Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Presentation Software: Strong Medicine or Tasty Placebo?

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., Mohundro, S., & Sayre, W. (1998, November). Rewards and liabilities of presentation software as an ancillary tool: Prison or paradise? Paper presented at the National Communication Association Eighty-Fourth Annual Convention, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R., & Cobern, K. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, A. (1998). Measuring the learning cost of presentation interference. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (pp. 55–74). St. Louis, MI: Research and Theory Division of AECT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use (Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #1). Irvine, CA: University of California and University of Minnesota, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B., & Birnbaum, D. (2002). Learner’s perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilden, D. (1998, March). Hidden uses of presentation software—The ideal tool for making customized materials for special needs students and clients. Paper presented at the California State University—Northridge Conference, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2004). Missing the point. Government Executive, 15, 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herron, J., Luce, T., & Neie, V. (1976). The proper experimental unit: Comparative analyses of empirical data. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M., & Kozma, R. (2000).Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2004). PowerPoint pointers from teachers and librarians who learned the hard way. Library Media Connection, 22, 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, B. (1999). Effective use of audio media in multimedia presentations. (Report No. 019 734). Murfreesboro, TN: Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED436121).

    Google Scholar 

  • Longo, P. (2001, March). What happens to student learning when colour is added to a new knowledge representation strategy? Implications from visual thinking networking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association-National Association for Research in Science Teaching Session, St. Louis, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures—Effect on student learning. University Chemistry Education, 3, 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, K. (2001). PowerPoint… Why I assign it and why you should too! Book Report, 19, 47, 87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poohkey, B., & Szabo, M. (1995, February). Effects of animation & visuals on learning high school mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quible, Z. (2002). Maximizing the effectiveness of electronic presentations. Business Communication Quarterly, 65, 82–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, E., & Hoaas, D. (2001). The use of PowerPoint and student performance. Atlantic Economic Journal, 29, 113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, V., & Paivio, A. (1994). Memory for pictures and sounds: Independence of auditory and visual codes. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CN: Graphics Press LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, A. (2003). PowerPoint of no return. Canadian Business, 76, 131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Rudolf Kraus

Authors
  1. Rudolf Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article was accepted by Dr. Derek Hodson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kraus, R. Presentation Software: Strong Medicine or Tasty Placebo?. Can J Sci Math Techn 8, 70–81 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802152350

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802152350

Search

Navigation