Abstract
PowerPoint knowledge presentation as a digital genre has established itself as the main software by which the findings of theses are disseminated in the academic settings. Although the importance of PowerPoint presentations is typically realized in academic settings like lectures, conferences, and seminars, the study of the visual features of presentations has received little attention. The current study scrutinizes the visualization processes applied in the PowerPoint defense session presentations prepared by Iranian Master of Arts students majoring in Applied Linguistics. The study aims at describing the semiotic purposes of the PowerPoint presentations by categorizing the utilized visuals within the presentations according to their communicative purposes. To this end, the study analyzes 70 PowerPoint defense session presentations in Applied Linguistics given at various universities across Iran. For analytic purposes, the study draws on the typology of visuals introduced by Rowley-Jolivet for classifying the types of visuals. The results of visual analysis mirrors the fact that PowerPoint defense session presentations in Applied Linguistics visualized themselves more by scriptural visuals to their members of discourse community. The findings, moreover, demand a framework of presentations in Applied Linguistics for more norm-compatible presentations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Arditi, A., & Cho, J. (2005). Serifs and font legibility. Vision Research, 45, 2926–2933.
Bateman, J. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1994). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brumberger, E. (2005). Visual rhetoric in the curriculum: Pedagogy for a multimodal workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 68(3), 317–333.
Danesi, M. (2004). Messages, signs, and meanings: A basic textbook in semiotics and communication theory (3 ed.). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Forceville, C. (2003). Pictorial metaphor in advertising . New York: Routledge.
Gooding, D. (2004). Visualisation, inference and explanation in the sciences. In G. Malcolm, Multidisciplinary approaches to visual representation and interpretations (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.
Interrante, V. (2005). Art and science in visualization. In C. Hanson, & C. Johnson (Eds.), The visualization handbook (pp. 781–805). Burlington: Elsevier Inc.
Jamieson, H. (2007). Visual communication. More than meets the eye. Bristol: Intellect Books.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Kumpf, E. (2008). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Commuincation Quarterly, 9(4), 401–424.
Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 79–88.
Parette, H.P., Hourcade, J., & Blum, C. (2011). Using animation in Microsoft PowerPoint to enhance engagement and learning in young learners with developmental delay. Technology for Teaching and Learning, 4, 58–67.
Pugsley, L. (2010). Design an effective PowerPoint presentation. Education for Primary Care, 21, 51–53.
Ramirez, C., & Valdes, B. (2012). A general knowledge representation model of concepts. In C. R. Gutierrez (Ed.), Advances in knowledge representation (pp. 43–76). Rijeka: InTech.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2000). Image as text. Aspects of the shared visual language of scientific conference participants. ASp, 27–30, 133–154. doi:10.4000/asp.2093
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2004). Different visions, different vsuals: A social semiotic analysis of field specific analysis of fields pecific visual composition in scientific conference presentations. Visual Communication, 3(2), 145–175.
Smiciklas, M. (2012). The power of infographics. Indiana: Pearson Education, INC.
Sweller, J., Kalyuga, S., & Ayres, P. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1995). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 394–409.
van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kmalvand, A. Visual Communication in PowerPoint Presentations in Applied Linguistics. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 59, 41–45 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0903-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0903-5