsch, R.A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effec-tiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lec-tures.Computers&Education,41,77–86. Beets, D. S., & Lobingier, P. G. (2001).
Peda-gogical techniques: Student performance and preferences.JournalofEducationforBusiness, 76,231–235.
Bloom, B. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives:HandbookIcognitivedomain.New York:DavidMcKay.
Bradley, R. V., Mbarika, V., Sankar, C. S., Raju, P. K., & Bangaly, K. (2007). Using multimedia instructional materials in MIS classrooms: A tutorial.Communication of theAssociationforInformationSystems,20, 260–281.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behaviorandstudentachievement.InM.C.Wit-trock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp.326–375;3rded.).NewYork:Macmillan. Burke, L. A., & James, K. E. (2008).
Power-Point-basedlecturesinbusinesseducation:An empirical investigation of student perceived novelty and effectiveness.Business Communi-cationQuarterly,71,277–296.
Chandler,P.,&Sweller,J.(1991).Cognitiveload theoryandtheformatofinstruction.Cognition andInstruction,8,293–332.
Craig,R.J.,&Amernic,J.H.(2006).PowerPoint presentation technology and the dynamics of teaching.Innovative Higher Education, 31,
147–160.
Daniels, L. (1999). Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10,42–56.
Debevec, K., Shih, M., & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning strategies and performance in a technology integrated classroom.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38, 293–308.
Griffin, J. D. (2003). Technology in the teach-ing of neuroscience: Enhanced student learn-ing.Advances in Physiology Education, 27, 146–155.
Hall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technologyintotheteachingprocess:Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Journal of Education for Business,78,301–307.
Harris,S.(2004).Missingthepoint.Government Executive,36,1–7.
James, K. E., Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2006). Powerful or pointless? Faculty ver-sus student perceptions of PowerPoint use in business education.Business Communication Quarterly,69,374–396.
Mason, R., & Hlynka, D. (1998). PowerPoint in theclassroom:Whatisthepoint?Educational Technology,38(5),45–48.
Mayer,R.E.(1989).Systematicthinkingfostered by illustrations in scientific text.Journal of EducationalPsychology,81,240–246. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are
we asking the right questions?Educational Psychologist,32,1–19.
Mayer, R. E. (2001).Multimedia learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy,B.(2002,October).Bringingthebestof theWeb to psychology education.Monitor on Psychology,33(9),74–76.RetrievedDecember 29, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/ oct02/bestweb.html
Norvig,P.(2003).PowerPoint:Shotwithitsown bullets.Lancet,362,343–345.
Quible, Z. K. (2002). Maximizing the effective-nessofelectronicpresentations. BusinessCom-municationQuarterly,65,82–85.
Rankin, E., & Hoaas, D. (2001). The use of powerpoint and student performance.Atlantic EconomicJournal,29,113.
Savion, L., & Middendorf, J. (1994). Enhancing conceptcomprehensionandretention.National TeachingandLearningForum,3(4),6–8. Schrum, L. (2005). A proactive approach to
research agenda for educational technology.
Journal of Research on Technology in Educa-tion,37,217–221.
Sloboda, B. (2003). Creating effective Power-Point presentations.Management Quarterly, 44,20–35.
Sugahara,S.,&Boland,G.(2006).Theeffectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the accounting classroom.AccountingEducation,15,391–403. Szabo,A.,&Hastings,N.(2000).UsingITinthe
undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint?Computers andEducation,35,175–187.
Thompson, C. (2003, December 14). The
dan-gersofPowerPointpresentation.TheNewYork Times,p.88.
Tufte, E. (2003, September). PowerPoint is evil.Wired, 11(9). Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://www.wired.com/wired/ archive//11.09/ppt2.html
Wilen, W. (1987).Questions, questioning tech-niques, and effective teaching. Washington, DC:NationalEducationAssociation.
Williams, M. (2004). Teaching PowerPoint in an MBA program.Business Communication Quarterly,67,91–95.
Wineburg, S. (2003). Power pointless.American SchoolBoardJournal,190(11),11–16.
APPENDIX
StudentsInsightsonProsandConsofPowerPointUseinClassroomInstruction(N=20)
What’sgoodaboutfacultyusingPowerPointintheclassroom?
“Easiertofollowimportantpoints”;“goodoutlinestructureforthelessonplan”;“providingasenseoforganization”[7] “Visualaid—greatforgraphs,picturessupportinglecturepoints”[7]
“Moreopportunitytowritedownothersupportivepointsoflectureandtolistenmore,sincemainpointsarealreadythere”[5] “Helpsstudentskeepupduringlecture”;“tokeepontrack”;“directsmyfocus”[4]
“UsingcolorfulandanimatedPowerPointslidesmakeclassmoreinteresting”;“holdsmyattention”[3]
“Helpsmeknowwhat’llbecoveredinclasswhenIreviewPowerPointslidespriortolecture”;“helpsanswer‘whatarewegoingtocover?’”[2] “Usefulforstudypurposes”[2]
“Helpstobreakmaterialdownfromthelongchaptersinabook”;“helpsmewithassignedreadingssoIcanbetterunderstandthematerial”[2] “Looksprofessional”
“Icanretainmore—itstimulatesmemorethansolelyrelyingontheinstructor” “Studentmighthavemissedsomethingsaidinlecture,butcangetitofftheslides”
What’snotsogoodabouttheuseofPowerPointintheclassroom?
“Whentheprofessorjustreadsthem—wordforword—instructorsneedtoelaborateontheslides[4]
“IfPowerPointslidesareonBlackboard,thendetractsfromtakingnoteswhichinitselfcouldbetterreinforcelearning”[3] “Whentheprofessormakestheslidestoowordy”;“justbulletedlists”[2]
“IfindIgetmoredistractedbecauseIknowIcanreadmyslideslater,soIstartthinkingaboutotherstuff”[2] “Canbeboring(toalwayslookatthescreen)”[2]
“Notgoodwhentheprofessordoesn’tknowhowtoteachwiththem,forexample,theinstructorneedstobeabletousePowerPointas asupplement[Howdoestheteacherfeelabouttheinformation,whatdotheyknow?]”
“It’stemptingtoskipclass”
“Someteachersgetcarriedawaywithanimationandpicturesandittakesmyattentionawayfromthemaincontenttopic”
“Ineffective if the PowerPoint slides and chapter do not coincide or if the PowerPoint slides do not coincide with the instructor’s lessonplan”
“What’stheincentivetoread?”
“It’sboringwhenitlooksliketheinstructorspent5minmakingtheslides” “Notapersonalteachingmethod”
“SometimesthePowerPointslidesarenotdetailedenough”
Note. Students could vote more than once for responses they supported. Brackets indicate the number of votes. Responses are quotations taken from students’comments.
