powerful or pointless? - pbworks

POWERFUL OR POINTLESS?

Faculty Versus Student Perceptions of PowerPointUse in Business Education

Karen E. JamesLisa A. BurkeLouisiana State University in ShreveportHolly M. HutchinsUniversity of Houston

The use of PowerPoint (PPT)–based lectures in business classes across universities is ubiquitousyet understudied in empirical pedagogical research. The purpose of this empirical study was toascertain whether significant differences exist between faculty and student perceptions with regardto PPT’s impact on perceived learning, classroom interactions, and student behaviors. The resultsindicated that (a) students have a significantly less favorable overall view of PPT’s influence oncognitive learning and classroom interaction than faculty members; (b) unlike faculty members,students do not believe that posting notes on the Web will decrease their motivation to attend class;and (c) both faculty members and students perceive that PPT has a favorable impact on note-taking quality, content recall during exams, emphasis on key lecture points, and holding studentattention during class. The authors offer implications for instructors and future research.

Keywords: PowerPoint; business education; learner perceptions; faculty perceptions; negativeclassroom behaviors

POWERPOINT (PPT) IS LOADED on approximately 400 millioncomputers worldwide, accounts for over 4 million lectures on the Web,and helps generate more than 30 million presentations per day(Hanft, 2003; Harden, 2003). Albeit an industry-originated presenta-tion software package, PPT has enjoyed a tremendous run by instruc-tors in business classrooms across the globe. However, althoughanecdotal evidence on the pros and cons of PPT use abounds in thepractitioner literature (e.g., Guernsey, 2001; Harris, 2004; Jones &Bowen, 2004; Norvig, 2003; Wineburg, 2003), empirical study of its usein business college classrooms remains scant. In this study, we surveyedbusiness faculty members and students taking business classes to gaininsights into their perceptions of how PPT influences classroom

Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 69, Number 4, December 2006 374-396DOI: 10.1177/1080569906294634© 2006 by the Association for Business Communication

374

James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE 375

behaviors and perceptions, both positive and negative. We discuss thefindings, offer insights to help instructors modify and improve theirpresentation of course content, and suggest several areas for futureresearch.

PPT IN HIGHER EDUCATION LECTURES

A range of authors have identified “the good, the bad, and the ugly”regarding the use of PPT in presentation forums, with varying opin-ions and insights (Cyphert, 2004; Guernsey, 2001; Harris, 2004; Jones& Bowen, 2004; Norvig, 2003; Vik, 2004; Wineburg, 2003; Worley &Dyrud, 2004). But specific empirical study in the college classroomsetting, particularly in business, is relatively sparse. Here, we reviewprior findings about the use and effectiveness of this software packageacross university lecture settings. We specifically focus on studies thatexamined the influence of PPT on students’ content recall, classroominteraction, and classroom behaviors.

Cognitive Recall

In terms of outcome-based research on the influence of PPT on cog-nitive recall, Szabo and Hastings (2000) found higher grades in twoPPT conditions (PPT lecture and PPT lecture with notes) comparedwith an overhead lecture condition. Lowry’s (1999) study in a U.K.environmental science course also reported that PPT subjectsreceived better grades than a traditional lecture cohort (althoughthese findings were limited because of the administration of differenttest questions). Daniels (1999) reported no significant differences instudents’ cognitive performance when PPT was used. However, inAmare’s (2006) study of undergraduate students in a technical writ-ing course, performance scores were actually higher in the traditionallecture format than in PPT-enhanced lectures. Thus, the outcome-based performance findings are mixed.

In terms of student perceptions, Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, andMohundro (1998) reported that students perceived PPT as a usefulcognitive aid for maintaining their interest and for enhancing theirunderstanding and encouraging the retention of material. Bartschand Cobern (2003) compared the effectiveness of overheads, basicPPT (text only), and expanded PPT (with graphics and sounds) and

376 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006

also found (at the end of the semester) that students perceived thatthey learned more via PPT lectures. Interestingly, in Bartsch andCobern’s study, students scored significantly better in the basic-PPTcondition on content recall and scored 10% worse in the expanded-PPT condition. These latter findings are buttressed by other reportsof a detrimental effect when instructors use unnecessary embellish-ments in their PPT presentations (e.g., irrelevant pictures andsounds; Blokzijl & Naeff, 2004; Mayer, 1997; Voss, 2004). Irrelevanteffects are distracting and have been found to overload students’ cog-nitive processing capabilities (Mayer, 1997).

