copyright 2020, meghan parsons

PowerPoint as Visual Communication Pedagogy:

Relative Differences in Eye Tracking and Aesthetic Pleasure

by

Meghan M. Parsons, B.A.

A Thesis

In

Communication Studies

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Luke LeFebvre, Ph.D.

Chair of Committee

Mike Allen, Ph.D.

Brian Ott, Ph.D.

Mark Sheridan

Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2020

Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my committee members, Dr. Luke LeFebvre, Dr. Mike

Allen, and Dr. Brian Ott. I thank you all for sharing your unique perspectives and for

the enrichment you brought to the development of this thesis. A special thank you to

my committee chairperson, Dr. Luke LeFebvre for his diligent counsel and advice

during the research and writing process, as well as aiding me in the statistical analysis

for this project. This work is representative of a topic I have grown immensely

passionate about and the facilitation of learning by which I felt motivated to explore

this topic further could not have been made possible without the leadership of my

committee members and other researching faculty.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................v

I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................3

The Communication Discipline and Visual Images ..........................................3

PowerPoint .........................................................................................................3

Slide design ..................................................................................................4

Processing Fluency and Aesthetics ....................................................................7

III. METHODS ....................................................................................................10

Participants .......................................................................................................10

Procedure .........................................................................................................10

Assessment and Measures................................................................................11

Eye tracking: Fixation duration and fixation count ...................................11

Aesthetic pleasure and liking .....................................................................13

IV. RESULTS .......................................................................................................14

V. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................16

Pedagogical Interventions for PowerPoint.......................................................16

Implications for Teaching and Learning ..........................................................19

Limitations and Future Directions ...................................................................22

VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................24

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................25

APPENDICES

A. EXAMPLES OF SLIDE DESIGN CATEGORIES .....................................29

B. AESTHETIC PLEASURE IN DESIGN (APID) ..........................................30


iv

ABSTRACT

The pervasiveness of PowerPoint in instructional settings prompts inquiry into

how learners see and experience visual lecture content to maximize how ideas are

communicated via slideware technology. This exploratory analysis investigates two

slide designs common to PowerPoints used in instructional environments—

presentation and teleprompter style slides. Eye tracking measures were implemented

to assess differences in fixations in response to varying degrees of visual integration.

Eye tracking results indicate teleprompter designs produced more fixations and

therefore suggests higher levels of visual attention while interpreting information

displayed in a text dominant design. Measures of aesthetic liking resulted in evidence

to suggest slides that incorporate imagery and limit text produce more aesthetically

pleasurable learning experiences for students than bulleted text. Practical and

immediate implementations are offered for instructors wishing to produce more

visually appealing slides to convey course material to students.


v

LIST OF FIGURES

Traditional layout suggestions (Microsoft Office 365, 2019) .......................6

Process of visual aesthetic thought (Dake, 2005)..........................................8

Example of document slide design ..............................................................29

Actual teleprompter slide viewed by participants ......................................29

Actual presentation slide viewed by participants ........................................29


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In the early 19th century, pedagogical practices in the classroom pivoted from

a heavily didactic emphasis—relying nearly exclusively on textual mediation of

knowledge through books and lectures—towards the visual (Depaepe, 1999). This

educational practice shift throughout the century saw teachers adopt the use of visual

images in classroom spaces (Nelson, 2000). From the turn of the 20th century to the

present, teachers were increasingly pressured to incorporate various forms of media

technologies into their classrooms. The evolution of these visual technologies

advanced from stereoscopes to lantern projectors to overhead projectors to 35-

millimeter slide carousels to computer-based slideware technology for integrating

visual content (Cuban, 1986; Maftoon, 1982). The current and most predominant

visual technology of college classrooms and lecture halls is Microsoft’s PowerPoint

(Clark, 2008; Wiebe, Savoy, Proctor, Salvendy, 2008; Slykhuis, & Annetta, 2007).

A slideware technology, PowerPoint, is often used with the intention to infuse

a visual communication component to enhance student learning, interest, and

engagement (Clark, 2008; Mann & Robinson, 2013). PowerPoint has the capacity to

blend visual images, text, sound, color, and animation (Penciner, 2013). Despite the

prevailing presence of PowerPoint, effective use of the slideware technology in the

classroom remains in contention amongst instructors (Axtell, Maddux, & Aberasturi,

2008) and students (James, Burke, & Hutchins, 2006) alike.

