Download - Copyright 2020, Meghan Parsons
PowerPoint as Visual Communication Pedagogy:
Relative Differences in Eye Tracking and Aesthetic Pleasure
by
Meghan M. Parsons, B.A.
A Thesis
In
Communication Studies
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Luke LeFebvre, Ph.D.
Chair of Committee
Mike Allen, Ph.D.
Brian Ott, Ph.D.
Mark Sheridan
Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2020
Copyright 2020, Meghan Parsons
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge my committee members, Dr. Luke LeFebvre, Dr. Mike
Allen, and Dr. Brian Ott. I thank you all for sharing your unique perspectives and for
the enrichment you brought to the development of this thesis. A special thank you to
my committee chairperson, Dr. Luke LeFebvre for his diligent counsel and advice
during the research and writing process, as well as aiding me in the statistical analysis
for this project. This work is representative of a topic I have grown immensely
passionate about and the facilitation of learning by which I felt motivated to explore
this topic further could not have been made possible without the leadership of my
committee members and other researching faculty.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................v
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................3
The Communication Discipline and Visual Images ..........................................3
PowerPoint .........................................................................................................3
Slide design ..................................................................................................4
Processing Fluency and Aesthetics ....................................................................7
III. METHODS ....................................................................................................10
Participants .......................................................................................................10
Procedure .........................................................................................................10
Assessment and Measures................................................................................11
Eye tracking: Fixation duration and fixation count ...................................11
Aesthetic pleasure and liking .....................................................................13
IV. RESULTS .......................................................................................................14
V. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................16
Pedagogical Interventions for PowerPoint.......................................................16
Implications for Teaching and Learning ..........................................................19
Limitations and Future Directions ...................................................................22
VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................24
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................25
APPENDICES
A. EXAMPLES OF SLIDE DESIGN CATEGORIES .....................................29
B. AESTHETIC PLEASURE IN DESIGN (APID) ..........................................30
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
iv
ABSTRACT
The pervasiveness of PowerPoint in instructional settings prompts inquiry into
how learners see and experience visual lecture content to maximize how ideas are
communicated via slideware technology. This exploratory analysis investigates two
slide designs common to PowerPoints used in instructional environments—
presentation and teleprompter style slides. Eye tracking measures were implemented
to assess differences in fixations in response to varying degrees of visual integration.
Eye tracking results indicate teleprompter designs produced more fixations and
therefore suggests higher levels of visual attention while interpreting information
displayed in a text dominant design. Measures of aesthetic liking resulted in evidence
to suggest slides that incorporate imagery and limit text produce more aesthetically
pleasurable learning experiences for students than bulleted text. Practical and
immediate implementations are offered for instructors wishing to produce more
visually appealing slides to convey course material to students.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Traditional layout suggestions (Microsoft Office 365, 2019) .......................6
Process of visual aesthetic thought (Dake, 2005)..........................................8
Example of document slide design ..............................................................29
Actual teleprompter slide viewed by participants ......................................29
Actual presentation slide viewed by participants ........................................29
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the early 19th century, pedagogical practices in the classroom pivoted from
a heavily didactic emphasis—relying nearly exclusively on textual mediation of
knowledge through books and lectures—towards the visual (Depaepe, 1999). This
educational practice shift throughout the century saw teachers adopt the use of visual
images in classroom spaces (Nelson, 2000). From the turn of the 20th century to the
present, teachers were increasingly pressured to incorporate various forms of media
technologies into their classrooms. The evolution of these visual technologies
advanced from stereoscopes to lantern projectors to overhead projectors to 35-
millimeter slide carousels to computer-based slideware technology for integrating
visual content (Cuban, 1986; Maftoon, 1982). The current and most predominant
visual technology of college classrooms and lecture halls is Microsoft’s PowerPoint
(Clark, 2008; Wiebe, Savoy, Proctor, Salvendy, 2008; Slykhuis, & Annetta, 2007).
A slideware technology, PowerPoint, is often used with the intention to infuse
a visual communication component to enhance student learning, interest, and
engagement (Clark, 2008; Mann & Robinson, 2013). PowerPoint has the capacity to
blend visual images, text, sound, color, and animation (Penciner, 2013). Despite the
prevailing presence of PowerPoint, effective use of the slideware technology in the
classroom remains in contention amongst instructors (Axtell, Maddux, & Aberasturi,
2008) and students (James, Burke, & Hutchins, 2006) alike.
The pervasive presence of PowerPoint use in the classroom is not in dispute
(Hill, Arford, Lubitow, & Smollin, 2012), and its technological purpose is clear—to
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
2
improve the sharing of ideas or information as a communication technology. However,
appropriate utilization of PowerPoint in classrooms prompts inquiries into practice in
pedagogy and the role it plays in creating and sustaining effective learning
experiences. In order to maximize how ideas are communicated via slideware
technology, it is important to understand how an audience sees, interprets,
experiences, and recalls the visual messages communicated via the technology. As an
application software, PowerPoint is compatible and transferable between electronic
devices, but not all PowerPoint slide designs are created equal. Slide templates and
themes are features PowerPoint provides to act as guides but also allow the user to
adlib, invent, and create unique visual narratives.
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the current body of literature
surrounding PowerPoint and its use in the classroom. This contribution offers an
informed approach to the creation of effective visuals during classroom presentations
by improving the relationship between learners and images displayed on slideware
technology. Specifically, the goals of this research effort are twofold: (1) identify
differences in eye fixation for differentiated slide layouts and (2) examine the extent to
which students report responses of aesthetic pleasure as a result of engagement with
different slide layouts. Furthermore, the results of this study may be used to optimize
the development and execution of visual communication choices for educators and
promote visual communication research as it applies to the classroom.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
3
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Communication Discipline and Visual Images
While instructional communication has established itself as an accepted field
of interest for communication researchers, visual communication is relatively young in
comparison, still developing as its own field of research within the discipline of
communication studies (Müller, 2007). In fact, the term visual communication was
first coined as a term in the mid-20th century (Ivins, 1953). Visual communication as it
is recognized by the International Communication Association (ICA), “seeks to
enhance the understanding of the visual in all its forms—moving and still images and
displays in television, video and film, art and design, and print and digital media”
(ICA, 2019). Despite the challenges the field has faced in terms of acceptance as a
valid research area for the communication discipline, the concept of learning can be
found in the very origins of meaning for the related terms visual, image, and picture
(Fritze, Haugsbakk, & Nordkvell, 2016; Müller, 2007). Therefore, learning is innately
a visual experience (Medina, 2014; Cohen, Horowitz, & Wolfe, 2009). The
contemporary classroom is no different. There is a rich history that reveals an affinity
towards visuals as a method of enhancing learning experiences (Nelson, 2000;
Vazquez & Chiang, 2014), and PowerPoint is currently the predominant slideware
technology for sharing visual information (Clark, 2008; Cooper, 2009).
PowerPoint
Initially to be named Presenter, the name PowerPoint was decided upon as a
result of a trademark conflict in 1984 (Amare, 2004). Originally, PowerPoint was
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
4
designed for Apple computer systems until purchased by Microsoft in 1987. The
program was colorless until 1988 and animations did not arrive until 1992 (Glisser,
2017). It should come as no surprise that as computer technology advanced, so too did
PowerPoint as a slideware technology (Endicott, 2000). Presently, PowerPoint has
more capabilities than any previous iterations; the capabilities include: the power to
layer and display countless sequenced and complex animations, preserve and transfer
files across devices and platforms, access to an internal image library resources of
icons and photos free of licensing, and convert handwriting to text (Microsoft, 2019).
PowerPoint’s earliest role in instruction dates back to the late 1980s, when the
program was used to design and produce ad hoc transparencies for overhead
projectors, which have since been nearly retired as a lecturing technology (Endicott,
2000; Gaskins, 2007). Microsoft PowerPoint displayed visual information across
various slides, not unlike these transparencies on a projector but did not require the
time or other resources demanded by the production of material transparency
documents (Alley & Neeley, 2005). Serving as an appealing digital alternative,
PowerPoint began to grow in popularity in the 2000s. Heightened PowerPoint
accessibility made it the mainstream means for cultivating visual communication to
engage learners (Wiebe, Slykhuis, & Annetta, 2007). As a result of PowerPoint’s
prevalence, the slideware technology became a staple of instructional environments
(Mann & Robinson, 2013; Savoy et al., 2008).
Slide design. In the 1990s and 2000s, limited guidance was initially made
available for PowerPoint users (Endicott, 2000). Microsoft offered few formatting
suggestions to those authoring slide decks, otherwise known as template layouts.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
5
These default layouts became what is now known as the traditional style of
PowerPoint design. Traditional layouts were provided immediately to the user upon
launching the program (see Figure 1). This style has become so embedded as the
standardized design that not only experienced professionals, but both instructors and
students have exhibited a strong resistance to the adoption of design alternatives
(Alley & Neeley, 2005; Clark, 2008; Cooper, 2009; Vazquez & Chiang, 2014). Users
instead often elected to utilize favorable automations encouraged by PowerPoint
which they believed saved them valuable time.
These traditional layouts remained virtually unchanged in appearance since the
1990s when PowerPoint 3.0 introduced its AutoContent feature (Amare, 2004;
Cooper, 2009). The discoveries made in visual communication research (e.g., visual
processing fluency, aesthetic liking) for instructional environments provide evidence
to support integrating intelligent use of slideware technologies (Savoy et al., 2008).
Intelligent use of slideware technology is a method by which one can best utilize the
abilities of slideware technology to control presentation variables in such a way that
the speaker will have a greater chance of relaying powerful messages in tandem to
their oral speech (Alley & Neeley, 2005; Savoy et al., 2008). Intelligent use of
slideware technology directly relates to the slide design assembled across slides and
slide decks.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
6
Figure 1. Traditional layout suggestions from Microsoft Office 365, 2019.
Slide designs can be sorted into three categories: document slides, teleprompter
slides, and presentation slides. Document slides are text heavy and dense with no
employment of visuals, sometimes referred to as “slideument” (Reynolds, 2012, p. 68)
with an estimated word count of more than 75 words (Duarte, 2008, p.7).
Teleprompter slides use bullet points with limited text, and an estimated word count of
approximately 50 words (Reynolds, 2012; Duarte, 2008, p.7). Presentation slides
focus on displaying visuals rather than text alone and establish a visual narrative to
punctuate and accompany a spoken narrative provided by the speaker (Johnson &
Christensen, 2011; Penciner, 2013; Duarte, 2008; Vazquez & Chiang, 2014), and text
is extremely limited. See Figure A for an example of each type of slide design.
Visual attention can be measured by means of eye tracking and is determined
by fixations (Zagermann, Pfeil, & Reiterer, 2016). Eye tracking research (Slykhuis,
Wiebe, & Annetta, 2007; Rello, Baeza, Dempere, & Saggion, 2013; Yang, Chang,
Chien, Chien, & Tseng, 2013) has used fixation count and fixation duration as
common measurements of cognitive processing of text and images. Hence, fixation
duration and fixation function as a measure of visual attention and processing.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
7
Therefore, the current study more closely examines different slide designs and how
learners view these visuals. Hence, the following research question is posited:
RQ1A: Does fixation duration differ for participants processing different visual
slide design representations displayed on slideware technology?
RQ1B: Does fixation count differ for participants processing different visual
slide design representations displayed on slideware technology?
Verbal modes of instructional messaging demonstrated in textbooks, spoken
lectures, and chalkboards have maintained their presence in the classroom. As visual
modes of instructional messaging became more accessible with the prevalence of
available technologies throughout the 1990s and 2000s, educators ran the risk of
repurposing verbal modes of conveying information, as seen in document slides, rather
than translating messages into congruent visuals (Vazquez & Chiang, 2014).
Accessibility of projectors complemented PowerPoint’s capacity for colorful visual
displays, animations, and sound in a way that was nearly impossible to share with
verbal description alone. PowerPoint as a visual medium prompts inquiry into
determinants of visual processing fluency and the aesthetic elements that contribute to
an effective and enjoyable learning experience for students.
Processing Fluency and Aesthetics
The degree of ease experienced by a viewer when processing a visual is known
as processing fluency (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). Aesthetics in the
traditional sense originated under a formalist theory of beauty (Diderot, 1752). The
real character of beauty was described as an ease of viewing that offers a sense of
pleasure or satisfaction to be experienced by the perceiver in response to a given
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
8
stimuli (Davies, Higgins, & Hopkins, 2009). In the field of psychobiological studies,
aesthetic theory can be applied as the aesthetic cognitive comprehension or subject
response to visual stimuli. A proposed theoretical framework (see Reber, Schwarz, &
Winkielman, 2004), much like Diderot’s initial definitions, assumes processing
fluency and aesthetics are inherently linked. This proposal suggests that when viewers
can easily process an object, they will experience a proportionately positive aesthetic
response. Beauty, then, becomes grounded in the processing experiences of the
viewer, characterized by a pleasurable subjective experience. The process of visual
aesthetic thought as it pertains to visual communication (see Figure 2) is illustrated
with the inclusion of three primary actors: the maker, the viewer, and the object (Dake,
2005).
-
Figure 2. Process of visual aesthetic thought. Reprinted from Handbook of Visual
Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media by D. Dake, 2005.
The maker is the individual responsible for the conveyance of a visual
message, while the viewer is the individual processing said message. This process
considers the object to be the matter by which a visual message is delivered holding
the ability to incite an aesthetically pleasing experience. In a classroom environment,
the PowerPoint slide deck can be considered the visual object in this process interacted
with by both student and instructor. The maker is the designer of the PowerPoint slides
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
9
or producer of the visual message. It is common for the instructor to act as both the
designer of the slides as well as the lecturer delivering the content. The viewer is the
student who processes the messages from both the slide deck and the instructor
simultaneously.
By exploring how learners respond to differences in slide design more
effective decisions can be made by instructors when using PowerPoint or similar
slideware technology. Hence, the following research question is proposed:
RQ2: What type of slide designs—teleprompter or presentation—will
participants report as most aesthetically pleasurable?
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
10
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Participants
This study involved undergraduate students (N = 162) participating in the Sona
Systems at a large southern university. Participants reported the following
demographics: 70.1% female, 98% US citizens (61.9% Caucasian, 19% Hispanic,
4.8% African American, 5.4% Asian, 0.7% Native Americans, 1.4% Middle Eastern,
6.8% two or more races). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 50 (M = 20.9, SD =
4.44). Participants were 27.9% freshmen, 16.3% sophomores, 32% juniors, 23.1%
seniors, and 0.7% unidentified. After cleaning the data (N = 147) were retained for
analysis.
Procedures
Students signed a consent form prior to participation in the study. The study
received approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board, and students had
the opportunity to opt out of the study at any time. Participants were offered extra
credit for participating in the study.
Participants were asked to view a (a) teleprompter (n = 75) or (b) presentation
slide (n = 72) deck design made in PowerPoint displayed in a 16:10 aspect ratio. Two
slide decks were produced, each exhibiting characteristics from either teleprompter or
presentation slide design covering the identical lecture content. The teleprompter slide
deck was produced using one of PowerPoint’s automated layout design suggestions
that best fit the criteria of a teleprompter style slide. Two videos were prepared by
screen recording a slide deck synced to congruent audio. The verbal narrative ensured
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
11
both slide decks were advanced at the same time and had the same duration of
participant optical viewing. Participants were not able to deliberately advance the
slides on their own and consistently experienced similar exposure time to lecture
content both visually and auditorily.
Once participants had entered the lab, they were asked to sit at a desk with a
monitor fitted with the eye tracking device. They were seated in a fixed, or non-rolling
chair, to minimize movement for accurate measurement. Participants were briefed by
the researcher on the preceding activities pertaining to the data collection process. The
entire session lasted approximately 15-minutes—including a calibration test, viewing
the PowerPoint presentation video depicting a slide deck with voiceover narration, and
survey. The researcher remained present during data collection to manage media and
equipment.
A nine-point eye tracking calibration test is performed in order to determine
visual acuity and prepare for accurate data collection. After calibration is achieved, the
participant affixed headphones to hear the audio narration as a crosshair appeared at
the exact center of the screen. The crosshair centers the participants’ optical fixations
at a consistent point before recording. Participants then pressed the spacebar on the
keyboard to initiate the start of the video.
After participants completed the PowerPoint presentation video, they were
asked to fill out a survey with questions related to aesthetic pleasure.
Assessment and Measures
Eye tracking: Fixation duration and fixation count. To answer the first
research questions, eye tracking data collected for this study was measured by a
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
12
remote optics eye tracking system mounted to the bottom of a computer monitor
viewing screen. The Tobii X2-60 eye tracker model has the capability to capture gaze
data for fixation-based research through infrared light for unobtrusive viewing and its
compact design helped the sensor remain discrete to participants. The eye tracker
device, which captures gaze data at 60 Hz, allows for freedom of head movement and
reports gaze accuracy within 0.4° visual angle. These coordinate measures recorded
directional paths of movement, stationary points, and duration of eye fixations in real-
time to determine which areas appear to be of focus or interest on the screen at a given
time.
For this study, a fixation measurement is classified as a point of optical focus
within 35 pixels lasting at least 100 ms. Unlike saccades, the quick continuous
movements between fixations which can be voluntary or involuntary, fixations are
voluntary stabilizations that can be interpreted as selective interest or evidence of the
visual processing of information (Zagermann, Pfeil, & Reiterer, 2016). Total fixation
duration (TFD) and fixation count (FC) were chosen as measures to better understand
how an audience sees and engages with different slide designs. TFD measures the total
amount of time, on average, that participants spent fixating on the slide as opposed to
searching or surveying. FC measures how many instances of fixation occur on average
during the video. Higher levels of fixation duration have been related to a higher level
of cognitive processing with an increased strain on the viewer’s working memory. The
more complex the visual, the more complex the task ahead of the viewer to make
sense of the visual. There is evidence to support TFD and FC measures can reveal
where more attention was required by the viewer to cognitively process a visual
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
13
(Chen, Epps, Ruiz, & Chen, 2011). The relationship between ease of processing and
reports of aesthetic pleasure were examined.
Tobii Pro Studio software was used to record, compile, and export data. To
conduct a comparative analysis between presentation and teleprompter slide designs, a
segment of the recordings was chosen for analysis covering identical lecture content
from one slide of each presentation. The segment was 25 seconds in duration and the
entire slide (1920 x 1080) was activated as an area of interest (AOI). Tobii Pro Studio
automates the classifications of fixations producing aggregated calculations of each
fixation taking place at any location within the AOI.
Aesthetic pleasure and liking. Immediately following the PowerPoint
presentation video, participants completed the measure for Aesthetic Pleasure in
Design (APiD; see Blijlevens, Thurgood, Hekkert, Leder, & Whitfield, 2004).
Participants were asked to indicate how much they agreed with statements describing
the given designs using 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree). Items included aesthetic pleasure, typicality, and novelty (see Appendix B).
Cronbach’s α were .93 for aesthetic pleasure, .86 for typicality, and .83 for novelty.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
14
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Prior to reporting the findings, the participant sample is further described based
on their experience with PowerPoint as a pedagogical tool in the classroom. All
participants (100%) had previously experienced PowerPoint during instruction.
