POWERFUL OR POINTLESS? Faculty Versus Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Use in Business Education Karen E. James Lisa A. Burke Louisiana State University in Shreveport
Holly M. Hutchins University of Houston
The use of PowerPoint (PPT)–based lectures in business classes across universities is ubiquitous yet understudied in empirical pedagogical research. The purpose of this empirical study was to ascertain whether significant differences exist between faculty and student perceptions with regard to PPT’s impact on perceived learning, classroom interactions, and student behaviors. The results indicated that (a) students have a significantly less favorable overall view of PPT’s influence on cognitive 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 notetaking quality, content recall during exams, emphasis on key lecture points, and holding student attention during class. The authors offer implications for instructors and future research. Keywords:
PowerPoint; business education; learner perceptions; faculty perceptions; negative classroom behaviors
POWERPOINT (PPT) IS LOADED on approximately 400 million computers 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 presentation software package, PPT has enjoyed a tremendous run by instructors in business classrooms across the globe. However, although anecdotal evidence on the pros and cons of PPT use abounds in the practitioner literature (e.g., Guernsey, 2001; Harris, 2004; Jones & Bowen, 2004; Norvig, 2003; Wineburg, 2003), empirical study of its use in business college classrooms remains scant. In this study, we surveyed business faculty members and students taking business classes to gain insights into their perceptions of how PPT influences classroom Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 69, Number 4, December 2006 374-396 DOI: 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 the findings, offer insights to help instructors modify and improve their presentation of course content, and suggest several areas for future research.
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 opinions 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 classroom setting, particularly in business, is relatively sparse. Here, we review prior findings about the use and effectiveness of this software package across university lecture settings. We specifically focus on studies that examined the influence of PPT on students’ content recall, classroom interaction, and classroom behaviors. Cognitive Recall
In terms of outcome-based research on the influence of PPT on cognitive recall, Szabo and Hastings (2000) found higher grades in two PPT conditions (PPT lecture and PPT lecture with notes) compared with an overhead lecture condition. Lowry’s (1999) study in a U.K. environmental science course also reported that PPT subjects received better grades than a traditional lecture cohort (although these findings were limited because of the administration of different test questions). Daniels (1999) reported no significant differences in students’ cognitive performance when PPT was used. However, in Amare’s (2006) study of undergraduate students in a technical writing course, performance scores were actually higher in the traditional lecture format than in PPT-enhanced lectures. Thus, the outcomebased performance findings are mixed. In terms of student perceptions, Atkins-Sayre, Hopkins, and Mohundro (1998) reported that students perceived PPT as a useful cognitive aid for maintaining their interest and for enhancing their understanding and encouraging the retention of material. Bartsch and Cobern (2003) compared the effectiveness of overheads, basic PPT (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 that they learned more via PPT lectures. Interestingly, in Bartsch and Cobern’s study, students scored significantly better in the basic-PPT condition on content recall and scored 10% worse in the expandedPPT condition. These latter findings are buttressed by other reports of a detrimental effect when instructors use unnecessary embellishments in their PPT presentations (e.g., irrelevant pictures and sounds; Blokzijl & Naeff, 2004; Mayer, 1997; Voss, 2004). Irrelevant effects are distracting and have been found to overload students’ cognitive processing capabilities (Mayer, 1997). Classroom Interaction
Nowaczyk, Santos, and Patton (1998) assessed student perceptions of PPT use in an introductory behavioral statistics course and found that students reported at both the midterm and final exams that they preferred PPT to help them understand the course material. However, at the final exam, students reported that they favored the traditional lecture format for enhancing actual classroom interaction among students and the instructor. This last finding, along with other research, indicates that PPT may at a minimum have a neutral effect on classroom interaction and may potentially even deter classroom interactions 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 examining more than just academic performance as a criterion variable in such studies, given the importance of the interactive element in active learning processes (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Classroom Behaviors
In terms of PPT’s effect on student behaviors, a study by Frey and Birnbaum (2002) in a course on Russian fairy tales indicated that 19% of students perceived that PPT increased inappropriate student behaviors. For example, 15% of students claimed that they were less likely to attend the class when notes were posted on the Web. However, Szabo and Hastings (2000) found that PPT lectures increased lecture attendance and that the overwhelming majority of their sample felt that PPT handouts helped them study and take notes on important points
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
377
in lecture and held their attention. The conflicting findings of these two studies call for investigations of potential dysfunctional student behaviors associated with PPT use. In sum, most prior empirical studies have suggested a positive influence on perceptions of learning and on testing performance associated with basic PPT use. At the same time, there is evidence intimating a passive role for students, a lack of spontaneity and interaction during class meeting time, and a potentially negative impact on classroom behaviors such as attendance (Frey & Birnbaum, 2002; Harris, 2004). We should note that many of the prior studies were conducted in nonbusiness courses, which suggests the need for closer study of PPT use inside the business discipline. Moreover, there exists a paucity of research regarding faculty versus student perceptions of the effectiveness of PPT-based lectures. Understanding shared or differing perceptions between faculty members and students could have some important implications for how PPT is being used in the college classroom. And gleaning insights about PPT instruction in the business education setting is particularly important because our students will be using presentation software in corporate jobs quite frequently and will likely mimic presentations styles they have witnessed faculty members using, as predicted by social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).
METHOD Sample and Data Collection Procedures
Undergraduate business students enrolled in randomly selected accounting, business law, economics, finance, information systems, management, and marketing courses at an urban comprehensive university in the mid-South were sampled for the study. Data were gathered from 14 of the 15 courses initially targeted, for a course response rate of 93.3%. Over a 2-week period, questionnaires were administered to students; at the discretion of instructors, some students received extra credit for participating. Because students could theoretically encounter the survey in more than one class, the questionnaire instructions directed students not to complete a second survey. Of the 262 surveys collected, 32 surveys were eliminated as unusable because of incomplete or invalid information or because the survey respondents were classified as graduate students or were not business majors, which resulted in a final sample size of 230 students.
378
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
In an effort to obtain a cell size of 30 business faculty members who used PPT in the classroom, we sampled faculty members at three business schools, all of which are urban, comprehensive, similarly tiered business schools accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business and located in the United States. Fifty-one of the 101 distributed surveys were returned, and 2 were eliminated for incomplete data, resulting in a final faculty response rate of 48.5%. Ultimately, 44.9% of the faculty sample was located at the same university as the student participants. Measures
Student perceptions of the effectiveness of PPT compared with traditional lecture were assessed using measures adapted from those used in prior research (Nowaczyk et al., 1998). A total of 17 items purporting to measure the effectiveness of PPT with respect to the presentation of class material, student understanding of course material, and classroom interactions were administered to student samples. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to see whether items purported to measure each construct loaded on the relevant factor. (Examination of the factor loadings indicated that five items loaded fairly strongly on both factors; these items were subsequently eliminated to improve the purity of each measure.) Only two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted; these two factors accounted for 61.67% of the variance. The resulting two-factor solution described two constructs that related to the impact of PPT on cognitive learning and classroom interactions. Factor 1 contained seven items (≥.60) and was labeled “cognitive learning” because it dealt with the information processing associated with a cognitive understanding of course materials. Factor 2 contained four items (≥.60) and was labeled “classroom interactions” because it dealt with classroom rapport and class relations. Several Likert-type statements drawn from prior research (Frey & Birnbaum, 2002) were used to assess perceptions of PPT’s influence on various student behaviors, including paying attention during class, absenteeism, and note taking. Because a review of the literature provided limited evidence regarding PPT’s influence on other negative student behaviors and attitudes, additional items tapping these behaviors, such as the likelihood of talking during class and perceived boredom, were also assessed using a 6-point, Likert-type format, with responses ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6).
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
379
RESULTS Student Sample Description
The Appendix displays frequency breakdowns for several demographic characteristics of the student sample, including student classification, major, ethnicity, gender, and age. Most students in the study were upper-division juniors and seniors, sufficiently representing available business majors. Age data were collected by year of birth, then recoded into age classifications; the average age of undergraduate students who participated in the study was 25.15 years, with a standard deviation of 5.53 years. Frequency, Type, and Effectiveness of PPT Use
Table 1a illustrates that 67% of faculty members used PPT in their lectures. The varying degree of PPT use by faculty members is displayed in Table 1a, indicating that 26.5% “always” used PPT in their teaching, 14.3% frequently used it, 18.4% moderately used it, 8.2% infrequently used it, and 32.7% “never” used it. Label descriptors were quantified 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 faculty members indicated were traditionally incorporated into their PPT lectures. Slide backgrounds and differently colored fonts were the most commonly used elements, while the most frequently used content elements were charts and examples of concepts being discussed in class (e.g., current trends, issues, or events or firms that exemplified or otherwise related to slide content). Sound effects and videos were the least used elements. Table 1c depicts students’ reports of what percentage of their business classes were using PPT regularly versus the percentage of instructors using PPT effectively. Although 26.2% of the total respondents reported that three fourths or more of their business classes regularly used PPT, only 21.4% indicated that PPT was actually being used effectively. Perhaps with a great deal of exposure, students are more discriminating.
380
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
Table 1a.
Frequency of Faculty PowerPoint Use During Classes Taught
PowerPoint Use Never Infrequently (fewer than one quarter of class meetings) Moderately infrequently (one quarter to fewer than half of class meetings) Moderately frequently (half to fewer than three quarters of class meetings) Frequently (three quarters to almost every class meeting) Always Total sample
Frequency
%
16 4 5
32.7 8.2 10.2
4
8.2
7
14.3
13 49
26.5 100.0
NOTE: The question was “In general, how frequently do you use PowerPoint during the classes you teach (e.g., please do not include exam or student presentation days)?”
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. Although this analysis is only exploratory in nature, the data suggest that those teaching in quantitative disciplines, such as accounting, finance, and information systems and decision sciences or computer information systems, were less likely to use PPT than those teaching in management, marketing, and economics. Perhaps this is because numerical problem solving is not as well suited to a PPT format. This supposition seems to be reinforced by responses to an open-ended question that asked students to identify their number one concerns related to the use of PPT in business classes. Replied one student, “I wouldn’t like PowerPoint in finance where you need step-by-step instruction and examples.” Another noted, “Mathematical problems are harder to understand when already typed instead of instructor manually writing step by step.” Thus, researchers should explore whether qualitative courses benefit more from PPT’s organizational features than the quantitative courses in business. Faculty use differences among the various classifications of professorial rank may not be surprising. One could argue that (newer) assistant professors tend to be more technologically savvy and more likely to make use of ancillary materials. In terms of years of teaching experience, the pattern of use among different classifications falls as one might expect; the higher use among those with fewer years of experience may represent their attempt to use technology in their
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
Table 1b.
381
Type of Faculty PowerPoint Use
PowerPoint Element Slide backgrounds Sound effects Animations Differently colored fonts Graphics Slide transitions Examples of concepts Discussion questions Application problems or exercises Charts Videos
Frequency
% Who Use
26 1 9 23 14 15 25 15 22 24 1
78.8 3.0 27.3 69.7 42.4 45.5 75.8 45.5 33.3 72.7 3.0
NOTE: The question was “Which of the following elements are traditionally incorporated into your PowerPoint-based lectures (please check all that apply)?” Table 1c.
Comparison of Business Classes Students Reported as Using PowerPoint (PPT) Regularly Versus Effectively
Business Classes Using PPT Regularly % of Students’ Business Classes 0 1 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 100 Total
Business Instructors Using PPT Effectively
Number of Students
%
Number of Students
%
18 55 53 43 60 229
7.9 24.0 23.1 18.8 26.2 100.0
18 55 57 50 49 229
7.9 24.0 24.9 21.8 21.4 100.0
NOTE: The question asked toward the beginning of the survey was “This semester, what percent of your business courses are using PowerPoint regularly?” The question asked toward the end of the survey was “What percent of your current instructors in business are using PowerPoint-based lectures effectively?”
classes en route to tenure and promotion. Once these goals are obtained, perhaps the incentive decreases (i.e., for those with 14 to 20 years of experience) and then resurges when senior faculty members are encouraged (or inclined to) to reinvigorate their teaching methods. Gender differences are interesting, and a recent study may shed some light on our findings that more male faculty members used PPT
382
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
Table 2.
Distribution of Faculty Demographic Category
Variable Discipline
PowerPoint
Frequencies
(PPT)
Users
by
%
Accounting Business lawa Economics Financea ISDS, CIS, etc. Management Marketing
Total sample 6 1 7 4 8 16 5
PPT users only 1 1 6 2 5 13 4
% of PPT users by discipline 16.6 100.0 85.7 50.0 62.5 81.3 80.0
Highest degree earned Master’s degree Doctoral degree
Total respondents 14 34
PPT users only 9 24
% of PPT users by degree 64.3 70.6
Professional rank Adjunct Instructora Assistant professor Associate professor Full professor
Total respondents 13 3 8 15 9
PPT users only 9 2 7 10 5
% of PPT users by rank 69.2 66.6 87.5 66.6 55.5
Sex
Total respondents 11 37
PPT users only 6 27
% of PPT users by sex 54.5 72.9
Total respondents
PPT users only
16 14 7 3 8
13 10 3 2 5
% of PPT users by years of teaching experience 81.3 71.4 42.9 66.7 62.5
Female Male Years of teaching experience 1 to 7 7 to 13 14 to 20 21 to 27a ≥28
NOTE: ISDS = information systems and decision sciences; CIS = computer information systems. a. This demographic category was particularly underrepresented in the total sample (n < 5), and any inferences should remain limited.
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
383
in the business classroom (male faculty members = 72.9%, female faculty members = 54.5%). In a survey of academics, Rajagopal and Bojin (2003) found that female faculty members tended to assess more enthusiastically than men older classroom technologies such as VCRs and overheads. In addition, the study found that men selfassessed their use of technology-enhanced teaching tools as very effective in contrast to women, although both rated their presentation software skills as equally excellent. Rajagopal and Bojin suggested that female instructors confront more obstacles in using instructional 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 in business courses. Table 3a details the items and factor loading scores for the cognitive learning and classroom interactions scales. As seen there, the two factors had eigenvalues greater than 1 and accounted for 61.67% of the variance, both indicating an adequate factorial solution. Each scale demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability; Cronbach’s α values were .879 and .868 for the cognitive learning and classroom interactions scales, respectively. Table 3b contains cognitive learning and classroom interaction items and the means and standard deviations for each item by faculty and student group, as well as the t statistics and p values for faculty versus student group comparisons. Examination of mean scores and results of one-sample t tests (comparing item mean scores with a neutral value of 3.5) indicated that both faculty members and students perceived PPT to be superior to lecture for each cognitive learning item. Faculty members, though, had significantly more positive evaluations than students on PPT’s utility for note taking, information recall, and ease of learning. In terms of interaction, students (in contrast to faculty members) viewed traditional lecture as significantly better for helping them get to know others in the class. However, faculty members view PPT as significantly better for making students feel like participants in a class and for establishing rapport. Nonetheless, both faculty members and students similarly viewed PPT as better than lecture for facilitating discussion. Table 4 lists the summated measure means for both the faculty and student samples. As seen in the table, the independent-samples t test found significant differences between faculty and student perceptions
384
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
Table 3a.
Scales and Factor Analysis Results for Cognitive Learning (CL) and Classroom Interactions (CI) Scales (rotated component matrix)
Component Item CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 CL5 CL6 CL7 CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 Eigenvalue % of variance explained Cumulative % Cronbach’s α
Factor 1: CL .759 .750 .743 .735 .688 .676 .649 .066 .363 .318 .398 6.371 37.476 37.476 .879
Factor 2: CI .377 .254 .185 .168 .216 .281 .174 .832 .807 .799 .698 4.113 24.192 61.667 .868
NOTE: The extraction method was principal component analysis, and the rotation method was varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in three iterations.
for both cognitive learning (t = 4.131, p = .000) and classroom interactions (t = 4.715, p < .000). Examination of the mean scores and onesample t tests comparing item mean scores with a neutral value of 3.5 confirmed that although both faculty members (t = 18.90, p < .000) and students (t = 17.12, p < .000) believed that PPT’s impact on cognitive learning was better than that of traditional lecture, faculty members had a more positive opinion of PPT’s influence on learning than did students. PPT’s impact on classroom interactions was again viewed more favorably than that of traditional lecture by faculty members (t = 4.978, p < .000), but students rated PPT’s impact on class interactions significantly lower than faculty members. In fact, student evaluations did not significantly differ from the neutral point (t = –0.14, p < .889). Thus, faculty members appeared to have a more positive impression of PPT’s effectiveness than their students. Next, PPT’s impact on specific student classroom behaviors was explored. Means, standard deviations, t statistics, and p values associated with student and faculty perceptions are displayed in Table 5. All one-sample t tests comparing item means with a neutral point of 3.5
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
Table 3b.
385
Means and Standard Deviations for Cognitive Learning (CL) and Classroom Interactions (CI) Scale Items
Item
Group
n
M
SD
CL impact of PPT CL1. Helps [students/me] to learn the material in a way that is comfortable. Faculty members Students
33
5.70b
1.24
230
4.38b
1.48
CL2. Results in information being easier to remember. Faculty members Students
33
5.21b
1.36
230
4.52b
1.49
CL3. Makes note taking easier for [students/me]. Faculty members Students
33
5.58b
0.61
230
5.14b
1.44
CL4. Results in a more appropriate pace for lecture. Faculty members Students
33
5.00b
1.44
229
4.68b
1.43
CL5. Causes the flow information in class to be less disrupted. Faculty members Students
32
5.09b
1.12
229
4.83b
1.22
CL6. Makes examples presented in class clearer. Faculty members Students
33
4.88b
1.05
229
4.82b
1.38
CL7. Allows [students/me] to better coordinate lecture material with text material. Faculty members Students Impact of PPT on CI CI1. Helps [students/me] better know the [others/ other students] in class.
33
5.15b
1.20
230
4.78b
1.33
t
pa
4.867
.000a
2.532
.012a
3.025
.003a
1.211
.227
1.178
.240
.232
.817
1.504
.134
5.718
.000a
(continued)
386
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
Table 3b. (continued) Item
Group
n
M
SD
Faculty members Students
33
5.15b
1.94
228
3.15b
1.37
CI2. Makes [students/me] feel more of a participant in class. Faculty members Students
33
4.39b
1.97
228
3.51
1.54
CI3. Better establishes rapport between [me/ the instructor] and [my/the] students. Faculty members Students
31
4.58b
1.84
230
3.40
1.53
CI4. Facilitates class discussion. Faculty members Students
33
4.36b
1.85
227
3.93b
1.64
t
pa
2.464
.018a
3.951
.000a
1.394
.164
NOTE: The survey directions were “The following statements ask that you consider a number 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.
were significant at the p < .05 level, for both faculty members and students. As such, the results indicated that both faculty members and students 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 significant differences between student and faculty perceptions for these variables. Lastly, PPT’s impact on specific negative student classroom behaviors was investigated; means, standard deviations, t statistics, and p values associated with student and faculty perceptions are displayed in Table 6. The results related to PPT’s impact on negative student behaviors were mixed. First, no significant differences were found
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
Table 4.
387
Cognitive Learning and Classroom Interactions: Summated Measure Means, Item Means, and Standard Deviations
Scale
Group
n
Summated Scale Mean
Item Mean
SD
Faculty members Students
32 227
36.56 33.19
5.22b 4.84b
3.61 7.65
Faculty members Students
31 223
18.71 13.95
4.68b 3.49
5.27 5.26
Cognitive learninga
Classroom interactionsc
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).
between student and faculty perceptions related to PPT’s influence on the likelihood of students talking disruptively in class, and neither group’s opinion differed significantly from a neutral value of 3.5 at the p < .05 level. Second, faculty members were significantly more likely 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 contrast, students claimed that they were not less motivated to attend when PPT lectures were used in class. Third, both faculty and student attitudes varied significantly from the neutral point when examining the likelihood of class attendance when handouts were available on the Web; faculty members perceived that students would be likely not to attend if faculty posted PPT slides on the Internet, whereas students reported that this was not the case. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTORS
Do faculty members hold potential misconceptions about PPT’s utility and effectiveness as an instructional delivery tool? On the basis of this study, at least in comparison with student views, the answer is yes. The results of this study indicate that faculty members’ overall perception of the value of PPT in terms of its impact on learning and classroom interaction is significantly higher than the value perceived
388
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
Table 5.
PowerPoint and Positive Classroom Behaviors: Student Versus Faculty Perceptions
Item
Group
n
M
SD
PowerPoint handouts help me take better notes during classroom lectures. Faculty members Students
32
5.03b
.90
229
4.85b
1.49
Visual images presented in PowerPoint-based lectures help me recall content during exams. Faculty members Students
31
4.35b
1.11
228
4.49b
1.44
PowerPoints help emphasize the key points during the lectures. Faculty members Students
33
5.24b
.79
225
4.97b
1.07
PowerPoint-based lectures hold my attention during class. Faculty members Students
32
4.00b
1.16
229
4.01b
1.47
t
pa
0.97
.328
–0.596
.554
1.416
.158
–0.048
.961
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.
by students. As such, faculty members seem not only to overestimate the benefit they are actually gaining from using PPT in the business classroom but also to be unaware of some of its potentially detrimental effects, such as minimizing classroom rapport and a sense of participation. Furthermore, instructors’ fear of the degree to which student attendance will suffer as a result of either posting PPT notes or using PPT in the classroom is not borne out by the student perceptual data. In sum, there are perceptual differences about PPT that business faculty members should be aware of to use the tool more effectively. At the same time, faculty members and students both
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
Table 6.
389
PowerPoint and Negative Classroom Behaviors: Student Versus Faculty Perceptions
Item
Group
n
M
SD
PowerPoint-based lectures increase the likelihood of students talking to each other while the professor lectures. Faculty 31 3.10 members Students 228 3.38
t
pa
–0.93
.353
1.37 1.60
I am less motivated to attend class when PowerPoints are used during the lecture.
3.103
.002a
5.604
.000a
Faculty 33 4.03 1.55 members Students 227 3.06b 1.69 I am less likely to attend class when the professor posts PowerPoint handouts to the Web. Faculty 33 4.67b 1.41 members 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.
believe that PPT promotes enhanced note taking, content recall during exams, emphasis of key points, and attention holding. That students hold less favorable views than faculty members of the impact of PPT on cognitive learning, especially on classroom interaction, is an interesting, although not wholly surprising, finding. The utility of an instructional tool typically has less to do with its inherent functionality and more to do with how it is used by instructors. As such, any student concerns related to loss of classroom interactivity, for example, could potentially be alleviated if faculty members design their courses and PPT slides to get students involved as authentic participants in learning. In terms of practical recommendations, DenBeste (2003) suggested beginning class sessions with a relevant image on the screen to set the tone and asking students to speculate on the photo as relevant to the lecture topic, claiming that images help students develop literacy in dealing with visual sources of information and help stimulate involvement in the
390
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
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 communication courses (e.g., depicting various nonverbal responses), and in other disciplines in which visual images can be used to supplement textual descriptions. Additionally, in a study comparing the relationship between certain text design features and student recall of learning content, Alley, Schreiber, Ramsdell, and Muffo (2006) found statistically significantly higher learning recall scores for slides that were designed using 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 more information when typographical elements emphasized key learning points rather than minimizing content through truncated headlines or unclear font styles and sizes. Taken together, PPT design features that allow for student involvement and support content recall could positively affect student perceptions of interaction and learning. Ideas about how faculty members can use and design PPT to promote student interaction and learning must be considered in light of faculty members’ experience and confidence in using PPT as a content presentation tool. Faculty members likely vary in their knowledge of and efficacy in using the range of technology options available in PPT (e.g., PPT design feature), resulting in some merely using PPT as a static or lifeless medium rather than a dynamic medium to promote interaction and active learning (Myers & Jones, 1993). Faculty training sessions demonstrating “best PPT practices” (as those discussed by Alley et al., 2006, and Farkas, 2005) and updated classroom presentation tools may encourage faculty members to consider appropriate innovations. Faculty members might also find informal learning methods helpful for improving their use of instructional tools, such as observing or talking with faculty members recognized for teaching effectiveness or by seeking out ideas dedicated to presentations, such as the 3M Meeting Network (http://www.3M.com/meetingnetwork). Consistent with Bandura’s (1997) notion of self-efficacy, individuals can increase efficacy through watching expert models and through
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
391
successful task performance. Increasing faculty knowledge and access to instructional media compatible with PPT might also provide for a more seamless integration of advanced text components. For example, interactive whiteboards and tablet pen displays (e.g., Smart Technologies, http://www.smarttech.com) allowing written text or symbols to be captured and downloaded to PPT slides would be helpful for demonstrating numerical or statistical formulas used by more quantitative disciplines that reported in our study a limited use of PPT. With many “smart classrooms” being wired for Internet access, Web links can also easily be embedded into lecture slides that can serve as the basis for Web-based tutorials and engaging exercises (such as those found at http://www. merlot.org) or Webquests, which are inquiry-oriented activities using online information. Increasing faculty knowledge and efficacy in using presentation software may bolster the extent to which students perceive PPT as useful for supporting learning and classroom interaction. One of the more interesting findings in our study was that students did not agree with faculty members that posting PPT notes on the Web would decrease class attendance. Maybe this response was due to participants reporting what they thought the researchers wanted to hear. Regardless, posting PPT slides to the Web is an added convenience to students and could be viewed as an advance organizer to an in-class lesson, helping focus students’ presession reading or topic review. To motivate students to use the slides as a planning tool for inclass lessons, faculty members could provide abridged versions of full slide presentations that would be presented in the class session. For example, some writers have suggested using fill-in-the-blanks on slides, incorporating outside material not found in the text, having students lead class discussions on the basis of the slides, including blank “brainstorming” slides, and having quizzes on slide material (Murphy, 2002; Quible, 2002). Including incomplete slides or activities that students will further explore in class may motivate students to attend while also underscoring the interactive nature of the class sessions. Additionally, faculty members could (and probably should) balance the use of presentation materials with other active learning methods, such as role-plays, case studies, and peer discussions to deemphasize the role of PPT as a central instructional tool for content presentation. Once students understand that PPT can frame a class discussion and that it is not meant to regurgitate the class experience, faculty ambivalence in making lecture slides available to students on the Web may subside.
392
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
STUDY LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the ubiquitous nature of PPT use in higher education, our study sought to explore its perceived utility as an instructional tool from the perspective of students and faculty members in business courses. Specifically, we explored the impact of PPT on perceived learning, classroom interactions, and student behaviors. Our results indicate that faculty members and students have similar perceptions concerning the value of PPT use for learning but differ in their perceptions concerning interaction and attendance when PPT is used in and outside of the class experience. To facilitate further explorations of the utility of presentation software in college courses, we discuss study limitations and suggestions for future research here. Our ability to generalize the study’s results is limited because of the single-campus student sample and limited faculty respondent pool. Although our response rate provided a sample sufficient to yield statistical power for our analytic procedures, using multiple student and faculty samples (i.e., business and nonbusiness) samples would provide additional opportunities to test the findings of this study. Additionally, future research should seek further validation testing of the learning and interaction measure used in this study. The emergent factors of learning and student interaction could be tested using confirmatory factor analysis to provide additional support for the internal psychometric properties of the measure. As Henson and Roberts (2006) noted, factor analytic techniques help bolster measurement integrity by further refining the concept or theory under study. Once validated across subsequent studies, the measure could be useful to instructors for collecting midcourse and summative feedback concerning faculty members’ use of PPT use as an instructional tool. Furthermore, university researchers and faculty development staff members may also find the measure useful for conducting performance analysis for faculty instructional training or developmental needs. One topic deserving additional attention is whether presentation software has varying utility across different disciplines and courses. Perhaps conceptual courses would benefit more from presentation software 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 use of video, animation, application questions, and other elements in
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
393
PPT lectures could be explored and compared by discipline. Exploring individual differences among students and faculty might also help explain attitudes toward the use of presentations and course materials. For example, researchers could explore the relationship between student learning styles and instructional tools to determine which methods are better suited for certain learning styles and the extent to which these differences might affect learning and perceptions of interaction. Including variables such as instructors’ technological self-efficacy or faculty members’ attitudes about the role of technology in learning may also help explain the varying abilities of tools to support learning outcomes. Finally, faculty members also may overestimate the value of using PPT because it may be the only software presentation tool that their colleges or universities support. Faculty members may want to assess whether PPT is the most relevant software presentation package for their students. Alternative presentation software programs such as Harvard Graphics or Apple Works (see others at http://www.msboycott.com/thealt/alts/powerpoint.shtml) might provide more robust tools for presenting interactive content and would be useful for student practice if their professional disciplines use other presentation software. A review of the available alternatives, combined with an analysis of their strengths and weaknesses in comparison with PPT, would allow faculty members to make more informed choices concerning presentation software. Moreover, it may be that we need to gather and tease out contextual data provided by qualitative studies that integrate detailed faculty and student interviews or focus groups concerning their views on the utility of PPT.
CONCLUSION
It is clear from past research and our study’s results that faculty members and students share different perspectives on the utility of PPT as an instructional tool. In the quest to deliver interactive and meaningful class experiences, business faculty members should be mindful of how classroom materials, technological tools, and other instructional methods can be used to support cognitive, behavioral, and affective student outcomes. As Lanius (2004) indicated, “Just like the overhead projector before it, PowerPoint won’t turn a bad presentation into a good one and it won’t convert an ineffective presenter into an effective one” (p. 155).
394
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
APPENDIX Student Sample Description Variable Age (years) 18 to 22 23 to 27 28 to 32 33 to 37 ≥38 Chose not to answer Classification Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Chose not to answer Ethnicity African American Asian American Caucasian (White) Hispanic Mixed race Other Major Accounting Finance Management Marketing General business administration Sex Female Male
Frequency
%
79 98 20 10 13 10
34.3 42.6 8.7 4.3 5.7 4.3
1 23 90 115 1
0.4 10.0 39.1 50.0 0.4
49 2 168 5 1 5
21.3 0.9 73.0 2.2 0.4 2.2
42 36 62 53 37
18.3 15.7 27.0 23.0 16.1
122 108
53.0 47.0
REFERENCES Alley, M., Schreiber, M., Ramsdell, K., & Muffo, J. (2006). How the design of headline in presentation slides affects audience reaction. Technical Communication, 53, 225-234. Amare, N. (2006). To slideware or not to slideware: Students’ experiences with PowerPoint vs. lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36, 297-308. Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., & Mohundro, S. (1998, November). Rewards and liabilities of presentation software as an ancillary tool: Prison or paradise? Paper presented at the 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.
James et al. / PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT USE
395
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77-86. Blokzijl, W., & Naeff, R. (2004). The instructor as stagehand. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 70-77. Cyphert, D. (2004). The problem of PowerPoint: Visual aid or visual rhetoric? Business Communication 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 overhead projector for the new century? The History Teacher, 36, 491-504. Farkas, D. (2005). Understanding and using PowerPoint. In Proceedings of the STC annual 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 Development and 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. Educational and 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: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 192-212. Lanius, C. (2004). PowerPoint, not your grandmother’s presentations. Cell Biology Education, 3, 155-161. Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures: Effect upon student performance. 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. Business Communication Quarterly, 65, 82-85. Rajagopal, I., & Bojin, N. (2003). I don’t do Windows: Gender, pedagogy, and instructional technologies. Education and Society, 21, 75-97.
396
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / December 2006
Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers and Education, 35, 175-187. Vik, G. N. (2004). Breaking bad habits: Teaching effective PowerPoint use to working graduate students. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 225-228. Voss, D. (2004). PowerPoint in the classroom: Is it really necessary? Cell Biology Education, 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].