The pervasive presence of PowerPoint use in the classroom is not in dispute

(Hill, Arford, Lubitow, & Smollin, 2012), and its technological purpose is clear—to


2

improve the sharing of ideas or information as a communication technology. However,

appropriate utilization of PowerPoint in classrooms prompts inquiries into practice in

pedagogy and the role it plays in creating and sustaining effective learning

experiences. In order to maximize how ideas are communicated via slideware

technology, it is important to understand how an audience sees, interprets,

experiences, and recalls the visual messages communicated via the technology. As an

application software, PowerPoint is compatible and transferable between electronic

devices, but not all PowerPoint slide designs are created equal. Slide templates and

themes are features PowerPoint provides to act as guides but also allow the user to

adlib, invent, and create unique visual narratives.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the current body of literature

surrounding PowerPoint and its use in the classroom. This contribution offers an

informed approach to the creation of effective visuals during classroom presentations

by improving the relationship between learners and images displayed on slideware

technology. Specifically, the goals of this research effort are twofold: (1) identify

differences in eye fixation for differentiated slide layouts and (2) examine the extent to

which students report responses of aesthetic pleasure as a result of engagement with

different slide layouts. Furthermore, the results of this study may be used to optimize

the development and execution of visual communication choices for educators and

promote visual communication research as it applies to the classroom.


3

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Communication Discipline and Visual Images

While instructional communication has established itself as an accepted field

of interest for communication researchers, visual communication is relatively young in

comparison, still developing as its own field of research within the discipline of

communication studies (Müller, 2007). In fact, the term visual communication was

first coined as a term in the mid-20th century (Ivins, 1953). Visual communication as it

is recognized by the International Communication Association (ICA), “seeks to

enhance the understanding of the visual in all its forms—moving and still images and

displays in television, video and film, art and design, and print and digital media”

(ICA, 2019). Despite the challenges the field has faced in terms of acceptance as a

valid research area for the communication discipline, the concept of learning can be

found in the very origins of meaning for the related terms visual, image, and picture

(Fritze, Haugsbakk, & Nordkvell, 2016; Müller, 2007). Therefore, learning is innately

a visual experience (Medina, 2014; Cohen, Horowitz, & Wolfe, 2009). The

contemporary classroom is no different. There is a rich history that reveals an affinity

towards visuals as a method of enhancing learning experiences (Nelson, 2000;

Vazquez & Chiang, 2014), and PowerPoint is currently the predominant slideware

technology for sharing visual information (Clark, 2008; Cooper, 2009).

PowerPoint

Initially to be named Presenter, the name PowerPoint was decided upon as a

result of a trademark conflict in 1984 (Amare, 2004). Originally, PowerPoint was


4

designed for Apple computer systems until purchased by Microsoft in 1987. The

program was colorless until 1988 and animations did not arrive until 1992 (Glisser,

2017). It should come as no surprise that as computer technology advanced, so too did

PowerPoint as a slideware technology (Endicott, 2000). Presently, PowerPoint has

more capabilities than any previous iterations; the capabilities include: the power to

layer and display countless sequenced and complex animations, preserve and transfer

files across devices and platforms, access to an internal image library resources of

icons and photos free of licensing, and convert handwriting to text (Microsoft, 2019).

PowerPoint’s earliest role in instruction dates back to the late 1980s, when the

program was used to design and produce ad hoc transparencies for overhead

projectors, which have since been nearly retired as a lecturing technology (Endicott,

2000; Gaskins, 2007). Microsoft PowerPoint displayed visual information across

various slides, not unlike these transparencies on a projector but did not require the

time or other resources demanded by the production of material transparency

documents (Alley & Neeley, 2005). Serving as an appealing digital alternative,

PowerPoint began to grow in popularity in the 2000s. Heightened PowerPoint

accessibility made it the mainstream means for cultivating visual communication to

engage learners (Wiebe, Slykhuis, & Annetta, 2007). As a result of PowerPoint’s

prevalence, the slideware technology became a staple of instructional environments

(Mann & Robinson, 2013; Savoy et al., 2008).

Slide design. In the 1990s and 2000s, limited guidance was initially made

available for PowerPoint users (Endicott, 2000). Microsoft offered few formatting

suggestions to those authoring slide decks, otherwise known as template layouts.


5

These default layouts became what is now known as the traditional style of

PowerPoint design. Traditional layouts were provided immediately to the user upon

launching the program (see Figure 1). This style has become so embedded as the

standardized design that not only experienced professionals, but both instructors and

students have exhibited a strong resistance to the adoption of design alternatives

(Alley & Neeley, 2005; Clark, 2008; Cooper, 2009; Vazquez & Chiang, 2014). Users

instead often elected to utilize favorable automations encouraged by PowerPoint

which they believed saved them valuable time.

These traditional layouts remained virtually unchanged in appearance since the

1990s when PowerPoint 3.0 introduced its AutoContent feature (Amare, 2004;

Cooper, 2009). The discoveries made in visual communication research (e.g., visual

processing fluency, aesthetic liking) for instructional environments provide evidence

to support integrating intelligent use of slideware technologies (Savoy et al., 2008).

Intelligent use of slideware technology is a method by which one can best utilize the

abilities of slideware technology to control presentation variables in such a way that

the speaker will have a greater chance of relaying powerful messages in tandem to

their oral speech (Alley & Neeley, 2005; Savoy et al., 2008). Intelligent use of

slideware technology directly relates to the slide design assembled across slides and

slide decks.


6

Figure 1. Traditional layout suggestions from Microsoft Office 365, 2019.

Slide designs can be sorted into three categories: document slides, teleprompter

slides, and presentation slides. Document slides are text heavy and dense with no

employment of visuals, sometimes referred to as “slideument” (Reynolds, 2012, p. 68)

with an estimated word count of more than 75 words (Duarte, 2008, p.7).

Teleprompter slides use bullet points with limited text, and an estimated word count of

approximately 50 words (Reynolds, 2012; Duarte, 2008, p.7). Presentation slides

focus on displaying visuals rather than text alone and establish a visual narrative to

punctuate and accompany a spoken narrative provided by the speaker (Johnson &

Christensen, 2011; Penciner, 2013; Duarte, 2008; Vazquez & Chiang, 2014), and text

is extremely limited. See Figure A for an example of each type of slide design.

Visual attention can be measured by means of eye tracking and is determined

by fixations (Zagermann, Pfeil, & Reiterer, 2016). Eye tracking research (Slykhuis,

Wiebe, & Annetta, 2007; Rello, Baeza, Dempere, & Saggion, 2013; Yang, Chang,

Chien, Chien, & Tseng, 2013) has used fixation count and fixation duration as

common measurements of cognitive processing of text and images. Hence, fixation

duration and fixation function as a measure of visual attention and processing.


7

Therefore, the current study more closely examines different slide designs and how

learners view these visuals. Hence, the following research question is posited:

RQ1A: Does fixation duration differ for participants processing different visual

slide design representations displayed on slideware technology?

RQ1B: Does fixation count differ for participants processing different visual

slide design representations displayed on slideware technology?

Verbal modes of instructional messaging demonstrated in textbooks, spoken

lectures, and chalkboards have maintained their presence in the classroom. As visual

modes of instructional messaging became more accessible with the prevalence of

available technologies throughout the 1990s and 2000s, educators ran the risk of

repurposing verbal modes of conveying information, as seen in document slides, rather

than translating messages into congruent visuals (Vazquez & Chiang, 2014).

Accessibility of projectors complemented PowerPoint’s capacity for colorful visual

displays, animations, and sound in a way that was nearly impossible to share with

verbal description alone. PowerPoint as a visual medium prompts inquiry into

determinants of visual processing fluency and the aesthetic elements that contribute to

an effective and enjoyable learning experience for students.

Processing Fluency and Aesthetics

The degree of ease experienced by a viewer when processing a visual is known

as processing fluency (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). Aesthetics in the

traditional sense originated under a formalist theory of beauty (Diderot, 1752). The

real character of beauty was described as an ease of viewing that offers a sense of

pleasure or satisfaction to be experienced by the perceiver in response to a given


8

stimuli (Davies, Higgins, & Hopkins, 2009). In the field of psychobiological studies,

aesthetic theory can be applied as the aesthetic cognitive comprehension or subject

response to visual stimuli. A proposed theoretical framework (see Reber, Schwarz, &

Winkielman, 2004), much like Diderot’s initial definitions, assumes processing

fluency and aesthetics are inherently linked. This proposal suggests that when viewers

can easily process an object, they will experience a proportionately positive aesthetic

response. Beauty, then, becomes grounded in the processing experiences of the

viewer, characterized by a pleasurable subjective experience. The process of visual

aesthetic thought as it pertains to visual communication (see Figure 2) is illustrated

with the inclusion of three primary actors: the maker, the viewer, and the object (Dake,

2005).

-

Figure 2. Process of visual aesthetic thought. Reprinted from Handbook of Visual

Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media by D. Dake, 2005.

The maker is the individual responsible for the conveyance of a visual

message, while the viewer is the individual processing said message. This process

considers the object to be the matter by which a visual message is delivered holding

the ability to incite an aesthetically pleasing experience. In a classroom environment,

the PowerPoint slide deck can be considered the visual object in this process interacted

with by both student and instructor. The maker is the designer of the PowerPoint slides


9

or producer of the visual message. It is common for the instructor to act as both the

designer of the slides as well as the lecturer delivering the content. The viewer is the

student who processes the messages from both the slide deck and the instructor

simultaneously.

By exploring how learners respond to differences in slide design more

effective decisions can be made by instructors when using PowerPoint or similar

slideware technology. Hence, the following research question is proposed:

RQ2: What type of slide designs—teleprompter or presentation—will

participants report as most aesthetically pleasurable?