Classroom Interaction

Nowaczyk, Santos, and Patton (1998) assessed student perceptions ofPPT use in an introductory behavioral statistics course and found thatstudents reported at both the midterm and final exams that they pre-ferred PPT to help them understand the course material. However, atthe final exam, students reported that they favored the traditional lec-ture format for enhancing actual classroom interaction amongstudents and the instructor. This last finding, along with otherresearch, indicates that PPT may at a minimum have a neutral effecton classroom interaction and may potentially even deter classroominteractions by minimizing classroom spontaneity (Murphy, 2002)and hindering deeper discussions of material (Cyphert, 2004; Hanft,2003; McDonald, 2004). It also points to the need for examiningmore than just academic performance as a criterion variable in suchstudies, given the importance of the interactive element in activelearning processes (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Classroom Behaviors

In terms of PPT’s effect on student behaviors, a study by Frey andBirnbaum (2002) in a course on Russian fairy tales indicated that 19%of students perceived that PPT increased inappropriate student behav-iors. For example, 15% of students claimed that they were less likely toattend the class when notes were posted on the Web. However, Szaboand Hastings (2000) found that PPT lectures increased lecture atten-dance and that the overwhelming majority of their sample felt thatPPT handouts helped them study and take notes on important points


in lecture and held their attention. The conflicting findings of thesetwo studies call for investigations of potential dysfunctional studentbehaviors associated with PPT use.

In sum, most prior empirical studies have suggested a positive influ-ence on perceptions of learning and on testing performance associatedwith basic PPT use. At the same time, there is evidence intimating a pas-sive role for students, a lack of spontaneity and interaction during classmeeting time, and a potentially negative impact on classroom behav-iors such as attendance (Frey & Birnbaum, 2002; Harris, 2004). Weshould note that many of the prior studies were conducted in non-business courses, which suggests the need for closer study of PPT useinside the business discipline. Moreover, there exists a paucity ofresearch regarding faculty versus student perceptions of the effective-ness of PPT-based lectures. Understanding shared or differing percep-tions between faculty members and students could have someimportant implications for how PPT is being used in the college class-room. And gleaning insights about PPT instruction in the business edu-cation setting is particularly important because our students will beusing presentation software in corporate jobs quite frequently and willlikely mimic presentations styles they have witnessed faculty membersusing, as predicted by social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

METHOD

Sample and Data Collection Procedures

Undergraduate business students enrolled in randomly selectedaccounting, business law, economics, finance, information systems,management, and marketing courses at an urban comprehensive uni-versity in the mid-South were sampled for the study. Data were gath-ered from 14 of the 15 courses initially targeted, for a course responserate of 93.3%. Over a 2-week period, questionnaires were adminis-tered to students; at the discretion of instructors, some studentsreceived extra credit for participating. Because students could theo-retically encounter the survey in more than one class, the question-naire instructions directed students not to complete a second survey.Of the 262 surveys collected, 32 surveys were eliminated as unusablebecause of incomplete or invalid information or because the surveyrespondents were classified as graduate students or were not businessmajors, which resulted in a final sample size of 230 students.

In an effort to obtain a cell size of 30 business faculty members whoused PPT in the classroom, we sampled faculty members at three busi-ness schools, all of which are urban, comprehensive, similarly tieredbusiness schools accredited by the Association to Advance CollegiateSchools of Business and located in the United States. Fifty-one of the101 distributed surveys were returned, and 2 were eliminated forincomplete data, resulting in a final faculty response rate of 48.5%.Ultimately, 44.9% of the faculty sample was located at the same uni-versity as the student participants.

Measures

Student perceptions of the effectiveness of PPT compared with tradi-tional lecture were assessed using measures adapted from those usedin prior research (Nowaczyk et al., 1998). A total of 17 items pur-porting to measure the effectiveness of PPT with respect to the pre-sentation of class material, student understanding of course material,and classroom interactions were administered to student samples. Anexploratory factor analysis was performed to see whether items pur-ported to measure each construct loaded on the relevant factor.(Examination of the factor loadings indicated that five items loadedfairly strongly on both factors; these items were subsequently elimi-nated to improve the purity of each measure.) Only two factors witheigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted; these two factorsaccounted for 61.67% of the variance. The resulting two-factor solu-tion described two constructs that related to the impact of PPT oncognitive learning and classroom interactions. Factor 1 containedseven items (≥.60) and was labeled “cognitive learning” because itdealt with the information processing associated with a cognitiveunderstanding of course materials. Factor 2 contained four items(≥.60) and was labeled “classroom interactions” because it dealt withclassroom rapport and class relations.

Several Likert-type statements drawn from prior research (Frey &Birnbaum, 2002) were used to assess perceptions of PPT’s influenceon various student behaviors, including paying attention during class,absenteeism, and note taking. Because a review of the literature pro-vided limited evidence regarding PPT’s influence on other negativestudent behaviors and attitudes, additional items tapping thesebehaviors, such as the likelihood of talking during class and perceivedboredom, were also assessed using a 6-point, Likert-type format, withresponses ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6).



RESULTS

Student Sample Description

The Appendix displays frequency breakdowns for several demo-graphic characteristics of the student sample, including student clas-sification, major, ethnicity, gender, and age. Most students in thestudy were upper-division juniors and seniors, sufficiently represent-ing available business majors. Age data were collected by year of birth,then recoded into age classifications; the average age of undergradu-ate students who participated in the study was 25.15 years, with a stan-dard deviation of 5.53 years.

Frequency, Type, and Effectiveness of PPT Use

Table 1a illustrates that 67% of faculty members used PPT in their lec-tures. The varying degree of PPT use by faculty members is displayedin Table 1a, indicating that 26.5% “always” used PPT in their teach-ing, 14.3% frequently used it, 18.4% moderately used it, 8.2% infre-quently used it, and 32.7% “never” used it. Label descriptors werequantified as follows:

• Never (no additional description)• Infrequently: fewer than one quarter of class meetings• Moderately infrequently: one quarter to fewer than half• Moderately frequently: half to fewer than three quarters• Frequently: three quarters to almost every class• Always (no additional description)

Table 1b indicates the different features and elements that facultymembers indicated were traditionally incorporated into their PPTlectures. Slide backgrounds and differently colored fonts were themost commonly used elements, while the most frequently used con-tent elements were charts and examples of concepts being discussedin class (e.g., current trends, issues, or events or firms that exempli-fied or otherwise related to slide content). Sound effects and videoswere the least used elements. Table 1c depicts students’ reports ofwhat percentage of their business classes were using PPT regularly ver-sus the percentage of instructors using PPT effectively. Although 26.2%of the total respondents reported that three fourths or more of theirbusiness classes regularly used PPT, only 21.4% indicated that PPTwas actually being used effectively. Perhaps with a great deal of expo-sure, students are more discriminating.


Faculty PPT Use by Demographic Category

Table 2 suggests that faculty PPT use may vary by teaching discipline,professorial rank, sex, and years of teaching experience. Althoughthis analysis is only exploratory in nature, the data suggest that thoseteaching in quantitative disciplines, such as accounting, finance, andinformation systems and decision sciences or computer informationsystems, were less likely to use PPT than those teaching in manage-ment, marketing, and economics. Perhaps this is because numericalproblem solving is not as well suited to a PPT format. This supposi-tion seems to be reinforced by responses to an open-ended questionthat asked students to identify their number one concerns related tothe use of PPT in business classes. Replied one student, “I wouldn’tlike PowerPoint in finance where you need step-by-step instructionand examples.” Another noted, “Mathematical problems are harderto understand when already typed instead of instructor manually writ-ing step by step.” Thus, researchers should explore whether qualita-tive courses benefit more from PPT’s organizational features than thequantitative courses in business.

Faculty use differences among the various classifications of profes-sorial rank may not be surprising. One could argue that (newer) assis-tant professors tend to be more technologically savvy and more likelyto make use of ancillary materials. In terms of years of teachingexperience, the pattern of use among different classifications falls asone might expect; the higher use among those with fewer years ofexperience may represent their attempt to use technology in their

Table 1a. Frequency of Faculty PowerPoint Use During ClassesTaught

PowerPoint Use Frequency %

Never 16 32.7Infrequently (fewer than one quarter of class meetings) 4 8.2Moderately infrequently (one quarter to fewer than 5 10.2

half of class meetings)Moderately frequently (half to fewer than three 4 8.2

quarters of class meetings)Frequently (three quarters to almost every 7 14.3

class meeting)Always 13 26.5Total sample 49 100.0

NOTE: The question was “In general, how frequently do you use PowerPoint duringthe classes you teach (e.g., please do not include exam or student presentation days)?”


classes en route to tenure and promotion. Once these goals areobtained, perhaps the incentive decreases (i.e., for those with 14 to 20years of experience) and then resurges when senior faculty membersare encouraged (or inclined to) to reinvigorate their teachingmethods.

Gender differences are interesting, and a recent study may shedsome light on our findings that more male faculty members used PPT

Table 1b. Type of Faculty PowerPoint Use

PowerPoint Element Frequency % Who Use

Slide backgrounds 26 78.8Sound effects 1 3.0Animations 9 27.3Differently colored fonts 23 69.7Graphics 14 42.4Slide transitions 15 45.5Examples of concepts 25 75.8Discussion questions 15 45.5Application problems or exercises 22 33.3Charts 24 72.7Videos 1 3.0

NOTE: The question was “Which of the following elements are traditionally incorpo-rated into your PowerPoint-based lectures (please check all that apply)?”

Table 1c. Comparison of Business Classes Students Reported asUsing PowerPoint (PPT) Regularly Versus Effectively

Business Classes Using Business Instructors UsingPPT Regularly PPT Effectively

% of Students’ Number of Number ofBusiness Classes Students % Students %

0 18 7.9 18 7.91 to 25 55 24.0 55 24.026 to 50 53 23.1 57 24.951 to 75 43 18.8 50 21.876 to 100 60 26.2 49 21.4Total 229 100.0 229 100.0

NOTE: The question asked toward the beginning of the survey was “This semester,what percent of your business courses are using PowerPoint regularly?” The questionasked toward the end of the survey was “What percent of your current instructors inbusiness are using PowerPoint-based lectures effectively?”


Table 2. Distribution of Faculty PowerPoint (PPT) Users byDemographic Category

Variable Frequencies %

Discipline Total PPT users % of PPT userssample only by discipline

Accounting 6 1 16.6Business lawa 1 1 100.0Economics 7 6 85.7Financea 4 2 50.0ISDS, CIS, etc. 8 5 62.5Management 16 13 81.3Marketing 5 4 80.0

Highest degree Total PPT users % of PPT usersearned respondents only by degree

Master’s degree 14 9 64.3Doctoral degree 34 24 70.6

Professional Total PPT users % of PPT usersrank respondents only by rank

Adjunct 13 9 69.2Instructora 3 2 66.6Assistant professor 8 7 87.5Associate professor 15 10 66.6Full professor 9 5 55.5

Sex Total PPT users % of PPT usersrespondents only by sex

Female 11 6 54.5Male 37 27 72.9

Years of teaching Total PPT users % of PPT users byexperience respondents only years of teaching

experience1 to 7 16 13 81.37 to 13 14 10 71.414 to 20 7 3 42.921 to 27a 3 2 66.7≥28 8 5 62.5

NOTE: ISDS = information systems and decision sciences; CIS = computer informationsystems.a. This demographic category was particularly underrepresented in the total sample(n < 5), and any inferences should remain limited.

in the business classroom (male faculty members = 72.9%, femalefaculty members = 54.5%). In a survey of academics, Rajagopal andBojin (2003) found that female faculty members tended to assessmore enthusiastically than men older classroom technologies such asVCRs and overheads. In addition, the study found that men self-assessed their use of technology-enhanced teaching tools as veryeffective in contrast to women, although both rated their presenta-tion software skills as equally excellent. Rajagopal and Bojin sug-gested that female instructors confront more obstacles in usinginstructional technology in the classroom, including a lack of time,insufficient training, and inadequate access to computers and tools.

Student Versus Faculty Perceptions

Next we examine student versus faculty perceptions of PPT use inbusiness courses. Table 3a details the items and factor loading scoresfor the cognitive learning and classroom interactions scales. As seenthere, the two factors had eigenvalues greater than 1 and accountedfor 61.67% of the variance, both indicating an adequate factorialsolution. Each scale demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability;Cronbach’s α values were .879 and .868 for the cognitive learning andclassroom interactions scales, respectively.

Table 3b contains cognitive learning and classroom interactionitems and the means and standard deviations for each item by facultyand student group, as well as the t statistics and p values for faculty ver-sus student group comparisons. Examination of mean scores andresults of one-sample t tests (comparing item mean scores with aneutral value of 3.5) indicated that both faculty members andstudents perceived PPT to be superior to lecture for each cognitivelearning item. Faculty members, though, had significantly more pos-itive evaluations than students on PPT’s utility for note taking, infor-mation recall, and ease of learning. In terms of interaction, students(in contrast to faculty members) viewed traditional lecture as signifi-cantly better for helping them get to know others in the class.However, faculty members view PPT as significantly better for makingstudents feel like participants in a class and for establishing rapport.Nonetheless, both faculty members and students similarly viewed PPTas better than lecture for facilitating discussion.

Table 4 lists the summated measure means for both the faculty andstudent samples. As seen in the table, the independent-samples t testfound significant differences between faculty and student perceptions



for both cognitive learning (t = 4.131, p = .000) and classroom interac-tions (t = 4.715, p < .000). Examination of the mean scores and one-sample t tests comparing item mean scores with a neutral value of 3.5confirmed that although both faculty members (t = 18.90, p < .000) andstudents (t = 17.12, p < .000) believed that PPT’s impact on cognitivelearning was better than that of traditional lecture, faculty membershad a more positive opinion of PPT’s influence on learning than didstudents. PPT’s impact on classroom interactions was again viewedmore favorably than that of traditional lecture by faculty members (t =4.978, p < .000), but students rated PPT’s impact on class interactionssignificantly lower than faculty members. In fact, student evaluationsdid not significantly differ from the neutral point (t = –0.14, p < .889).Thus, faculty members appeared to have a more positive impression ofPPT’s effectiveness than their students.

Next, PPT’s impact on specific student classroom behaviors wasexplored. Means, standard deviations, t statistics, and p values associ-ated with student and faculty perceptions are displayed in Table 5. Allone-sample t tests comparing item means with a neutral point of 3.5

Table 3a. Scales and Factor Analysis Results for CognitiveLearning (CL) and Classroom Interactions (CI) Scales(rotated component matrix)

Component

Item Factor 1: CL Factor 2: CI

CL1 .759 .377CL2 .750 .254CL3 .743 .185CL4 .735 .168CL5 .688 .216CL6 .676 .281CL7 .649 .174CI1 .066 .832CI2 .363 .807CI3 .318 .799CI4 .398 .698Eigenvalue 6.371 4.113% of variance explained 37.476 24.192Cumulative % 37.476 61.667Cronbach’s α .879 .868

NOTE: The extraction method was principal component analysis, and the rotationmethod was varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in three iterations.


Table 3b. Means and Standard Deviations for Cognitive Learning(CL) and Classroom Interactions (CI) Scale Items

Item Group n M SD t pa

CL impact of PPT 4.867 .000a

CL1. Helps [students/me]to learn the material in away that is comfortable.

Faculty 33 5.70b 1.24members

Students 230 4.38b 1.48CL2. Results in information 2.532 .012a

being easier to remember.Faculty 33 5.21b 1.36

membersStudents 230 4.52b 1.49

CL3. Makes note taking 3.025 .003a

easier for [students/me].Faculty 33 5.58b 0.61


CL4. Results in a more 1.211 .227appropriate pacefor lecture.


Students 229 4.68b 1.43CL5. Causes the flow 1.178 .240

information in classto be less disrupted.


Students 229 4.83b 1.22CL6. Makes examples .232 .817

presented in class clearer.Faculty 33 4.88b 1.05


CL7. Allows [students/me] 1.504 .134to better coordinate lecturematerial with text material.


Students 230 4.78b 1.33Impact of PPT on CI 5.718 .000a

CI1. Helps [students/me]better know the [others/other students] in class.

(continued)


were significant at the p < .05 level, for both faculty members andstudents. As such, the results indicated that both faculty members andstudents perceived PPT as having a favorable impact on note taking,recalling content during an exam, emphasizing key lecture points,and holding students’ attention during class. There were no signifi-cant differences between student and faculty perceptions for thesevariables.

Lastly, PPT’s impact on specific negative student classroom behav-iors was investigated; means, standard deviations, t statistics, and p val-ues associated with student and faculty perceptions are displayed inTable 6. The results related to PPT’s impact on negative studentbehaviors were mixed. First, no significant differences were found

Table 3b. (continued)



Students 228 3.15b 1.37CI2. Makes [students/me] 2.464 .018a

feel more of a participantin class.


Students 228 3.51 1.54CI3. Better establishes 3.951 .000a

rapport between [me/the instructor] and[my/the] students.


Students 230 3.40 1.53CI4. Facilitates class 1.394 .164

discussion.Faculty 33 4.36b 1.85


NOTE: The survey directions were “The following statements ask that you consider anumber of factors, and rate each by indicating whether a traditional lecture method(in which business instructors write on the chalkboard or use overhead transparencies)or PowerPoint lectures are better with respect to that factor” (1 = traditional lecture better,6 = PowerPoint lecture better).a. Significance of differences between faculty and student group means.b. Significantly different from the neutral value of 3.5 at the p < .05 level.


between student and faculty perceptions related to PPT’s influenceon the likelihood of students talking disruptively in class, and neithergroup’s opinion differed significantly from a neutral value of 3.5 atthe p < .05 level. Second, faculty members were significantly morelikely than students to believe that the basic act of using PPT in class,as well as posting PPT notes to the Web (using Blackboard, WebCT,etc.) would result in a lower likelihood of student attendance. In con-trast, students claimed that they were not less motivated to attendwhen PPT lectures were used in class. Third, both faculty and studentattitudes varied significantly from the neutral point when examiningthe likelihood of class attendance when handouts were available onthe Web; faculty members perceived that students would be likely not to attend if faculty posted PPT slides on the Internet, whereasstudents reported that this was not the case.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONSFOR INSTRUCTORS

Do faculty members hold potential misconceptions about PPT’s util-ity and effectiveness as an instructional delivery tool? On the basis ofthis study, at least in comparison with student views, the answer is yes.The results of this study indicate that faculty members’ overall per-ception of the value of PPT in terms of its impact on learning andclassroom interaction is significantly higher than the value perceived

Table 4. Cognitive Learning and Classroom Interactions:Summated Measure Means, Item Means, and StandardDeviations

Summated ItemScale Group n Scale Mean Mean SD

Cognitive learninga

Faculty members 32 36.56 5.22b 3.61Students 227 33.19 4.84b 7.65

Classroom interactionsc

Faculty members 31 18.71 4.68b 5.27Students 223 13.95 3.49 5.26

a. Rated on a seven-item scale (1 = traditional lecture better, 6 = PowerPoint lecture better).b. Significantly higher than the neutral value of 3.5 at the p < .05 level.c. Rated on a four-item scale (1 = traditional lecture better, 6 = PowerPoint lecture better).


by students. As such, faculty members seem not only to overestimatethe benefit they are actually gaining from using PPT in the businessclassroom but also to be unaware of some of its potentially detrimen-tal effects, such as minimizing classroom rapport and a sense of par-ticipation. Furthermore, instructors’ fear of the degree to whichstudent attendance will suffer as a result of either posting PPT notesor using PPT in the classroom is not borne out by the student per-ceptual data. In sum, there are perceptual differences about PPT thatbusiness faculty members should be aware of to use the tool moreeffectively. At the same time, faculty members and students both

Table 5. PowerPoint and Positive Classroom Behaviors: StudentVersus Faculty Perceptions


PowerPoint handouts 0.97 .328help me take better notesduring classroom lectures.

Faculty 32 5.03b .90members

Students 229 4.85b 1.49Visual images presented in –0.596 .554

PowerPoint-based lectureshelp me recall contentduring exams.


Students 228 4.49b 1.44PowerPoints help emphasize 1.416 .158

the key points duringthe lectures.

Faculty 33 5.24b .79members

Students 225 4.97b 1.07PowerPoint-based lectures –0.048 .961

hold my attentionduring class.


Students 229 4.01b 1.47

NOTE: 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree.a. Significant differences found between faculty and student group means.b. Significantly higher than the neutral value of 3.5 at the p < .05 level.


believe that PPT promotes enhanced note taking, content recall dur-ing exams, emphasis of key points, and attention holding.

That students hold less favorable views than faculty members of theimpact of PPT on cognitive learning, especially on classroom interaction,is an interesting, although not wholly surprising, finding. The utility of aninstructional tool typically has less to do with its inherent functionalityand more to do with how it is used by instructors. As such, any studentconcerns related to loss of classroom interactivity, for example, couldpotentially be alleviated if faculty members design their courses and PPTslides to get students involved as authentic participants in learning.

In terms of practical recommendations, DenBeste (2003) suggestedbeginning class sessions with a relevant image on the screen to set thetone and asking students to speculate on the photo as relevant to the lec-ture topic, claiming that images help students develop literacy in dealingwith visual sources of information and help stimulate involvement in the

Table 6. PowerPoint and Negative Classroom Behaviors: StudentVersus Faculty Perceptions


PowerPoint-based lectures –0.93 .353increase the likelihood ofstudents talking to each otherwhile the professor lectures.

Faculty 31 3.10 1.37members

Students 228 3.38 1.60I am less motivated to attend 3.103 .002a

class when PowerPoints areused during the lecture.

Faculty 33 4.03 1.55members

Students 227 3.06b 1.69I am less likely to attend class 5.604 .000a

when the professor postsPowerPoint handouts to the Web.


Students 230 2.93b 1.69

NOTE: 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree.a. Significant differences found between faculty and student group means.b. Significantly higher than the neutral value of 3.5 at the p < .05 level.


classroom. This technique could be easily applied in marketing courses(e.g., using a print ad or brand logo), entrepreneurship courses (e.g.,including a spokesperson or photo of a product use), business commu-nication courses (e.g., depicting various nonverbal responses), and inother disciplines in which visual images can be used to supplement tex-tual descriptions. Additionally, in a study comparing the relationshipbetween certain text design features and student recall of learning con-tent, Alley, Schreiber, Ramsdell, and Muffo (2006) found statistically sig-nificantly higher learning recall scores for slides that were designedusing the following features:

• A large font size (e.g., 28 point)• A sans-serif font (e.g., Arial) instead of a serif font (e.g., Times New

Roman)• Left justification of the slide headline title

The researchers reasoned that students were able to retain moreinformation when typographical elements emphasized key learningpoints rather than minimizing content through truncated headlinesor unclear font styles and sizes. Taken together, PPT design featuresthat allow for student involvement and support content recall couldpositively affect student perceptions of interaction and learning.

Ideas about how faculty members can use and design PPT to pro-mote student interaction and learning must be considered in light offaculty members’ experience and confidence in using PPT as a con-tent presentation tool. Faculty members likely vary in their knowledgeof and efficacy in using the range of technology options available inPPT (e.g., PPT design feature), resulting in some merely using PPT asa static or lifeless medium rather than a dynamic medium to promoteinteraction and active learning (Myers & Jones, 1993). Faculty trainingsessions demonstrating “best PPT practices” (as those discussed byAlley et al., 2006, and Farkas, 2005) and updated classroom presenta-tion tools may encourage faculty members to consider appropriateinnovations. Faculty members might also find informal learningmethods helpful for improving their use of instructional tools, such asobserving or talking with faculty members recognized for teachingeffectiveness or by seeking out ideas dedicated to presentations, suchas the 3M Meeting Network (http://www.3M.com/meetingnetwork).

Consistent with Bandura’s (1997) notion of self-efficacy, individualscan increase efficacy through watching expert models and through


successful task performance. Increasing faculty knowledge and access toinstructional media compatible with PPT might also provide for a moreseamless integration of advanced text components. For example, inter-active whiteboards and tablet pen displays (e.g., Smart Technologies,http://www.smarttech.com) allowing written text or symbols to be cap-tured and downloaded to PPT slides would be helpful for demonstratingnumerical or statistical formulas used by more quantitative disciplinesthat reported in our study a limited use of PPT. With many “smart class-rooms” being wired for Internet access, Web links can also easily beembedded into lecture slides that can serve as the basis for Web-basedtutorials and engaging exercises (such as those found at http://www.merlot.org) or Webquests, which are inquiry-oriented activities usingonline information. Increasing faculty knowledge and efficacy in usingpresentation software may bolster the extent to which students perceivePPT as useful for supporting learning and classroom interaction.

One of the more interesting findings in our study was that studentsdid not agree with faculty members that posting PPT notes on theWeb would decrease class attendance. Maybe this response was due toparticipants reporting what they thought the researchers wanted tohear. Regardless, posting PPT slides to the Web is an added conve-nience to students and could be viewed as an advance organizer to anin-class lesson, helping focus students’ presession reading or topicreview. To motivate students to use the slides as a planning tool for in-class lessons, faculty members could provide abridged versions of fullslide presentations that would be presented in the class session. Forexample, some writers have suggested using fill-in-the-blanks onslides, incorporating outside material not found in the text, havingstudents lead class discussions on the basis of the slides, includingblank “brainstorming” slides, and having quizzes on slide material(Murphy, 2002; Quible, 2002). Including incomplete slides or activi-ties that students will further explore in class may motivate studentsto attend while also underscoring the interactive nature of the classsessions. Additionally, faculty members could (and probably should)balance the use of presentation materials with other active learningmethods, such as role-plays, case studies, and peer discussions todeemphasize the role of PPT as a central instructional tool for con-tent presentation. Once students understand that PPT can frame aclass discussion and that it is not meant to regurgitate the class expe-rience, faculty ambivalence in making lecture slides available tostudents on the Web may subside.


STUDY LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Given the ubiquitous nature of PPT use in higher education, ourstudy sought to explore its perceived utility as an instructional toolfrom the perspective of students and faculty members in businesscourses. Specifically, we explored the impact of PPT on perceivedlearning, classroom interactions, and student behaviors. Our resultsindicate that faculty members and students have similar perceptionsconcerning the value of PPT use for learning but differ in their per-ceptions concerning interaction and attendance when PPT is used inand outside of the class experience. To facilitate further explorationsof the utility of presentation software in college courses, we discussstudy limitations and suggestions for future research here.

Our ability to generalize the study’s results is limited because of thesingle-campus student sample and limited faculty respondent pool.Although our response rate provided a sample sufficient to yield sta-tistical power for our analytic procedures, using multiple student andfaculty samples (i.e., business and nonbusiness) samples would provideadditional opportunities to test the findings of this study. Additionally,future research should seek further validation testing of the learningand interaction measure used in this study. The emergent factors oflearning and student interaction could be tested using confirmatoryfactor analysis to provide additional support for the internal psycho-metric properties of the measure. As Henson and Roberts (2006)noted, factor analytic techniques help bolster measurement integrityby further refining the concept or theory under study. Once validatedacross subsequent studies, the measure could be useful to instructorsfor collecting midcourse and summative feedback concerning facultymembers’ use of PPT use as an instructional tool. Furthermore, uni-versity researchers and faculty development staff members may alsofind the measure useful for conducting performance analysis for fac-ulty instructional training or developmental needs.

One topic deserving additional attention is whether presentationsoftware has varying utility across different disciplines and courses.Perhaps conceptual courses would benefit more from presentationsoftware than courses containing content that is more skill based(e.g., business communication or leadership) or quantitative (e.g.,statistics or information systems). Similarly, the frequency of the useof video, animation, application questions, and other elements in


PPT lectures could be explored and compared by discipline.Exploring individual differences among students and faculty mightalso help explain attitudes toward the use of presentations and coursematerials. For example, researchers could explore the relationshipbetween student learning styles and instructional tools to determinewhich methods are better suited for certain learning styles and theextent to which these differences might affect learning and percep-tions of interaction. Including variables such as instructors’ techno-logical self-efficacy or faculty members’ attitudes about the role oftechnology in learning may also help explain the varying abilities oftools to support learning outcomes.

Finally, faculty members also may overestimate the value of usingPPT because it may be the only software presentation tool that theircolleges or universities support. Faculty members may want to assesswhether PPT is the most relevant software presentation package fortheir students. Alternative presentation software programs such asHarvard Graphics or Apple Works (see others at http://www.msboy-cott.com/thealt/alts/powerpoint.shtml) might provide more robusttools for presenting interactive content and would be useful forstudent practice if their professional disciplines use other presenta-tion software. A review of the available alternatives, combined with ananalysis of their strengths and weaknesses in comparison with PPT,would allow faculty members to make more informed choices con-cerning presentation software. Moreover, it may be that we need togather and tease out contextual data provided by qualitative studiesthat integrate detailed faculty and student interviews or focus groupsconcerning their views on the utility of PPT.

CONCLUSION

It is clear from past research and our study’s results that facultymembers and students share different perspectives on the utility ofPPT as an instructional tool. In the quest to deliver interactive andmeaningful class experiences, business faculty members should bemindful of how classroom materials, technological tools, and otherinstructional methods can be used to support cognitive, behavioral,and affective student outcomes. As Lanius (2004) indicated, “Just likethe overhead projector before it, PowerPoint won’t turn a bad pre-sentation into a good one and it won’t convert an ineffective presen-ter into an effective one” (p. 155).


APPENDIX

Student Sample Description

Variable Frequency %

Age (years)18 to 22 79 34.323 to 27 98 42.628 to 32 20 8.733 to 37 10 4.3≥38 13 5.7Chose not to answer 10 4.3

ClassificationFreshman 1 0.4Sophomore 23 10.0Junior 90 39.1Senior 115 50.0Chose not to answer 1 0.4

EthnicityAfrican American 49 21.3Asian American 2 0.9Caucasian (White) 168 73.0Hispanic 5 2.2Mixed race 1 0.4Other 5 2.2

MajorAccounting 42 18.3Finance 36 15.7Management 62 27.0Marketing 53 23.0General business administration 37 16.1

SexFemale 122 53.0Male 108 47.0

REFERENCES

Alley, M., Schreiber, M., Ramsdell, K., & Muffo, J. (2006). How the design of headlinein presentation slides affects audience reaction. Technical Communication, 53,225-234.

Amare, N. (2006). To slideware or not to slideware: Students’ experiences withPowerPoint vs. lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36, 297-308.

Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., & Mohundro, S. (1998, November). Rewards and liabili-ties of presentation software as an ancillary tool: Prison or paradise? Paper presented atthe convention of the National Speech Communication Association, New York.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.


Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations inlectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77-86.

Blokzijl, W., & Naeff, R. (2004). The instructor as stagehand. Business CommunicationQuarterly, 67, 70-77.

Cyphert, D. (2004). The problem of PowerPoint: Visual aid or visual rhetoric? BusinessCommunication Quarterly, 67, 80-84.

Daniels, L. (1999). Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10, 42-56.

DenBeste, M. (2003). PowerPoint, technology and the Web: More than just an over-head projector for the new century? The History Teacher, 36, 491-504.

Farkas, D. (2005). Understanding and using PowerPoint. In Proceedings of the STCannual conference (pp. 313-320). Arlington, VA: STC Publications.

Frey, B. A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learners’ perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Center for Instructional Developmentand Distance Education.

Guernsey, L. (2001, May 31). Learning, one bullet point at a time. The New York Times,p. E1.

Hanft, A. (2003). More power than point. Inc., 25, 116.Harden, R. M. (2003). E-learning and all that jazz. Medical Teacher, 25, 453-454.Harris, S. (2004). Missing the point. Government Executive, 36, 1-7.Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published

research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.

Jones, N. B., & Bowen, A. (2004). Sticking up for PowerPoint. District Administration,40, 9-11.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancingexperiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning andEducation, 4, 192-212.

Lanius, C. (2004). PowerPoint, not your grandmother’s presentations. Cell BiologyEducation, 3, 155-161.

Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures: Effect upon student perfor-mance. University Chemistry Education, 3, 18-21.

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.

McDonald, K. (2004). Examining PowerPointlessness. Cell Biology Education, 3, 155-161.Murphy, B. (2002). Bringing the best of the Web to psychology education. Monitor on

Psychology. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/bestweb.html

Myers, C., & Jones, T. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Norvig, P. (2003). PowerPoint: Shot with its own bullets. Lancet, 362, 343-345.Nowaczyk, R. H., Santos, L. T., & Patton, C. (1998). Student perception of multimedia

in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25,367-382.

Quible, Z. K. (2002). Maximizing the effectiveness of electronic presentations. BusinessCommunication Quarterly, 65, 82-85.

Rajagopal, I., & Bojin, N. (2003). I don’t do Windows: Gender, pedagogy, and instruc-tional technologies. Education and Society, 21, 75-97.


Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should wereplace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers and Education, 35, 175-187.

Vik, G. N. (2004). Breaking bad habits: Teaching effective PowerPoint use to workinggraduate students. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 225-228.

Voss, D. (2004). PowerPoint in the classroom: Is it really necessary? Cell BiologyEducation, 3, 155-161.

Wineburg, S. (2003). Power pointless. American School Board Journal, 190, 11-16.Worley, R. B., & Dyrud, M. A. (2004). Presentations and the PowerPoint problem.

Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 78-80.

Address correspondence to Lisa A. Burke, Louisiana State University in Shreveport,Department of Management and Marketing, One University Place, Shreveport LA 71115;email: [email protected].

powerful or pointless? - pbworks

Documents