Participants reported prior exposure to differential slide design—based on definitions
for each slide category—with a slight majority having most commonly experienced
49.7% presentation slides, 46.3% teleprompter slides, and 4.1% document slides. The
groups did not differ significantly on age, gender, or ethnicity.
RQ1A. An independent t-test analysis found no significant differences between
presentation (M = 22.13, SD = 2.73, N = 75) and teleprompter (M = 21.88, SD =
3.16, N = 76) conditions for fixation duration (t(149) = .51, p > .05).
Therefore, participants demonstrated equivalent fixation duration for both presentation
and teleprompter slide conditions.
RQ1B. An independent t-test analysis found significant differences between
presentation (M = 60.29, SD = 20.19, N = 75) and
teleprompter (M = 74.13, SD = 17.9, N = 76) conditions for fixation count (t(149) = -
4.46., p < .001). Therefore, participants demonstrated greater fixation count for the
teleprompter slide condition.
RQ2. Participants reported greater aesthetic pleasure for presentation slides
(M = 3.45, SD = .76, N = 72) than teleprompter slides (M = 2.56, SD = .91, N = 75).
The difference was significant with a t(145) = 6.52, p < .05.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
15
Participants reported similar typicality for presentation slides
(M = 3.58, SD = .69, N = 72) and teleprompter slides (M = 3.65, SD = .84, N = 75).
The difference was not significant with a t(145) = -.57, p > .05.
Participants reported greater novelty for presentation slides
(M = 2.85, SD = .86, N = 72) than teleprompter slides (M = 2.00, SD = .81, N = 75).
The difference was significant with a t(145) = 6.2, p < .05.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
16
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This study initiates an exploration into differential slide design to begin to
improve understanding about how learners process slideware technology
presentations. Eye tracking results indicate teleprompter designs produced more
fixations and therefore suggests higher levels of visual attention while interpreting
information displayed in a text dominant design. Aesthetic survey results suggest a
significant distinction between teleprompter and presentation slides, with participants
reporting the presentation design style elicited a more positive aesthetic and novel
experience.
Pedagogical Interventions for PowerPoint
Overall, the results demonstrate that aesthetics matter when slideware
technology is involved while facilitating learning—if only for the simple facts that (a)
the content is more easily viewed and (b) learners find it more visually appealing for
consuming information. All participants of this study indicated the prevalence of
slideware technology in the classroom. Positive learning outcomes are a result of a
communicative transmission of information or content from an instructor to a student.
Such information transactions are considered successful when students are able to
evidence accurate recall or recognition of shared material (Savoy et al., 2008). While
PowerPoint is a popular tool used with the intention to promote positive learning
outcomes, different categories of slide design do not yield identical reception in the
eyes of learners which present new concerns when authoring slides.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
17
Eye tracking findings indicated that different slide design layouts, at least
regarding FC, produce significantly different variations for teleprompter and
presentation slide designs. Clearly, teleprompter slides require greater visual
processing to encode information. Both of these measures relate to the cognitive
activities necessary to process information (Yang et al., 2013). It can be assumed that
while the amount of time spent fixating to understand the slides remained relatively
the same, participants who viewed teleprompter slides made more voluntary choices to
fixate during separate instances—most probably due to the reading required on
teleprompter slide designs. The eye must make sense of letters, then words, then
sentences to understand them as coherent messages. With higher demands of FC,
teleprompter slides demand more cognitively from students as they attempt to
understand the information communicated on a slide or slide deck.
With these findings, instructors can begin to implement informed design
choices about which slide design category operates to best convey their respective
course material. The degree of visual/text integration between these two slide designs
permits instructors to address an important question: How can learning be visually
optimized for student engagement to improve learning outcomes?
Additionally, findings illustrate the effect presentation slides have on student
perception of aesthetic pleasure. Students report greater desire to engage slides if they
find the viewing experience enjoyable. This is advantageous for instructors seeking to
enhance student interest. Since student interest has been linked to perceived visual
novelty (Burke & James, 2008), presentation slides are more apt to sustain student
interest. However, despite receiving significantly higher reports for perceived aesthetic
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
18
pleasure and novelty, presentation slides and teleprompter slides did not differ in
perceived typicality. Students reported that they experience presentation slides most
frequently in class, yet also regarded them as novel in this study. Students understand
teleprompter and presentation slides by their respective definitions to be common in
the classroom, but the perceived novelty and typicality varied in regards to how they
have seen these slide designs used. Images and visual slides might be common of
classroom environments, but effective use of visual narratives via presentation slides
may be atypical, resulting in a novel aesthetic experience (See Figure A for slides
used).
Aesthetic theory proposes a proportionally positive relationship between ease
of processing and aesthetically pleasurable response. While the existence of a
proportional relationship cannot be confirmed with this data, it appears conclusive that
presentation slides function to simplify elements to a relevant image and selective text
elicit a directly positive response by students. Positive associations to course
content—established visually with learners—encourages student attention via visual
appeal.
When preparing to use slideware technology as visual communication
pedagogy, it is important for instructors authoring slide decks to manage an effective
balance between purposeful illustration over decoration in order to produce
aesthetically appealing experiences with slides that are also effective in producing
positive learning outcomes. Technological integration for the classroom has the
potential to augment instructional materials to encourage student attention. However,
increased attention should promote processing. Instructors need to be cognizant to
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
19
avoid overstimulation or to have slides function as entertainment as opposed to
accentuating or supplementing learning (Levasseur & Sawyer, 2006).
Both the teleprompter and presentation slides examined in this study, used text
and images that remained relevant to the lecture content and avoided conflicting or
additional informational messaging beyond what was shared in the narration. It seems
intuitive that instructional material remain on task; however, when incorporating
visuals to heighten aesthetics for students, purposeful decisions are essential for
instructors when building slide decks.
Implications for Teaching and Learning in the Classroom
Centuries of technological advancements have regularly asked instructors to
acclimate to the needs and expectations of students. Presently, students are exposed to
and regularly interact with multimedia technologies. These technologies are so
pervasive in college classrooms that it has become a normative and expected
experience for learners. Results from this study further support intelligent integration
of slideware technology design for instructors.
Automations, available in PowerPoint, provide suggested slide layouts and
other design tools. These features provide PowerPoint users shortcuts for slide design
construction. With presentation and teleprompter slide designs being of the most
common in classrooms already, and no apparent evidence to support that one is more
visually digestible than the other, instructors can begin making immediate adjustments
using automations. Aesthetic visual elements are inclined to invite students to
optically engage in slide presentations of course content. Here are some
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
20
straightforward visual communication tips for instructors to enhance PowerPoint
design for students:
(1) The slide decks produced for this study included information simplified to
essential text and a large singular visual element. Teleprompter and
presentation slides both displayed a title orienting the viewer to the main
idea of the slide and date orienting the viewer to a time in history. In the
teleprompter deck, ideas were simplified into textual bullet point
representations and in the presentation deck, simplified into one image to
represent the content. Existing slides that may be characteristic of
teleprompter designs can be aesthetically enhanced by replacing bulleted
text with a relevant image.
(2) The second suggestion that proved successful in the present study, is a
focus on consistency across presentation slide decks to unite like ideas and
visually convey relationships. The subject matter experienced by
participants followed the history of visual aids spanning several thousand
years. The presentation slide deck utilized a timeline structured visual
display and consistent horizontal push transitions to convey a linear
temporal relationship between the ideas presented on each slide. This
encourages fluency by allowing viewers to anticipate and predict patterns
of movement as the lecture unfolds, establishing an implied foundational
lattice upon which students can begin exploring these concepts. The
location of the image, headline, and date also remained consistent between
concepts.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
21
(3) Teleprompter slides that produced less enjoyable aesthetic experiences
lacked the employment of any color. The bulleted slide layout suggestion
that most accurately fit the definition of a teleprompter slide in PowerPoint
defaults to a white background with black text. If instructors relied on this
automation alone without making additional choices in visual
communication like incorporation of color, the slide deck runs the risk of
forfeiting novelty, instead favoring a visual that closely resembles what
students would find on any other printed textual document for the sake of
automation and familiarity. The presentation slide deck could have been
rated as more novel because of its utility incorporating visual elements that
could not be achieved through textual documents. The technology’s ability
to facilitate variety in this way.
(4) Reducing the amount of text on slides proved to be effective in reducing
the number of fixations required to process slides, which means increased
processing fluency to help students quickly and efficiently engage with
visually displayed concepts. The cognitive functioning of students is
essential to learning and should be taken into consideration by instructors
when developing course content to be displayed via PowerPoint. Text use
should be purposeful and streamlined to emphasize essential content to
assist students in identifying key ideas. For example, text should be utilized
when it necessary for students know how to write, spell, or type a concept.
(5) The most paramount question facing instructors: Is it more important that
students listen or more important that they read? Simplification of slides
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
22
can be achieved by substituting text with congruent imagery, which will
assist instructors to isolate slides to a single idea. Students then are released
from the burden of copying text and listening at the same time. The
potential of altering how PowerPoint is constructed for visual instruction to
support the instructor could be transformative for learners. Students would
be provided an opportunity to engage in dialogue about course content, ask
questions probing questions as opposed to copying and reciting notes
dominating slide decks. The technology would be used to enhance student-
teacher and student-student communication rather than dominate how
information is exchanged.
Limitations and Future Directions
The nature of this study presents challenges that begin to question the
comparability of differential slide designs. This study accounts for different visual
displays of identical verbal information but cannot account for what was lost or gained
visually in translation because there is no exact translation to speak to between slide
designs. For example, a film viewed by way of different aspect ratios can produce
different viewing experiences, such as standard versus wide screen. Some things are
gained, like the dark space found along the top and bottom of wide screen film
formats, while peripheral elements of a shot can be lost in standard formats. Further
evaluative measures should be considered to higher degrees of specificity in order to
reveal additional significant differences.
This study occurred in a laboratory environment. Future investigations should
set out to explore how students optically consume teleprompter and presentation slide
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
23
designs in a classroom setting. Some aspects of participants’ viewing experiences are
likely influenced by the absence of a physically present instructor or even other
classmates. Fixation duration and fixation count could have been influenced by
laboratory conditions, where participants were tasked with viewing a recorded lecture
on a monitor as opposed to a larger projection often found in classrooms. It is possible
that if this study were to be replicated in a simulated classroom with an instructor
present, allocation, duration, and frequency of fixations may differ.
Cognitive recall should be evaluated in future research to explore how content
is remembered via differential slide designs. This study offers insight to student
preference as it pertains to aesthetics specifically, but future examinations should be
conducted that incorporate cognitive learning and recall immediately (and after a
delayed period) following the visual presentations that integrate either teleprompter or
presentation slides.
The aesthetic response reported in association with the simplified visual
elements that characterize the presentation slide (image, headline, subtitle) supports
the idea that processing fluency and aesthetics are inherently linked. Further inquiry is
necessary to determine how aesthetic ease is experienced or influenced by the
instructor (presenter) providing the verbal content that supplements the visual display.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
24
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Shifts in educational practice as a result of more accessible and capable
multimedia technologies exhibit an unmatched opportunity for visual aid integration in
the classroom. PowerPoint has reigned dominant as the most pervasive form of visuals
employed for instructional purposes. Previous PowerPoint research has largely
focused on examining the utility of the technology, not differential slide design.
Findings from this study contribute a new layer of consideration to be applied to this
slideware technology and largely documents reported perceptions that disclose how
students experience visual instructional messages. The power of PowerPoint is its
ability to facilitate visual representations in the minds of learners in a way that is
supplemental to an instructor’s lecture by reinforcing the message. An important
implication is that communication decisions in visual message construction and design
influence the degree to which students report aesthetically enjoyable learning
experiences.
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
25
REFERENCES
Alley, M., & Neeley, K. A. (2005). Discovering the power of PowerPoint: Rethinking
the design of presentation skills from a skillful user’s perspective. Proceedings
of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition. doi:10.1083.1-1`0.1083.14.
Amare, N. (2004). Technology for technology's sake: The proliferation of PowerPoint.
International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004.
Proceedings, 61-63. doi:10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375276
Amare, N. (2006). To slideware or not to slideware: Students' experiences with
Powerpoint vs. lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
36(3), 297-308.
Axtell, K., Maddux, C., & Aberasturi, S. (2008). The effect of presentation software
on classroom verbal interaction and on student retention of higher education
lecture content. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and
Learning, 4(1), 21-33. Retrieved from
http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/ijttl.html
Burke, L., & James, K. (2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An
empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness.
Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 277-296.
Chen, S., Epps, J., Ruiz, N., & Chen, F. (2011) Chen, Siyuan & Epps, Julien & Ruiz,
Natalie & Chen, Fang. (2011). Eye activity as a measure of human mental
effort in HCI. Proceeding IUI '11 Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 315-318.
10.1145/1943403.1943454.
Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university
lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39-45. doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.1.39-46
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of
Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Cohen, M.A., Horowitz, T.S., & Wolfe, J.M. (2009). Auditory recognition memory is
inferior to visual recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 106(14), 6008–6010.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811884106
Cooper, E. (2009). Overloading on slides: Cognitive load theory and Microsoft’s slide
program PowerPoint. Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
26
Education Journal, 17(2), 127-135. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/28143/.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since
1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Dake, D. (2005). Aesthetics theory. In K.L., Smith, S., Moriarty, & K. Kenney (Eds.)
Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 3-22).
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Davies, S., Higgins, K.M., & Hopkins, R. (Eds.). (2009). A companion to aesthetics.
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Diderot, D. (1752). Beautiful (P. Bonin Trans.). Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0000.609
Duarte, N. (2008). Slide:ology: The art and science of creating great presentations.
Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Depaepe, M. (2000). Order in progress: Everyday educational practice in primary
schools, Belgium, 1880 - 1970. Acco, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
Endicott, J. (2000). Growing up with PowerPoint. Presentations, 61-66. Retrieved
from https://www.indezine.com/stuff/guppt.pdf
Fritze, Y., Haugsbakk, G., & Nordkvelle, Y. (2016). Visual “Bildung” between
Iconoclasm and Idolatry. Nordicom Review, 37(2), 17-31. doi:10.1515/nor-
2016-0015
Gaskins, R. (2007). PowerPoint at 20: Back to basics. Communications of the
Association for Computing Machinery, 50(12),15-17.
doi:10.1145/1323688.1323710.
Glisser. (2017). The history of PowerPoint. London, England. Retrieved from
https://www.glisser.com/media/the-History-of-PowerPoint.pdf
International Communication Association. (2019). Divisions & Interest Groups:
Visual Communication Studies. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.icahdq.org/group/visual
Ivins, W. (1953). Prints and visual communication. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Press.
James, K. E., Burke, L.A., & Hutchins, H.M. (2006). Powerful or pointless? Faculty
versus student perceptions of PowerPoint use in business education. Business
Communication Quarterly, 69(4), 374-396. doi:10.1177/1080569906294634
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
27
Johnson, D. A., & Christensen, J. (2011). A comparison of simplified-visually rich
and traditional presentation styles. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 293-297.
doi:10.1177/0098628311421333
Levasseur, D. G., & Sawyer, J. K. (2006). Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research
review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. Review of
Communication, 6, 101- 123. doi:10.1080/15358590600763383
Maftoon, J. (1982). ITV: Are teachers using it?. T.H.E. Journal, 9(2), 45-46. Retrieved
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/169236/
Mann, S., & Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation
into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university
students. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 243-258.
doi:10.1080/01411920802042911
Medina, J. (2014). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home,
and school (2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
Müller, M. G. (2007). What is visual communication? Past and future of an emerging
subfield of communication research. Studies in Communication Sciences, 7(2).
doi:10.5169/seals-791077
Nelson, R. S. (2000). The slide lecture, or the work of art ‘history’ in the age of
mechanical reproduction. Critical Inquiry, 26(3), 414-434.
Penciner, R. (2013). Does PowerPoint enhance learning? Canadian Journal of
Emergency Medicine, 15(2), 109-112. doi: 10.2310/8000.2013.130756
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic
pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality And
Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382.
Rello, L., Baeza-Yates, R., Dempere-Marco, L., & Saggion, H. (2013, September).
Frequent words improve readability and short words improve understandability
for people with dyslexia. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
(pp. 203-219). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Reynolds, G. (2012). Presentation Zen: Simple ideas on presentation design and
delivery (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2008). Information retention from
PowerPoint and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52, 858-867.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
28
Slykhuis, N., Wiebe, E., & Annetta, D. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of
scientific visualization in two PowerPoint delivery strategies on science
learning for preservice science teachers. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 5(2), 329-348. doi:10.1007/s10763-006-9041-z
Microsoft. (2019). What’s new in PowerPoint for Office 365. Retrieved from
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/what-s-new-in-powerpoint-for-office-
365-e8ef980c-5b12-4fff-ae3f-0819e6a21a1f?ui=en-US&rs=en-
US&ad=US#Audience=Previous_Releases
Vazquez, J. & Chiang, E. (2014). A picture is worth a thousand words (at least): The
effective use of visuals in the economic classroom. International Review of
Economics Education, 17, 109-119.
Yang, F. Y., Chang, C. Y., Chien, W. R., Chien, Y. T., & Tseng, Y. H. (2013).
Tracking learners' visual attention during a multimedia presentation in a real
classroom. Computers & Education, 62, 208-220.
Yoon, D., & Narayanan, N. H. (2004, March). Mental imagery in problem solving: An
eye tracking study. In Proceedings of the 2004 symposium on Eye tracking
research & applications (pp. 77-84).
Zagermann, J., Pfeil, U., & Reiterer, H. (2016). Measuring cognitive load using eye
tracking technology in visual computing. In Proceedings of the sixth workshop
on beyond time and errors on novel evaluation methods for visualization (pp.
78-85). doi:10.1145/2993901.2993908
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
29
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLES OF SLIDE DESIGN CATEGORIES
Figure A.1. Example of document slide design
Figure A.2. Actual teleprompter slide viewed by participants
Figure A.3. Actual presentation slide viewed by participants
Texas Tech University, Meghan Parsons, May 2020
30
APPENDIX B
AESTHETIC PLEASURE IN DESIGN (APiD)
Directions: Please consider the following statements in relation to the PowerPoint.
Indicate whether or not you believe each statement applies to the PowerPoint:
Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neither Agree nor Disagree = 3; Agree = 4;
Strongly Agree = 5
Aesthetic Pleasure
_____ 1. This is a beautiful PowerPoint.
_____ 2. This is an attractive PowerPoint.
_____ 3. This PowerPoint is pleasing to see.
_____ 4. This PowerPoint is nice to see.
_____ 5. I like to look at this PowerPoint.
Typicality
_____ 1. This is a typical PowerPoint.
_____ 2. This is a good example of a PowerPoint.
_____ 3. This is representative of a PowerPoint.
_____ 4. This design is common for a PowerPoint.
_____ 5. This is a standard PowerPoint design
_____ 6. This is characteristic of a PowerPoint.
Novelty
_____ 1. This is a novel PowerPoint.
_____ 2. This PowerPoint design is original.
_____ 3. This is a new example of a PowerPoint.
_____ 4. This PowerPoint is innovative.