10

CHAPTER III

METHODS

Participants

This study involved undergraduate students (N = 162) participating in the Sona

Systems at a large southern university. Participants reported the following

demographics: 70.1% female, 98% US citizens (61.9% Caucasian, 19% Hispanic,

4.8% African American, 5.4% Asian, 0.7% Native Americans, 1.4% Middle Eastern,

6.8% two or more races). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 50 (M = 20.9, SD =

4.44). Participants were 27.9% freshmen, 16.3% sophomores, 32% juniors, 23.1%

seniors, and 0.7% unidentified. After cleaning the data (N = 147) were retained for

analysis.

Procedures

Students signed a consent form prior to participation in the study. The study

received approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board, and students had

the opportunity to opt out of the study at any time. Participants were offered extra

credit for participating in the study.

Participants were asked to view a (a) teleprompter (n = 75) or (b) presentation

slide (n = 72) deck design made in PowerPoint displayed in a 16:10 aspect ratio. Two

slide decks were produced, each exhibiting characteristics from either teleprompter or

presentation slide design covering the identical lecture content. The teleprompter slide

deck was produced using one of PowerPoint’s automated layout design suggestions

that best fit the criteria of a teleprompter style slide. Two videos were prepared by

screen recording a slide deck synced to congruent audio. The verbal narrative ensured


11

both slide decks were advanced at the same time and had the same duration of

participant optical viewing. Participants were not able to deliberately advance the

slides on their own and consistently experienced similar exposure time to lecture

content both visually and auditorily.

Once participants had entered the lab, they were asked to sit at a desk with a

monitor fitted with the eye tracking device. They were seated in a fixed, or non-rolling

chair, to minimize movement for accurate measurement. Participants were briefed by

the researcher on the preceding activities pertaining to the data collection process. The

entire session lasted approximately 15-minutes—including a calibration test, viewing

the PowerPoint presentation video depicting a slide deck with voiceover narration, and

survey. The researcher remained present during data collection to manage media and

equipment.

A nine-point eye tracking calibration test is performed in order to determine

visual acuity and prepare for accurate data collection. After calibration is achieved, the

participant affixed headphones to hear the audio narration as a crosshair appeared at

the exact center of the screen. The crosshair centers the participants’ optical fixations

at a consistent point before recording. Participants then pressed the spacebar on the

keyboard to initiate the start of the video.

After participants completed the PowerPoint presentation video, they were

asked to fill out a survey with questions related to aesthetic pleasure.

Assessment and Measures

Eye tracking: Fixation duration and fixation count. To answer the first

research questions, eye tracking data collected for this study was measured by a


12

remote optics eye tracking system mounted to the bottom of a computer monitor

viewing screen. The Tobii X2-60 eye tracker model has the capability to capture gaze

data for fixation-based research through infrared light for unobtrusive viewing and its

compact design helped the sensor remain discrete to participants. The eye tracker

device, which captures gaze data at 60 Hz, allows for freedom of head movement and

reports gaze accuracy within 0.4° visual angle. These coordinate measures recorded

directional paths of movement, stationary points, and duration of eye fixations in real-

time to determine which areas appear to be of focus or interest on the screen at a given

time.

For this study, a fixation measurement is classified as a point of optical focus

within 35 pixels lasting at least 100 ms. Unlike saccades, the quick continuous

movements between fixations which can be voluntary or involuntary, fixations are

voluntary stabilizations that can be interpreted as selective interest or evidence of the

visual processing of information (Zagermann, Pfeil, & Reiterer, 2016). Total fixation

duration (TFD) and fixation count (FC) were chosen as measures to better understand

how an audience sees and engages with different slide designs. TFD measures the total

amount of time, on average, that participants spent fixating on the slide as opposed to

searching or surveying. FC measures how many instances of fixation occur on average

during the video. Higher levels of fixation duration have been related to a higher level

of cognitive processing with an increased strain on the viewer’s working memory. The

more complex the visual, the more complex the task ahead of the viewer to make

sense of the visual. There is evidence to support TFD and FC measures can reveal

where more attention was required by the viewer to cognitively process a visual


13

(Chen, Epps, Ruiz, & Chen, 2011). The relationship between ease of processing and

reports of aesthetic pleasure were examined.

Tobii Pro Studio software was used to record, compile, and export data. To

conduct a comparative analysis between presentation and teleprompter slide designs, a

segment of the recordings was chosen for analysis covering identical lecture content

from one slide of each presentation. The segment was 25 seconds in duration and the

entire slide (1920 x 1080) was activated as an area of interest (AOI). Tobii Pro Studio

automates the classifications of fixations producing aggregated calculations of each

fixation taking place at any location within the AOI.

Aesthetic pleasure and liking. Immediately following the PowerPoint

presentation video, participants completed the measure for Aesthetic Pleasure in

Design (APiD; see Blijlevens, Thurgood, Hekkert, Leder, & Whitfield, 2004).

Participants were asked to indicate how much they agreed with statements describing

the given designs using 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly

agree). Items included aesthetic pleasure, typicality, and novelty (see Appendix B).

Cronbach’s α were .93 for aesthetic pleasure, .86 for typicality, and .83 for novelty.


14

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Prior to reporting the findings, the participant sample is further described based

on their experience with PowerPoint as a pedagogical tool in the classroom. All

participants (100%) had previously experienced PowerPoint during instruction.

Participants reported prior exposure to differential slide design—based on definitions

for each slide category—with a slight majority having most commonly experienced

49.7% presentation slides, 46.3% teleprompter slides, and 4.1% document slides. The

groups did not differ significantly on age, gender, or ethnicity.

RQ1A. An independent t-test analysis found no significant differences between

presentation (M = 22.13, SD = 2.73, N = 75) and teleprompter (M = 21.88, SD =

3.16, N = 76) conditions for fixation duration (t(149) = .51, p > .05).

Therefore, participants demonstrated equivalent fixation duration for both presentation

and teleprompter slide conditions.

RQ1B. An independent t-test analysis found significant differences between

presentation (M = 60.29, SD = 20.19, N = 75) and

teleprompter (M = 74.13, SD = 17.9, N = 76) conditions for fixation count (t(149) = -

4.46., p < .001). Therefore, participants demonstrated greater fixation count for the

teleprompter slide condition.

RQ2. Participants reported greater aesthetic pleasure for presentation slides

(M = 3.45, SD = .76, N = 72) than teleprompter slides (M = 2.56, SD = .91, N = 75).

The difference was significant with a t(145) = 6.52, p < .05.


15

Participants reported similar typicality for presentation slides

(M = 3.58, SD = .69, N = 72) and teleprompter slides (M = 3.65, SD = .84, N = 75).

The difference was not significant with a t(145) = -.57, p > .05.

Participants reported greater novelty for presentation slides

(M = 2.85, SD = .86, N = 72) than teleprompter slides (M = 2.00, SD = .81, N = 75).

The difference was significant with a t(145) = 6.2, p < .05.


16

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

This study initiates an exploration into differential slide design to begin to

improve understanding about how learners process slideware technology

presentations. Eye tracking results indicate teleprompter designs produced more

fixations and therefore suggests higher levels of visual attention while interpreting

information displayed in a text dominant design. Aesthetic survey results suggest a

significant distinction between teleprompter and presentation slides, with participants

reporting the presentation design style elicited a more positive aesthetic and novel

experience.

Pedagogical Interventions for PowerPoint

Overall, the results demonstrate that aesthetics matter when slideware

technology is involved while facilitating learning—if only for the simple facts that (a)

the content is more easily viewed and (b) learners find it more visually appealing for

consuming information. All participants of this study indicated the prevalence of

slideware technology in the classroom. Positive learning outcomes are a result of a

communicative transmission of information or content from an instructor to a student.

Such information transactions are considered successful when students are able to

evidence accurate recall or recognition of shared material (Savoy et al., 2008). While

PowerPoint is a popular tool used with the intention to promote positive learning

outcomes, different categories of slide design do not yield identical reception in the

eyes of learners which present new concerns when authoring slides.


17

Eye tracking findings indicated that different slide design layouts, at least

regarding FC, produce significantly different variations for teleprompter and

presentation slide designs. Clearly, teleprompter slides require greater visual

processing to encode information. Both of these measures relate to the cognitive

activities necessary to process information (Yang et al., 2013). It can be assumed that

while the amount of time spent fixating to understand the slides remained relatively

the same, participants who viewed teleprompter slides made more voluntary choices to

fixate during separate instances—most probably due to the reading required on

teleprompter slide designs. The eye must make sense of letters, then words, then

sentences to understand them as coherent messages. With higher demands of FC,

teleprompter slides demand more cognitively from students as they attempt to

understand the information communicated on a slide or slide deck.

With these findings, instructors can begin to implement informed design

choices about which slide design category operates to best convey their respective

course material. The degree of visual/text integration between these two slide designs

permits instructors to address an important question: How can learning be visually

optimized for student engagement to improve learning outcomes?

Additionally, findings illustrate the effect presentation slides have on student

perception of aesthetic pleasure. Students report greater desire to engage slides if they

find the viewing experience enjoyable. This is advantageous for instructors seeking to

enhance student interest. Since student interest has been linked to perceived visual

novelty (Burke & James, 2008), presentation slides are more apt to sustain student

interest. However, despite receiving significantly higher reports for perceived aesthetic


18

pleasure and novelty, presentation slides and teleprompter slides did not differ in

perceived typicality. Students reported that they experience presentation slides most

frequently in class, yet also regarded them as novel in this study. Students understand

teleprompter and presentation slides by their respective definitions to be common in

the classroom, but the perceived novelty and typicality varied in regards to how they

have seen these slide designs used. Images and visual slides might be common of

classroom environments, but effective use of visual narratives via presentation slides

may be atypical, resulting in a novel aesthetic experience (See Figure A for slides

used).

Aesthetic theory proposes a proportionally positive relationship between ease

of processing and aesthetically pleasurable response. While the existence of a

proportional relationship cannot be confirmed with this data, it appears conclusive that

presentation slides function to simplify elements to a relevant image and selective text

elicit a directly positive response by students. Positive associations to course

content—established visually with learners—encourages student attention via visual

appeal.

When preparing to use slideware technology as visual communication

pedagogy, it is important for instructors authoring slide decks to manage an effective

balance between purposeful illustration over decoration in order to produce

aesthetically appealing experiences with slides that are also effective in producing

positive learning outcomes. Technological integration for the classroom has the

potential to augment instructional materials to encourage student attention. However,

increased attention should promote processing. Instructors need to be cognizant to


19

avoid overstimulation or to have slides function as entertainment as opposed to

accentuating or supplementing learning (Levasseur & Sawyer, 2006).

Both the teleprompter and presentation slides examined in this study, used text

and images that remained relevant to the lecture content and avoided conflicting or

additional informational messaging beyond what was shared in the narration. It seems

intuitive that instructional material remain on task; however, when incorporating

visuals to heighten aesthetics for students, purposeful decisions are essential for

instructors when building slide decks.

Implications for Teaching and Learning in the Classroom

Centuries of technological advancements have regularly asked instructors to

acclimate to the needs and expectations of students. Presently, students are exposed to

and regularly interact with multimedia technologies. These technologies are so

pervasive in college classrooms that it has become a normative and expected

experience for learners. Results from this study further support intelligent integration

of slideware technology design for instructors.

Automations, available in PowerPoint, provide suggested slide layouts and

other design tools. These features provide PowerPoint users shortcuts for slide design

construction. With presentation and teleprompter slide designs being of the most

common in classrooms already, and no apparent evidence to support that one is more

visually digestible than the other, instructors can begin making immediate adjustments

using automations. Aesthetic visual elements are inclined to invite students to

optically engage in slide presentations of course content. Here are some


20

straightforward visual communication tips for instructors to enhance PowerPoint

design for students:

(1) The slide decks produced for this study included information simplified to

essential text and a large singular visual element. Teleprompter and

presentation slides both displayed a title orienting the viewer to the main

idea of the slide and date orienting the viewer to a time in history. In the

teleprompter deck, ideas were simplified into textual bullet point

representations and in the presentation deck, simplified into one image to

represent the content. Existing slides that may be characteristic of

teleprompter designs can be aesthetically enhanced by replacing bulleted

text with a relevant image.

(2) The second suggestion that proved successful in the present study, is a

focus on consistency across presentation slide decks to unite like ideas and

visually convey relationships. The subject matter experienced by

participants followed the history of visual aids spanning several thousand

years. The presentation slide deck utilized a timeline structured visual

display and consistent horizontal push transitions to convey a linear

temporal relationship between the ideas presented on each slide. This

encourages fluency by allowing viewers to anticipate and predict patterns

of movement as the lecture unfolds, establishing an implied foundational

lattice upon which students can begin exploring these concepts. The

location of the image, headline, and date also remained consistent between

concepts.


21

(3) Teleprompter slides that produced less enjoyable aesthetic experiences

lacked the employment of any color. The bulleted slide layout suggestion

that most accurately fit the definition of a teleprompter slide in PowerPoint

defaults to a white background with black text. If instructors relied on this

automation alone without making additional choices in visual

communication like incorporation of color, the slide deck runs the risk of

forfeiting novelty, instead favoring a visual that closely resembles what

students would find on any other printed textual document for the sake of

automation and familiarity. The presentation slide deck could have been

rated as more novel because of its utility incorporating visual elements that

could not be achieved through textual documents. The technology’s ability

to facilitate variety in this way.

(4) Reducing the amount of text on slides proved to be effective in reducing

the number of fixations required to process slides, which means increased

processing fluency to help students quickly and efficiently engage with

visually displayed concepts. The cognitive functioning of students is

essential to learning and should be taken into consideration by instructors

when developing course content to be displayed via PowerPoint. Text use

should be purposeful and streamlined to emphasize essential content to

assist students in identifying key ideas. For example, text should be utilized

when it necessary for students know how to write, spell, or type a concept.

(5) The most paramount question facing instructors: Is it more important that

students listen or more important that they read? Simplification of slides


22

can be achieved by substituting text with congruent imagery, which will

assist instructors to isolate slides to a single idea. Students then are released

from the burden of copying text and listening at the same time. The

potential of altering how PowerPoint is constructed for visual instruction to

support the instructor could be transformative for learners. Students would

be provided an opportunity to engage in dialogue about course content, ask

questions probing questions as opposed to copying and reciting notes

dominating slide decks. The technology would be used to enhance student-

teacher and student-student communication rather than dominate how

information is exchanged.

Limitations and Future Directions

The nature of this study presents challenges that begin to question the

comparability of differential slide designs. This study accounts for different visual

displays of identical verbal information but cannot account for what was lost or gained

visually in translation because there is no exact translation to speak to between slide

designs. For example, a film viewed by way of different aspect ratios can produce

different viewing experiences, such as standard versus wide screen. Some things are

gained, like the dark space found along the top and bottom of wide screen film

formats, while peripheral elements of a shot can be lost in standard formats. Further

evaluative measures should be considered to higher degrees of specificity in order to

reveal additional significant differences.

This study occurred in a laboratory environment. Future investigations should

set out to explore how students optically consume teleprompter and presentation slide


23

designs in a classroom setting. Some aspects of participants’ viewing experiences are

likely influenced by the absence of a physically present instructor or even other

classmates. Fixation duration and fixation count could have been influenced by

laboratory conditions, where participants were tasked with viewing a recorded lecture

on a monitor as opposed to a larger projection often found in classrooms. It is possible

that if this study were to be replicated in a simulated classroom with an instructor

present, allocation, duration, and frequency of fixations may differ.

Cognitive recall should be evaluated in future research to explore how content

is remembered via differential slide designs. This study offers insight to student

preference as it pertains to aesthetics specifically, but future examinations should be

conducted that incorporate cognitive learning and recall immediately (and after a

delayed period) following the visual presentations that integrate either teleprompter or

presentation slides.

The aesthetic response reported in association with the simplified visual

elements that characterize the presentation slide (image, headline, subtitle) supports

the idea that processing fluency and aesthetics are inherently linked. Further inquiry is

necessary to determine how aesthetic ease is experienced or influenced by the

instructor (presenter) providing the verbal content that supplements the visual display.


24

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

Shifts in educational practice as a result of more accessible and capable

multimedia technologies exhibit an unmatched opportunity for visual aid integration in

the classroom. PowerPoint has reigned dominant as the most pervasive form of visuals

employed for instructional purposes. Previous PowerPoint research has largely

focused on examining the utility of the technology, not differential slide design.

Findings from this study contribute a new layer of consideration to be applied to this

slideware technology and largely documents reported perceptions that disclose how

students experience visual instructional messages. The power of PowerPoint is its

ability to facilitate visual representations in the minds of learners in a way that is

supplemental to an instructor’s lecture by reinforcing the message. An important

implication is that communication decisions in visual message construction and design

influence the degree to which students report aesthetically enjoyable learning

experiences.


25

REFERENCES

Alley, M., & 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. doi:10.1083.1-1`0.1083.14.

Amare, N. (2004). Technology for technology's sake: The proliferation of PowerPoint.

International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004.

Proceedings, 61-63. doi:10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375276

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.

Axtell, K., Maddux, C., & Aberasturi, S. (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. Retrieved from

http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/ijttl.html

Burke, L., & James, K. (2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An

empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness.

Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 277-296.

Chen, S., Epps, J., Ruiz, N., & Chen, F. (2011) Chen, Siyuan & Epps, Julien & Ruiz,

Natalie & Chen, Fang. (2011). Eye activity as a measure of human mental

effort in HCI. Proceeding IUI '11 Proceedings of the 16th International

Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 315-318.

10.1145/1943403.1943454.

Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university

lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39-45. doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.1.39-46

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of

Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Cohen, M.A., Horowitz, T.S., & Wolfe, J.M. (2009). Auditory recognition memory is

inferior to visual recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 106(14), 6008–6010.

http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811884106

Cooper, E. (2009). Overloading on slides: Cognitive load theory and Microsoft’s slide

program PowerPoint. Association for the Advancement of Computing in


26

Education Journal, 17(2), 127-135. Retrieved from

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/28143/.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since

1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Dake, D. (2005). Aesthetics theory. In K.L., Smith, S., Moriarty, & K. Kenney (Eds.)

Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 3-22).

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Davies, S., Higgins, K.M., & Hopkins, R. (Eds.). (2009). A companion to aesthetics.

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Diderot, D. (1752). Beautiful (P. Bonin Trans.). Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.609

Duarte, N. (2008). Slide:ology: The art and science of creating great presentations.

Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Depaepe, M. (2000). Order in progress: Everyday educational practice in primary

schools, Belgium, 1880 - 1970. Acco, Belgium: Leuven University Press.

Endicott, J. (2000). Growing up with PowerPoint. Presentations, 61-66. Retrieved

from https://www.indezine.com/stuff/guppt.pdf

Fritze, Y., Haugsbakk, G., & Nordkvelle, Y. (2016). Visual “Bildung” between

Iconoclasm and Idolatry. Nordicom Review, 37(2), 17-31. doi:10.1515/nor-

2016-0015

Gaskins, R. (2007). PowerPoint at 20: Back to basics. Communications of the

Association for Computing Machinery, 50(12),15-17.

doi:10.1145/1323688.1323710.

Glisser. (2017). The history of PowerPoint. London, England. Retrieved from

https://www.glisser.com/media/the-History-of-PowerPoint.pdf

International Communication Association. (2019). Divisions & Interest Groups:

Visual Communication Studies. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

https://www.icahdq.org/group/visual

Ivins, W. (1953). Prints and visual communication. Boston, MA: Harvard University

Press.

James, K. E., Burke, L.A., & Hutchins, H.M. (2006). Powerful or pointless? Faculty

versus student perceptions of PowerPoint use in business education. Business

Communication Quarterly, 69(4), 374-396. doi:10.1177/1080569906294634


27

Johnson, D. A., & Christensen, J. (2011). A comparison of simplified-visually rich

and traditional presentation styles. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 293-297.

doi:10.1177/0098628311421333

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, 101- 123. doi:10.1080/15358590600763383

Maftoon, J. (1982). ITV: Are teachers using it?. T.H.E. Journal, 9(2), 45-46. Retrieved

from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/169236/

Mann, S., & Robinson, A. (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.

doi:10.1080/01411920802042911

Medina, J. (2014). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home,

and school (2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

Müller, M. G. (2007). What is visual communication? Past and future of an emerging

subfield of communication research. Studies in Communication Sciences, 7(2).

doi:10.5169/seals-791077

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.

Penciner, R. (2013). Does PowerPoint enhance learning? Canadian Journal of

Emergency Medicine, 15(2), 109-112. doi: 10.2310/8000.2013.130756

Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic

pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality And

Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382.

Rello, L., Baeza-Yates, R., Dempere-Marco, L., & Saggion, H. (2013, September).

Frequent words improve readability and short words improve understandability

for people with dyslexia. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

(pp. 203-219). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Reynolds, G. (2012). Presentation Zen: Simple ideas on presentation design and

delivery (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders.

Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2008). Information retention from

PowerPoint and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52, 858-867.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005


28

Slykhuis, N., Wiebe, E., & Annetta, D. (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 Education, 5(2), 329-348. doi:10.1007/s10763-006-9041-z

Microsoft. (2019). What’s new in PowerPoint for Office 365. Retrieved from

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/what-s-new-in-powerpoint-for-office-

365-e8ef980c-5b12-4fff-ae3f-0819e6a21a1f?ui=en-US&rs=en-

US&ad=US#Audience=Previous_Releases

Vazquez, J. & Chiang, E. (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.

Yang, F. Y., Chang, C. Y., Chien, W. R., Chien, Y. T., & Tseng, Y. H. (2013).

Tracking learners' visual attention during a multimedia presentation in a real

classroom. Computers & Education, 62, 208-220.

Yoon, D., & Narayanan, N. H. (2004, March). Mental imagery in problem solving: An

eye tracking study. In Proceedings of the 2004 symposium on Eye tracking

research & applications (pp. 77-84).

Zagermann, J., Pfeil, U., & Reiterer, H. (2016). Measuring cognitive load using eye

tracking technology in visual computing. In Proceedings of the sixth workshop

on beyond time and errors on novel evaluation methods for visualization (pp.

78-85). doi:10.1145/2993901.2993908


29

APPENDIX A

EXAMPLES OF SLIDE DESIGN CATEGORIES

Figure A.1. Example of document slide design

Figure A.2. Actual teleprompter slide viewed by participants

Figure A.3. Actual presentation slide viewed by participants


30

APPENDIX B

AESTHETIC PLEASURE IN DESIGN (APiD)

Directions: Please consider the following statements in relation to the PowerPoint.

Indicate whether or not you believe each statement applies to the PowerPoint:

Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neither Agree nor Disagree = 3; Agree = 4;

Strongly Agree = 5

Aesthetic Pleasure

_____ 1. This is a beautiful PowerPoint.

_____ 2. This is an attractive PowerPoint.

_____ 3. This PowerPoint is pleasing to see.

_____ 4. This PowerPoint is nice to see.

_____ 5. I like to look at this PowerPoint.

Typicality

_____ 1. This is a typical PowerPoint.

_____ 2. This is a good example of a PowerPoint.

_____ 3. This is representative of a PowerPoint.

_____ 4. This design is common for a PowerPoint.

_____ 5. This is a standard PowerPoint design

_____ 6. This is characteristic of a PowerPoint.

Novelty

_____ 1. This is a novel PowerPoint.

_____ 2. This PowerPoint design is original.

_____ 3. This is a new example of a PowerPoint.

_____ 4. This PowerPoint is innovative.

copyright 2020, meghan parsons

Documents