Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impacts of multi-modal PowerPoint presentation on the EFL students’ content knowledge attainment and retention over time

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although there is a wide range of studies on the use of PowerPoint Presentations (PPP) in different fields, few studies have investigated the effects of different aspects of multi-modal PowerPoint presentation on the language comprehension of foreign language students. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of PowerPoint-supported (PPS) lectures on immediate comprehension and longer term retention of the content by foreign language University students. For this purpose, 69 students of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) enrolled in language teaching methodology course were randomly assigned into three groups: A. PPS lectures with slides’ contents being read out, B. PPS lectures with slides at propositional level, and C. oral presentation with no multimedia. Pre-test Post -test control group design was applied in the study. The treatment procedure took twelve sessions each lasting for an hour. During each session, the students were presented with a lesson on language teaching methodology followed by a posttest of immediate recall. Finally, one month after the last lecture all the groups sat for the delayed posttest. It was found that learners’ comprehension improves significantly both immediately and in the long run when they are provided with PPS lectures with slides at propositional level. To be efficient, the content of the slides in PPS lectures must be selected and designed with great care so that key terms, issues and main ideas are covered. Copying course material into slides and including too much explanations and details will have an adverse effect on students’ retention and recall.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2008). An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 50(1), 148–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awada, G., & Diab, H. (2016). Lebanon’s 2011 ICT education reform strategy and action plan: Curriculum success or abeyance. Cogent Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2016.1245086.

  • Baker J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bowman, N. D., & Wright A. A. (2018) Does teaching with PowerPoint increase students' learning? A meta-analysis, Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.003.

  • Bamne, S. N., & Bamne, A. S. (2016). Comparative study of chalkboard teaching over PowerPoint teaching as a teaching tool in undergraduate medical teaching. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 5, 2585–2587. https://doi.org/10.5455/ijmsph.2016.01072016532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, R. M., & Strough, J. (2003). Multimedia versus tradition course instructions in introductory social psychology. Teaching in Psychology, 30, 335–338. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3004_07.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bello, A. A. (2011). Impact of technology interventions on student achievement in rural Nigerian schools (dissertation 2014). Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies.

  • Birch, D. (2009). PowerPoint with audio: A breeze to enhance the student learning experience. E-journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 3(1), 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S. C., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2010). What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language listening comprehension. MARYLAND UNIV COLLEGE PARK. Retrieved October 2017 from www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA550176.

  • Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. N.Y: Prentice hall press.

  • Brunfaut, T., & Revesz, A. (2015). The role of task and listener characteristics in second language listening. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 141–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2016). Effects of guided notes on enhancing College students’ lecture note-taking quality and learning performance. Current Psychology, 36(4), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9459-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, T. L., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. (2008). Differential effects of full and partial notes on learning outcomes and attendance. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation technology and the dynamics of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31(3), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2016). Universal design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 39, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316662104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deSa, S. B., & Keny, M. S. (2014). PowerPoint versus chalkboard based lectures in pharmacology: Evaluation of their impact on medical student’s knowledge and their preferences. International Journal of Advanced Health Sciences, 1, 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, B., Vickers, K., Turtle, J., Cowan, S., & Tassone, A. (2014). Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase student engagement and understanding in lecture-based classes. Higher Education, 69(2), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9776-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdemir, N. (2011). The effect of PowerPoint and traditional lectures on students’ achievement in physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8, 176–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, J. S. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9, 112–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, N. (2016). How do academic disciplines use PowerPoint? Innovative Higher Education, 41, 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9381-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, B., Puakpong, N., & Lian, A. (2013). Factors affecting the normalization of CALL in Chinese senior high schools. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.803981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, M. (2005). Learning in lectures: Do ‘interactive windows’ help? Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • İnceçay, V., & Koçoğlu, Z. (2016). Investigating the effects of multimedia input modality on L2 listening skills of Turkish EFL learners. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9463-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge handbooks in psychology, pp. 247–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.013.

  • Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2015). Cognitive load theory and the effects of transient information on the modality effect. Instructional Science, 44, 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9362-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledbetter, A. M., & Finn, A. N. (2017). Perceived teacher credibility and students’ affect as a function of instructors’ use of PowerPoint and email. Communication Education, 67, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1385821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur, D. G., & Kanan Sawyer, J. (2006). Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. The Review of Communication, 6(1–2), 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P. (2016). Brain Friendly Teaching—Reducing Learner's Cognitive Load. Academic Radiology, 23(7), 877–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., & Walsh, S. (2010). Technology uptake in Chinese EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumkes, J. H. (2010). Survey of three different methods of delivering engineering content in lectures. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. T., & James, R. C. (2011). The effect of animations within PowerPoint presentations on learning introductory astronomy. Astronomy Education Review. (ERIC document reproduction service no. EJ940536).

  • Moss, S., & Tubbs, S. (2006). Human communication, principles and contexts. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberfoell, A., & Correia, A. (2016). Understanding the role of the modality principle in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning., 32, 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ögeyik, M. C. (2016). The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentation and conventional lecture on pedagogical content knowledge attainment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1250663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 157–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture note-taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., López, M. J., & Loyola, M. S. (2018). Adding interactive graphic organizers to a whole-class slideshow lesson. Instructional Science, 46, 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9465-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raver, S. A., & Maydosz, A. S. (2010). Impact of the provision and timing of instructor-provided notes on university students’ learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2017). The engagement agenda, multimedia learning and the use of images in higher education lecturing: Or, how to end death by PowerPoint. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42, 969–985. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1332356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rop, G., Schüler, A., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Scheiter, K., & van Gog, T. (2018). Effects of task experience and layout on learning from text and pictures with or without unnecessary picture descriptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12287.

  • Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint™ and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosin, K., Blecha, B. J., Agarwal, R., Bartlett, R. L., & Daniel, J. I. (2004). Efficiency in the use of technology in economic education: Some preliminary results. The American Economic Review, 94, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, S. (2007). An introduction to communication. Cape Town: Juta & Co, Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugahara, S., & Boland, G. (2006). The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the accounting classroom. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 15, 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280601011099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, J. E. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1228–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Oxford: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 295–325). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, G. S. E., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Effects of text modality in multimedia presentations on written and oral performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 438–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waheeda, S., & Murthy, S. K. (2015). A comparative study of blackboard teaching with PowerPoint teaching in 1 year medical students. National Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, 6, 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, D. L., & Levasseur, D. G. (2015). To provide or not to provide course PowerPoint slides? The impact of instructor-provided slides upon student attendance and performance. Computers & Education, 85, 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Salman Farsi University of Kazerun, Kazerun, Iran

    Yahya Gordani & Yaser Khajavi

Authors
  1. Yahya Gordani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaser Khajavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaser Khajavi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gordani, Y., Khajavi, Y. The impacts of multi-modal PowerPoint presentation on the EFL students’ content knowledge attainment and retention over time. Educ Inf Technol 25, 403–417 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09979-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09979-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation