Teaching in higher education often involves giving a lecture that is accompanied by PowerPoint slides. It is common practice for slides to adhere closely to PowerPoint's defaults, but these and other similar designs violate principles of multimedia learning. In this article, the psychological theories that apply to slide comprehension processes are described, with an explanation as to how ‘common-practice’ slides do not incorporate recommendations that arise from them. The authors identify ways in which an alternative structure, called the Assertion-Evidence (A-E) slide structure, better embodies these principles. They present introductory steps for instructors who are interested in redesigning their slides. Figures are used to illustrate both common-practice and A-E slide structures.
References
1.
AlleyM., & NeeleyK. (2005). Rethinking the design of presentation slides: A case for sentence headlines and visual evidence. Technical Communication, 52, 417–426.
ChiM. T. H.GlaserR., & FarrM. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
FarrimondS.KnightR. G., & TitovN. (2006). The effects of aging on a prospective remembering task using naturalistic stimuli. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 533–555. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1002/acp.1202
5.
GarnerJ. K., & AlleyM. (2010, June). Rethinking PowerPoint slide design in the psychology classroom: Learners' needs should come first. Paper presented at Psychology Learning and Teaching 2010 (PLAT2010), Edinburgh, Scotland.
6.
GarnerJ. K.AlleyM.GaudelliA. F., & ZappeS. E. (2009). Common use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence structure: A cognitive psychology perspective. Technical Communication, 56, 331–345.
7.
GarnerR.AlexanderP. A.GillinghamM. G.KulikovichJ. M., & BrownR. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643–659.
8.
GomesL. (2007). PowerPoint turns 20, as its creators ponder a dark side to success. Wall Street Journal, 20, p. B1.
9.
HarpS. F., & MayerR. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92
HidiS., & BairdW. (1986). Interestingness – A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179–194.
12.
LevinJ. R., & MayerR. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In BrittonB. K.WoodwardA., & BrinkleyM. (Eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
MatlinM. (2009). Cognition (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
MayerR. E. (2005a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
MayerR. E. (2005b). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
MayerR. E., & JacksonJ. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 13–18. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/1076-898X.11.1.13
NeeleyK. A.AlleyM.NicometoC. G., & SrajekL. C. (2009). Challenging the common practice of PowerPoint at an institution: Lessons from instructors. Technical Communication, 56, 346–360.
23.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
StullA., & MayerR. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808
25.
SwellerJ. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
TufteE. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
