Abstract
Slideware applications (e.g., PowerPoint) have become more prevalent in instruction across disciplines. This is especially true at post secondary institutions where many instructors are using slideware as a sole instructional tool. This study evaluated the relative effectiveness of scientific visualization in two PowerPoint delivery strategies on science learning for preservice teachers. Twenty-five preservice teachers enrolled in an undergraduate introduction to science education class were stratified into two PowerPoint delivery strategies. The strategies were: PowerPoint with instructor voiceover narration and PowerPoint without voiceover. Post-test Mann-Whitney U suggested no differences (p > 0.05) in science learning across the two strategies. Further, eye tracking analysis suggests voiceover guides the PowerPoint user to graphics and text, but voiceover does not significantly affect learning. Results suggest immediacy with technology doesn't necessarily produce meaningful learning. Good teaching still is the key component of meaningful learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A. (1999). Human memory. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bailey, C. & Chambers, J. (1996). Interactive learning and technology in the US science and mathematics reform movement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 123–133.
Baker, D.R. & Piburn, M.D. (1997). Constructing science in middle and secondary school classrooms. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th edn.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning (Vol. 8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, S. (2003). Process vs. science content knowledge of middle school students constructing contour maps: A spatial, inquiry-based task. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
CEO Forum (2000). The power of digital learning: Integrating digital content (year three report). Washington, D.C.
Chapman, B. (2003). Product shootout: PowerPoint to e-learning. Training, 40(5), 40–43.
Cheek, D. (1992). Thinking constructively about science, technology, and society education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Clark, J.M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 71, 64–73.
Clark, J., Cordero, F., Cottrill, J., Czarnocha, B., DeVries, D.J., St. John, D., et al. (1997). Constructing a schema: The case of the chain rule. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(4), 345–364.
Duffy, T.M. & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.
Frey, B.A. & Birnbaum, D.J. (2002). Learners' perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. Springfield, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 467192.
Friedman, J.S. & diSessa, A.A. (1999). What students should know about technology: The case of scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(3), 175–195.
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper & Row.
Jonassen, D.H. & McAleese, T.M.R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology in higher education. In T. Duffy, D.H. Jonassen & J. Lowyck (Eds.), Designing environments for constructivist learning (pp. 231–247). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351–371.
Leron, U. & Hazzan, O. (1998). Computers and applied constructivism. In D. Tinsley & D.C. Johnson (Eds.), Information and communications technologies in school mathematics (pp. 195–203). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.
Lunenburg, F.C. (1998). Constructivism and technology: Instructional designs for successful education reform. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 2, 75–81.
MacEachren, A.M. & Kraak, M.-J. (2001). Research challenges in geovisualization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28(1), 3–12.
Mayer, R.E. & Gallini, J.K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.
Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.
Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
Murray, C. (2003). Study reveals shift in digital divide for students. eSchool News online, 20 March 2003.
Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227–233.
Paivio, A. (1983). The empirical case for dual coding. In J.C. Yulle (Ed.), Imagery, memory and cognition (pp. 307–332). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation. Educational Technology Review, 12, 13–16.
Petersen, R. (2003). “Real world” connections through videoconferencing – We're closer than you think! TechTrends, 44(6), 5–11.
Phye, G.D. (1997). Learning and remembering: The basis for personal knowledge construction. In G.D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 47–64). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ritchie, S.M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32, 35–54.
Schneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (3rd edn.). Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.
Shaw, G., Brown, R. & Bromiley, P. (1998). Strategic stories: How 3M is rewriting business planning. Harvard Business Review, 76, 42–44.
Shymansky, J.A. (1992). Using constructivist ideas to teach science teachers about constructivist ideas, or teachers are student too! Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(2), 53–57.
Siegele, L. (2001). The beast of complexity. The Economist. 14 April 2001.
Sweller, J. (1990). On the limited evidence for the effectiveness of teaching general problem-solving strategies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(5), 411–415.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.
Tinker, R.F. & Thornton, R.K. (1992). Constructing student knowledge in science. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 153–170). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Tufte, E.R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E.R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Wickens, C.D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd edn.). Champaign-Urbana, IL: Harper Collins.
Zemsky, R. & Massey, W.F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, B6, 9 July 2004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wiebe, E.N., Slykhuis, D.A. & Annetta, L.A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Scientific Visualization In Two PowerPoint Delivery Strategies on Science Learning for Preservice Science Teachers. Int J Sci Math Educ 5, 329–348 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9041-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9041-z