A comparison of graduate and undergraduate teacher education students' perceptions of their instructors' use of Microsoft PowerPoint

This study explored the perceptions of 304 teacher education students regarding how effectively and meaningfully their instructors use the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation software program in their teaching and compared graduate and undergraduate students' perceptions to determine the extent to which graduate and undergraduate teacher educators differ in the ways they employ PowerPoint. Data were collected through semi‐structured interviews and surveys. The Mann‐Whitney U tests identified significant differences between undergraduate and graduate students' perceptions of their instructors' use of MS PowerPoint in their teaching. Specifically, this study found that compared to graduate students, significantly more undergraduate students reported that their instructors (a) use PowerPoint as a straight lecturing tool, (b) read directly from slides, (c) present the whole class in PowerPoint, (d) present information on the slide that is directly copied from the textbook. In addition, significantly more undergraduate students reported experiencing PowerPoint overload due to overfull presentations and the rapid pace of instruction.

[1]  Glenda Morgan,et al.  ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control , 2004 .

[2]  S. Douglas Beets,et al.  Cyber Dimensions: Pedagogical Techniques: Student Performance and Preferences , 2001 .

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

[4]  Paulo Freire,et al.  Pedagogy of the Oppressed , 2019, Toward a Just World Order.

[5]  P. Chandler,et al.  Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn , 1994 .

[6]  Robyn E. Parker,et al.  Perceptions of Instructional Technology: Factors of Influence and Anticipated Consequences , 2007, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[7]  Bonnie B. Armbruster.  Taking notes from lectures. , 2000 .

[8]  Penny Oldfather,et al.  Drawing the Circle: Collaborative Mind Mapping as a Process for Developing a Constructivist Teacher Preparation Program. , 1994 .

[9]  S. Douglas Beets,et al.  Cyber Dimensions: Pedagogical Techniques: Student Performance and Preferences , 2001 .

[10]  Attila Szabó,et al.  Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? , 2000, Comput. Educ..

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

[12]  Lisa Daniels,et al.  Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step , 1999, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[13]  Barbara A. Frey,et al.  Learners' Perceptions on the Value of PowerPoint in Lectures. , 2002 .

[14]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[15]  John Kane,et al.  The Impact of PowerPoint on Student Performance and Course Evaluations in Economics Courses: An Experiment at Six Institutions , 2008 .

[16]  Lawrence R. Wheeless,et al.  An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning , 2001 .

[17]  P. Bromiley,et al.  Strategic stories: how 3M is rewriting business planning. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[18]  Amy Plantinga Pauw.  Discoveries and Dangers in Teaching Theology with PowerPoint , 2002 .

[19]  Donaldo P. Macedo,et al.  Mentoring the mentor : a critical dialogue with Paulo Freire , 1997 .

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

[21]  Erwin J. Mantei,et al.  Using Internet Class Notes and PowerPoint in the Physical Geology Lecture. , 2000 .

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

[23]  Scott Carlson.  Wired to the Hilt. , 2002 .

[24]  J. Gary Knowles,et al.  An Introduction: Personal Histories a Medium, Method, and Milieu for Gaining Insights into Teacher Development. , 1994 .

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

[26]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[27]  Judith C. Reiff,et al.  Individual Constructivist Teacher Education: Teachers as Empowered Learners. , 1994 .

[28]  K. Kunkel.  A Research Note Assessing the Benefit of Presentation Software in Two Different Lecture Courses , 2004 .

[29]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Joe R. Downing,et al.  Teaching students in the basic course how to use presentation software , 2001 .

[31]  Jon Rickman,et al.  Student Expectations of Information Technology Use in the Classroom , 2000 .

[32]  Jennifer M. Apperson,et al.  The impact of presentation graphics on students' experience in the classroom , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[33]  D. Levasseur,et al.  Pedagogy Meets PowerPoint: A Research Review of the Effects of Computer-Generated Slides in the Classroom , 2006 .

[34]  David C. Caverly,et al.  Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research , 2000 .

[35]  Cheryl O. Hausafus,et al.  Faculty: The Central Element in Instructional Technology Integration. , 2001 .

[36]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[37]  Elizabeth L. Rankin,et al.  The use of power point and student performance , 2001 .

[38]  Christy L. Faison,et al.  Integrating Technology into Preservice Teacher Education Method Courses: A Unique Business/University Partnership for Staff Development , 2000 .