Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Association between slides-format and Major’s contents: effects on perceived attention and significant learning

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of slide-presentations has become ubiquitous in university majors. Previous research has focused on its general effectiveness, although results are not clearly consistent. The format of the slides has been analysed in few cases and its correspondence with the specific disciplines has never been considered. This study focuses on the perceived attention and significant learning declared by students, connected with the format of the slides predominantly used in different majors. A sample of 1316 university students, distributed in 54 courses in 11 majors that represent Pure Sciences, Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Engineering was surveyed. Results showed a differential use of visual and textual slides, as well as a clear effect on perceived attention and significant learning when majors were compared. Although the slide-format was expected to be the central variable to explain these results, the complete explanation involves the correspondence of the slide-format with the nature of the contents. In some majors, the use of slides was even counterproductive and the widespread idea that visual format is more effective in general was not supported by results. Conclusions linking format and contents can be generalised to any educational setting.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amare N (2006) To slideware or not to slideware: Students' experiences with PowerPoint vs. lecture. J Tech Writ Commun 36:297–308. https://doi.org/10.2190/03GX-F1HW-VW5M-7DAR

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Armour C, Schneid SD, Brandl K (2016) Writing on the board as students' preferred teaching modality in a physiology course. Adv Physiol Educ 40:229–233. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00130.2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ayres P, Sweller J (2014) The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In: Mayer R (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 135–146

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baker JP, Goodboy AK, Bowman ND, Wright AA (2018) Does teaching with PowerPoint increase students' learning? A meta-analysis. Comput Educ 126:376–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartsch RA, Cobern KM (2003) Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 41:77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(03)00027-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Biglan A (1973a) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. J Appl Psychol 57:204–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Biglan A (1973b) The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. J Appl Psychol 57:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bohay M, Blakely DP, Tamplin AK, Radvansky GA (2011) Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension. Am J Psychol 124:63–73. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolkan S (2019) Facilitating student attention with multimedia presentations: examining the effects of segmented PowerPoint presentations on student learning. Commun Educ 68:61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1517895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Braxton JM (1995) Disciplines with and affinity for the improvement of undergraduate education. New Dir Teach Learn 64:59–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219956409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Burke LA, James K, Ahmadi M (2009) Effectiveness of PowerPoint-based lectures across different business disciplines: an investigation and implications. J Educ Bus 83:246–251. https://doi.org/10.3200/joeb.84.4.246-251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cashin WE, Downey RG (1995) Disciplinary differences in what is taught and in students' perceptions of what they learn and of how they are taught. New Dir Teach Learn 64:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219956412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Castelló A, Cladellas R (2013) La evaluación de la comprensión en el aprendizaje: El empleo de las TIC en el análisis de estructuras de conocimiento [the assessment of understanding in learning: the use of ICT in the analysis of knowledge structures]. Estudios pedagógicos 39:41–57. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07052013000300004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cladellas R, Castelló A (2017) Percepción del aprendizaje, procedimientos de evaluación y uso de la tecnología PowerPoint en la formación universitaria de Medicina [perception of learning, evaluation procedures and use of PowerPoint technology in university medical training]. Intangible Capital 13:302–318. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cladellas R, Castelló A, Badia M, Cirera MC (2013) Effects of the PowerPoint methodology on content learning. Intangible Capital 9:184–198. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Costa ML, Van Rensburg L, Rushton N (2007) Does teaching style matter? A randomised trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ 41:214–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02677.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Franklin J, Theall M (1995) The relationship of disciplinary differences and the value of class preparation time to student ratings of teaching. New Dir Teach Learn 64:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219956407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Garrett N (2015) PowerPoint outside class: the impact of slide design on student use. J Educ Technol Syst 44:69–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515598521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garrett N (2016) How do academic disciplines use PowerPoint? Innov High Educ 41:365–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9381-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ginns P (2005) Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learn Instr 15:313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gladic-Miralles J, Cautín-Epifani V (2018) Niveles de comprensión y su relación con la predominancia de sistemas semióticos: una aproximación a la comprensión multimodal desde el discurso académico. Estudios pedagógicos 44:293–313. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07052018000100293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hartnett N, Römcke J, Yap C (2003) Recognizing the importance of instruction style to students' performance: some observations from laboratory research–a research note. Acc Educ 12:313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928032000095446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hill A, Arford T, Lubitow A, Smollin LM (2012) “I’m ambivalent about it” the dilemmas of PowerPoint. Teach Sociol 40:242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x12444071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hughes IE (2003) Changes in use of technological methods of teaching and learning in undergraduate pharmacology in UK higher education. Bioscience Education 1:1–7. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2003.01010001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Koć-Januchta MM, Höffler TN, Eckhardt M, Leutner D (2019) Does modality play a role? Visual-verbal cognitive style and multimedia learning. J Comput Assist Learn 35(6):747–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koles PG, Stolfi A, Borges NJ, Nelson S, Parmelee DX (2010) The impact of team-based learning on medical students' academic performance. Acad Med 85:1739–1745. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181f52bed

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin LJ, Atkinson RK (2011) Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concept and processes. Comput Educ 56:650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mason L, Tornatora MC, Pluchino P (2013) Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Comput Educ 60:95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayer RE (1999) Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. Int J Educ Res 31:611–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(99)00027-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mayer RE (2009) Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Mayer RE (2014) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 43–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Mayer RE, Johnson CI (2008) Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 100:380–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mayer RE, Moreno R (2002) Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educ Psychol Rev 14:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013184611077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moreno R, Mayer RE (1999) Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol 91:358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Paas F, Sweller J (2014) Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 27–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J (2003) Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ Psychol 38:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Paivio A (1986) Mental representation: a dual coding approach. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Parodi G (2010) Multisemiosis y lingüística de corpus: Artefactos (multi) semióticos en los textos de seis disciplines en el corpus PUV-2010. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 48:33–70. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-48832010000200003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Richardson D (2008) Don't dump the didactic lecture; fix it. Adv Physiol Educ 32:23–24. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00048.2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rickman J, Grudzinski M (2000) Student expectations of information technology use in the classroom. Educ Q 23:24–30

    Google Scholar 

  41. Roehling PV, Trent-Brown S (2011) Differential use and benefits of PowerPoint in upper level versus lower level courses. Technol Pedagog Educ 20:113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2011.554018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schnotz W (2005) An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. CUP, New York, pp 49–69

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Schnotz W, Bannert M (2003) Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learn Instr 13:141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00017-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schüler A, Arndt J, Scheiter K (2015) Processing multimedia material: does integration of text and pictures result in a single or two interconnected mental representations? Learn Instr 35:62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schweppe J, Rummer R (2016) Integrating written text and graphics as a desirable difficulty in long-term multimedia learning. Comput Hum Behav 60:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Seth V, Upadhyaya P, Ahmad M, Moghe V (2010) PowerPoint or chalk and talk: perceptions of medical students versus dental students in a medical college in India. Advances in Medical Education and Practice 1:11. https://doi.org/10.2147/amep.s12154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Smart JC, Elton CF (1975) Goal orientations of academic departments: a test of Biglan's model. J Appl Psychol 60:580–588. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.60.5.580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Smart JC, Elton CF (1982) Validation of the Biglan model. Res High Educ 17:213–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00976699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith SD, Caruso JB (2010) The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010 [research study]. Educause website: https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2010/10/ers1006w-pdf.pdf . Accessed 10 June 2019

  50. Sweller J (1994) Cognitive load theory learning difficulty and instructional design. Learn Instr 4:295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sweller J (1999) Instructional design in technical areas. ACER, Camberwell

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sweller J, Van Merrienboer JJ, Paas FG (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10:251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S (2010) The redundancy effect. In: Plass JL, Moreno R, Brünken R (eds) Cognitive load theory. Springer, New York, pp 141–154

    Google Scholar 

  54. Van der Meij J, de Jong T (2006) Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learn Instr 16:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Webber KL (2011) The use of learner-centered assessment in us colleges and universities. Res High Educ 53:201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9245-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Yang WC, Chen LH (2015) A steganographic method via various animations in PowerPoint files. Multimed Tools Appl 74:1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1708-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Antoni Castelló & Ramón Cladellas

  2. Institute of Pedagogical Specialties, Universidad Austral de Chile, Puerto Montt, Chile

    David Chavez

Authors
  1. Antoni Castelló
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Chavez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ramón Cladellas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramón Cladellas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest of any kind in this work.

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

Castelló, A., Chavez, D. & Cladellas, R. Association between slides-format and Major’s contents: effects on perceived attention and significant learning. Multimed Tools Appl 79, 24969–24992 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09170-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09170-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation