The impact of graphic organisers on learning from presentations

There is abundant educational research indicating that graphic organisers (knowledge maps, concept maps, or mind maps) have a beneficial impact on learning, but hardly any research has examined this in the context of presentations. This study therefore investigated how graphic organisers – as delivered via presentation software – affect learning outcomes and mediating variables such as self-efficacy, cognitive load and appreciation of the learning material. An experiment was set up during a university course (n = 155). E-lectures were designed that shared recorded audio, but differed in the design of the learning material (graphic organisers), considering the presentation software being used. In both research conditions presentation design was in line with the principles of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The results revealed no statistically relevant difference in cognitive load, self-efficacy and knowledge gain, but participants preferred the e-lecture with the graphic organisers to the control version.

[1]  T. Pollock,et al.  A Grammar of Motives. , 1945 .

[2]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychological review.

[3]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning How to Learn , 1984 .

[4]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[5]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action , 1986 .

[6]  M. Lachman,et al.  Perceived control and intellectual functioning in the elderly: A 5-year longitudinal study. , 1989 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[8]  A. Paivio.  Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[9]  F. Paas.  Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. , 1992 .

[10]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1 , 1992 .

[11]  F. Paas,et al.  Measurement of Cognitive Load in Instructional Research , 1994, Perceptual and motor skills.

[12]  Frank M. Pajares,et al.  Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances: The need for specificity of assessment. , 1995 .

[13]  B. Weiner,et al.  Theories and principles of motivation. , 1996 .

[14]  Frank M. Pajares,et al.  Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings , 1996 .

[15]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[16]  E. Deci,et al.  Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[17]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[18]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: Frontmatter , 2001 .

[19]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cognitive Processing , 2002 .

[20]  Robert A. Bartsch,et al.  Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[21]  Frank Pajares,et al.  SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS, MOTIVATION, AND ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE , 2003 .

[22]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  The cognitive style of PowerPoint , 2003 .

[23]  J. Novak.  The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How To Construct Them , 2004 .

[24]  Michael Alley,et al.  Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides: A Case for Sentence Headlines and Visual Evidence , 2005 .

[25]  Martin Valcke,et al.  Multimedia learning in social sciences: limitations of external graphical representations , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[26]  Cliff Atkinson.  Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations That Inform, Motivate, and Inspire (Bpg-Other) , 2005 .

[27]  Joshua E. Susskind.  PowerPoint's power in the classroom: enhancing students' self-efficacy and attitudes , 2005, Comput. Educ..

[28]  Olusola O. Adesope,et al.  Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis , 2006 .

[29]  J. Mackiewicz.  Audience Perceptions of Fonts in Projected PowerPoint Text Slides , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.

[30]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Clear and to the Point: 8 Psychological Principles for Compelling PowerPoint Presentations , 2007 .

[31]  Jo Mackiewicz,et al.  Perceptions of Clarity and Attractiveness in PowerPoint Graph Slides , 2007 .

[32]  Raafat George Saadé,et al.  Viability of the "Technology Acceptance Model" in Multimedia Learning Environments: A Comparative Study , 2007 .

[33]  W. Blokzijl,et al.  The Effect of Text Slides Compared to Visualizations on Learning and Appreciation in Lectures , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.

[34]  Cliff Atkinson.  Beyond bullets points: using microsoft® office powerpoint® 2007 to create presentations that inform, motivate, and inspire , 2007 .

[35]  I M Kinchin,et al.  Using concept mapping principles in PowerPoint. , 2007, European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe.

[36]  Jennifer M. Apperson,et al.  An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Louise Cornelis,et al.  Advance Organizers in Advisory Reports , 2008 .

[38]  Lisa A. Burke,et al.  PowerPoint-Based Lectures in Business Education: An Empirical Investigation of Student-Perceived Novelty and Effectiveness , 2008 .

[39]  Mark Tremayne,et al.  Manipulating interactivity with thematically hyperlinked news texts: a media learning experiment , 2008, New Media Soc..

[40]  Joshua E. Susskind.  Limits of PowerPoint's Power: Enhancing students' self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[41]  David K. Farkas,et al.  Managing Three Mediation Effects that Influence PowerPoint Deck Authoring , 2009 .

[42]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Information retention from PowerPointTM and traditional lectures , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[43]  Thomas Li-Ping Tang,et al.  Students' perceptions of teaching technologies, application of technologies, and academic performance , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[44]  Katherine A. Austin.  Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[45]  Menno D.T. de Jong.  Editing for the Workplace, the Academe, and the Discipline , 2009 .

[46]  Michael Alley,et al.  Common use of PowerPoint versus the assertion-evidence structure: A cognitive psychology perspective , 2009 .

[47]  A.G. Gross,et al.  The Structure of PowerPoint Presentations: The Art of Grasping Things Whole , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[48]  Jeng-Yi Tzeng,et al.  The impact of general and specific performance and self-efficacy on learning with computer-based concept mapping , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[49]  T. Gog,et al.  Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning , 2009 .

[50]  Yesim Yilmazel-Sahin.  A comparison of graduate and undergraduate teacher education students' perceptions of their instructors' use of Microsoft PowerPoint , 2009 .

[51]  John C. Nesbit,et al.  Cognitive Ability and the Instructional Efficacy of Collaborative Concept Mapping. , 2010 .

[52]  Jo Mackiewicz,et al.  Visual Composing: Document Design for Print and Digital Media , 2010 .

[53]  Feza Orhan,et al.  Prospective teachers’ opinions on the value of PowerPoint presentations in lecturing , 2010 .

[54]  David K. Farkas.  A brief assessment of Michael Alley's ideas regarding the design of PowerPoint slides 1 , 2010 .

[55]  Ruey-Shiang Shaw,et al.  A study of learning performance of e-learning materials design with knowledge maps , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[56]  Steffen Schaal.  Cognitive and motivational effects of digital concept maps in pre-service science teacher training , 2010 .

[57]  Barry Buzan,et al.  The Mind Map Book: Unlock Your Creativity, Boost Your Memory, Change Your Life , 2010 .

[58]  A. Ghanbari,et al.  Teaching of gross anatomy for students of medicine by mind map-based power point slides. , 2010, Medical teacher.

[59]  Joseph A. Kim,et al.  The role of interest and images in slideware presentations , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[60]  Patricia V. Roehling,et al.  Differential use and benefits of PowerPoint in upper level versus lower level courses , 2011 .

[61]  Sakıp Kahraman,et al.  Investigation of university students' attitude toward the use of powerpoint according to some variables , 2011, WCIT.