Effects Of Lectures With Powerpoint Or Prezi Presentations On Cognitive Load, Remembering And Conceptual Learning
Author :
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate comparatively the effects of two types of presentations created by PowerPoint or Prezi, which are used during lectures at the higher education level on the students' cognitive load, remembering level of learning, and conceptual learning. Presentations prepared by PowerPoint has linear slides with limited canvas, while Prezi lets non-linear, multiple paths and unlimited canvas design. This study is a quasi-experimental design. The participants are 56 university students enrolled in a Computer Programming program at a vocational school. Data were collected using the Cognitive Load Scale, achievement tests and concept maps. According to the results, students lectured by presentations created by Prezi have got more conceptual learning and less cognitive load while teaching computer network systems content. Remembering level of learning by measured by achievement test did not significantly differed across the groups. Prezi may be a better alternative for more conceptual learning and reducing cognitive load.
Keywords
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate comparatively the effects of two types of presentations created by PowerPoint or Prezi, which are used during lectures at the higher education level on the students' cognitive load, remembering level of learning, and conceptual learning. Presentations prepared by PowerPoint has linear slides with limited canvas, while Prezi lets non-linear, multiple paths and unlimited canvas design. This study is a quasi-experimental design. The participants are 56 university students enrolled in a Computer Programming program at a vocational school. Data were collected using the Cognitive Load Scale, achievement tests and concept maps. According to the results, students lectured by presentations created by Prezi have got more conceptual learning and less cognitive load while teaching computer network systems content. Remembering level of learning by measured by achievement test did not significantly differed across the groups. Prezi may be a better alternative for more conceptual learning and reducing cognitive load.
Keywords
- Akdağ, M. & Tok, H., (2008). Geleneksel öğretim ile PowerPoint sunum destekli öğretimin öğrenci erişisine etkisi [The effects of traditional instruction and PowerPoint presentation-supported instruction on student’s achievement]. Education and Science, 33(147), 26-34.
- Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2002). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 211-218.
- 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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.003
- Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77-86. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7
- Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53, 445-459. doi: 10.3102/00346543053004445
- Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
- Çağıltay, K., Yıldırım, S., Arslan, İ., Gök, A. Gürel, G., Karakuş, T., Saltan, F., Uzun, E., Ülgen, E. & Yıldız, İ. (2007). Öğretim teknolojilerinin üniversitede kullanımına yönelik alışkanlıklar ve beklentiler: Betimleyici bir çalışma. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri, Kütahya.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
- Conboy, C., Fletcher, S., Russell, K., & Wilson, M. (2012). An evaluation of the potential use and impact of Prezi, the zooming editor software, as a tool to facilitate learning in higher education. Innovation in Practice, 7, 32-46.
- Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation technology and the dynamics of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31(3), 147-160. doi: 10.1007/s10755-006-9017-5
- de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.
- DeLeeuw, K. E. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-234. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
- Gabriel, Y. (2008). Against the tyranny of PowerPoint: Technology-in-use and technology abuse. Organization Studies, 29(02), 255–276. doi: 10.1177/0170840607079536.
- Gold, M., Swann, J. & Chief, I. C. (2002). Keeping it flexible: Integrating technology into distance education in the South Pacific. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 55-59.
- Graham, K. L. (2011). Tech matters: "Prezi"-tations: An alternative to PowerPoint, LOEX Quarterly, 38(2), 1-25.
- Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2008). Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Pearson; Prentice Hall.
- Harris, D. (2011). Presentation software: Pedagogical constraints and potentials. Journal of the Hospitality, 10(1), 72-84.
- Jensen, D., Self, B., Rhymer, D., Wood, J., & Bowe, M. (2002). A rocky journey toward effective assessment of visualization modules for learning enhancement in engineering mechanics. Educational Technology & Society, 5(3), 150-162.
- Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 31-39.
- Kılıç, E. & Karadeniz, Ş. (2006). Farklı hiper ortam tasarımlarının etkililiği, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
- Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1–10.
- Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research 61, 179-211. doi: 10.3102/00346543061002179
- Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 7-19.
- Lai, Y. S., Tsai, H. H., & Yu, P. T. (2011b). Integrating annotations into a dual-slide PowerPoint presentation for classroom learning. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 43–57.
- Lai, Y. S.,Tsai, H.H., & Yu, P.-T. (2011a). Screen-capturing system with two-layer display for PowerPoint presentation to enhance classroom education. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 69–81.
- Lorang, T. (2010). Prezi versus PowerPoint. Retrieved on March 03, 2013, from http://imagemediapartners.blogspot.com/2010/03/prezi-versus-powerpoint.html
- Manning, C., Brooks, W., Crotteau, V., Diedrich, A., Moser, J., & Zwiefelhofer, A. (2011). A tech tools for teachers, by teachers: Bridging teachers and students. Wisconsin English Journal, 53(1), 24-28.
- Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press
- Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press
- Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
- Novak, J. & Gowin, B. , (1998). Learning how to learn. USA: Cambridge University Press.
- Novak, J.D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge. NewYork: Routledge.
- Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
- Parker, R. E., Bianchi, A., & Cheah, T. Y. (2008). Perceptions of instructional technology: Factors of influence and anticipated consequences. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 274-293.
- Prezi (2012). Retrieved on January 24, 2012 from http://prezi.com/about/.
- Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3
- Sadi, S., Şekerci, A.R., Kurban, B., Topu, F.B., Demirel, T., Tosun, C., Demirci, T. ve Göktaş, Y. (2008). Öğretmen eğitiminde teknolojinin etkin kullanımı: öğretim elemanları ve öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 1(3), 43-49.
- Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
- Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning. New Jersey: Pearson.
- Sugahara, S. & Boland, G. (2006). The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the accounting classroom. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 15(4), 391-403. doi:10.1080/09639280601011099
- Sundar, S. S., Tamul, D. J. & Wu, M. (2014). Capturing “cool”: Measures for assessing coolness of technological products. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(2), 169–180. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.008
- Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203–215. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.005
- 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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.001
- Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7
- Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
- Tennyson, R. D. (1994). The big wrench vs. integrated approaches: The great media debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(3), 15-28.
- Tufte, E. (2003). PowerPoint is evil. Wired Magazine, 11(09). Retrieved on September, 2003, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
- van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177. doi: 10.1007/s10648-0053951-0
- Virtanen, P., Myllärniemi, J. & Wallander, H. (2012). Diversifying higher education: Innovative tools to facilitate different ways of learning. International Conference on Information Communication Technologies in Education, 105-116, Greece.
- Wallace, J.D. & Mintzes, J.J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033-1052. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660271010
- Yu, P. T., Liao, Y. H., & Su, M. H. (2013). A near-reality approach to improve the e-learning open courseware. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 242–257.