Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:38:38.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does PowerPoint enhance learning?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Rick Penciner
Rick Penciner*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON
*
North York General Hospital, 4001 Leslie Street, 630N, Toronto, ON M2K 1E1; rick.penciner@utoronto.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The ubiquitous nature of PowerPoint begs the question, does PowerPoint enhance learning? This narrative explores the evidence for the effectiveness of PowerPoint and multimedia presentations in learning and information processing. Practical recommendations are provided for presentations.

Keywords

effectivenesslearningmultimediaPowerPoint
Type
Education • Enseignement
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , March 2012 , pp. 109 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2013

References

REFERENCES

1.Kammeyer, J. Are we serving students well with communication textbooks: recommendations about PowerPoint. 2008. Available at: http://www.jenniferkammeyer.com/Research_files/PPTinCommTexts.pdf (accessed November 6, 2011).Google Scholar
2.Tufte, E. The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire (CT): Graphics Press; 2003.Google Scholar
3.Farkas, D. A heuristic for reasoning about PowerPoint deck design 2007. Available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/FarkasPowerPointHeuristic.pdf (accessed November 6, 2011).Google Scholar
4.Levasseur, DG, Sawyer, JK. Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: a research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. Rev Commun 2006;6:101–23, doi:10.1080/15358590600763383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Amare, N. To slideware or not to slideware: students’ experiences with PowerPoint vs. lecture. J Tech Writing Commun 2006;36:297–308, doi:10.2190/03GX-F1HWVW5M-7DAR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Bartsch, RA, Cobern, KM. Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 2003;41:77–86, doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7.Google Scholar
7.Johnson, DA, Christensen, J. A comparison of simplified visually rich and traditional presentation styles. Teach Psychol 2011;38:293–7, doi:10.1177/0098628311421333.Google Scholar
8.Tangen, JM, Constable, MD, Durrant, E, et al. The role of interest and images in slideware presentations. Comput Educ 2011;56:865–72, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.028.Google Scholar
9.Mayer, RE. Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Dir Teach Learn 2002;89:55–71, doi:10.1002/tl.47.Google Scholar
10.Mayer, RE, Johnson, CI. Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 2008;100:380–6, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380.Google Scholar
11.Kirschner, F, Kester, L, Corbalan, G. Cognitive load theory and multimedia learning, task characteristics and learning engagement: the current state of the art. Comput Hum Behav 2011;27(1):1–4, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Childers, TL, Houston, MJ. Conditions for a picturesuperiority effect on consumer memory. J Consumer Res 1984;11:643–54, doi:10.1086/209001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar