|
Educators are using more multimedia teaching techniques in the classroom as lower prices and technological advances have made multimedia more affordable. As more teachers begin to use these techniques in class, it is important to study whether multimedia based teaching techniques can improve upon traditional teaching techniques. Further, it will be important to understand the changes in the teaching and learning environment that occur when multimedia is used.
A simple classroom multimedia approach is using presentation software, such as Aldus Persuasion or Microsoft PowerPoint to present visual aids in classroom lectures. The author has taught using presentation software since 1992. At the University of St Thomas in St Paul, Minnesota, the author teaches small classes that never exceed 30 students. In 1993, however, while on academic exchange at Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia, the author lectured to nearly 400 students in a 600-seat lecture theatre. While the class size was the most significant contrasting feature in these two teaching experiences, projection methods, class handouts and the educational culture of the American and Australian universities also differed and affected the learning environment.
Students at both universities were surveyed to explore whether the contrasting features of the two classroom settings affected student perceptions about the effectiveness of presentation software and its impact upon classroom learning. The experiences in two countries, with two class sizes, observing the similar methods has made it possible to draw some interesting comparisons between the learning experiences of the Australian and American students. This paper will discuss the similarities and differences in student reactions and suggest techniques for teaching most effectively with presentation software.
In spring semester 1995, the author taught "Business Law," a course covering the law of torts, contracts and sale of goods to two classes of 20 and 30 students, respectively. Virtually all lecture materials in the course were prepared using Aldus Persuasion presentation software and were presented using an Apple Macintosh personal computer. The classroom presentations were displayed on a 30-inch television monitor and a 27-inch monitor mounted in the classroom.
Curtin University of Technology is a public university in Perth, Western Australia with approximately 20,000 students enrolled. About 5,000 undergraduates major in commerce in the Curtin Business School. At Curtin, commerce students usually take the contract law unit in their second semester at university. The contract law units are taught in large lecture theatres for two contact hours per week, and for one contact hour per week the units meet in tutorials not exceeding twenty students. The large groups make interaction between teachers and students difficult in lecture, but there is a high degree of interaction in the tutorials. The tutorials are often taught by persons other than the large group lecturer.
In second semester of 1993, the author co-lectured in a business law unit on the law of contract with Mr Bill Willesee. 397 students were enrolled in the unit, which was taught in a 600 seat lecture theatre. The author gave one lecture on Tuesdays and Mr Willesee gave the other lecture on Thursdays. The students were exposed to two different lecture styles and two different ways of employing presentation software in the classroom. Virtually all visual aids used by both lecturers were prepared using Microsoft PowerPoint software and presented an Apple Macintosh computer and were displayed by a ceiling mounted Barco video projector. The image displayed measured ten feet by fifteen feet. Presentation software was not used in the tutorials.
The St Thomas courses were taught with one additional difference in teaching method. Students were given handouts to accompany the visual aids used in class. The handouts were a copy of the presentation outline (ie. text only, not miniature replicas of the screens). Blanks were inserted in the outline to replace key words so that students would have to do some note taking on their own. In the Curtin classes, the students were given no handouts and were required to handle their own note taking.
Both the Curtin and St Thomas students were given identical surveys. The surveys contained nine questions about various aspects of their learning and instructor performance, three questions comparing presentation software to other lecture methods and five questions about how the method was used to teach business law concepts. Students rated their response on a scale of 1 to 5 (See Table 1). Three open ended questions asked students for written comments about the greatest strengths, greatest weaknesses, and the most effective and ineffective uses of presentation software in class (See Table 2).
Admittedly, there were many differences between the Curtin and St Thomas classes such as the subjects taught, the class size, the lecturers involved and other factors. Thus it was impossible to isolate the use of presentation software as the sole cause for the student responses in the surveys. These surveys cannot be used as quantitative proof for a hypothesis that students learn more or learn better. Nevertheless, similarities and differences in the student responses can provide qualitative insight into the impact of using presentation software in class.
The Curtin students commented that the ability to effectively use both colour and pictures and graphics also were important strengths of presentation software. This response is supported by educational research showing that colour is an effective method for gaining and sustaining attention (Dwyer, 1978; Berry 1991). Coloured learning materials are perceived as being better, more interesting and more active than those materials presented in black and white (Katzman and Nyenhuis, 1972). Further, learners prefer to receive and interact with presentations in colour rather than black and white (Dwyer, 1978).
In their written comments, the St Thomas students also said the ability of presentation software to generate interest and attention were the key strengths, but for different reasons. The St Thomas students' comments did not mention the use of colour or graphics as a factor in assessing the presentation software visual aids. This difference from their Australian counterparts is probably attributable to the highly visual presentation style developed by my co-lecturer at Curtin, Bill Willesee. Mr Willesee's lecture materials incorporated a large amount of clip art, animation, and dramatic use of colour, which clearly made an impact on the Curtin students. The author's lecture materials both at Curtin and St Thomas were primarily text based with few graphics and "standard" backgrounds that did not provoke a strong reaction. Further, the St Thomas students, who had the benefit of handouts, also frequently commented that the handouts allowed them to take time to pay attention and listen better to the lecture without focusing so much on note taking. Another main comment related to interest was that the instructor was able to move through the material more efficiently with less wasted time.
One curious result is that the Curtin students reported a stronger perception that their participation level in the class had increased. (3.62 vs. 3.39). This is a mystery because the size of the lecture hall permitted very little participative discourse between the lecturer and the students. Further, the author noticed very little difference in the level of participation between the subject class and a first semester contract law unit taught by Mr Willesee using overhead transparencies. This perception by the Curtin students is difficult to explain.
Three questions dealt with presentation software's impact upon various aspects of the students' learning. The Curtin and St Thomas students reported virtually the same results. Both groups thought the presentation software had a moderate positive impact on their ability to recall course material or concepts, and a moderate positive impact upon the amount they learned in class. The St Thomas students reported a stronger impact on the ability to recall course material, but the Curtin students reported a slightly higher impact on how much they learned in class. Both groups of students reported that the teaching method had only a slight impact in easing the level of difficulty in understanding the course material (3.32 and 3.3).
Second, students were asked about the impact of the presentation software on their perceptions of the instructors' performance. Curtin and St Thomas students both reported a strong positive affect on their perception of the instructor's preparedness for lecture, and a strong, but lesser impact upon their perceptions of the instructor's knowledge of the material. In this area, the St Thomas students found a slightly stronger impact (preparation: 4.65 vs. 4.52; knowledge: 4.09 vs. 3.94). However, in assessing their perceptions of the instructor's overall performance, the St Thomas and Curtin students were virtually equal in reporting a fairly strong positive impact. (4.33 v. 4.35).
Third, in the next part of the survey, students compared use of presentation software with other commonly used lecture methods. Both groups agreed that the presentation software had a strong positive impact upon the class compared to lecture without visual aids (Curtin 4.44, UST 4.59). However, when comparing lectures using presentation software with lectures supported by use of a white board/blackboard or overhead transparencies, the Curtin students perceived a substantial advantage not observed by their American counterparts. Undoubtedly, this response is attributable to the great difference in classroom sizes. The Curtin lecture theatre held nearly 20 times more students than the St Thomas classroom. Yet, instructors often fail to adjust their handwriting size or legibility to correspond to the great distances from which students view the board. Likewise, instructors using overhead projectors in large theatres often use the same visual aids as in smaller classes, or fail to adjust the font size of the transparencies to provide greater readability.
The Curtin students' written comments reflect that this is a significant advantage of using presentation software in large lecture theatres. The improved clarity and visibility of the visual aids was identified as one of the greatest benefits of using presentation software. (50 responses). Other frequent comments were that the presentation software visual aids were easy to read, easy to understand, and made note taking easier ( 38 27 and 11 responses, respectively). Also noteworthy is that 17 Curtin students made the specific comment that presentation software visual aids were an improvement compared to overhead transparencies and 10 specifically commented that they were an improvement over handwritten visual aids
The last section of the survey asked students to rate presentation software's effectiveness for certain teaching tasks in business law. The author believes differences between Curtin and St Thomas students reflect how the presentation software was used in class rather than the features of the technique itself. For example, Curtin students found the presentation software extremely effective for discussing cases when compared to their St Thomas counterparts (4.1 vs. 2.8) However, the contract law unit at Curtin used a textbook and a teaching approach which was much more case oriented than the business law course taught at St Thomas. As a result, both the author and Mr. Willesee discussed cases in great detail at Curtin. In contrast, in the author's St Thomas course the cases were discussed interactively with students in class rather than using a pre-prepared "presentation" of the case. The cases were given little emphasis in the presentation software materials, which may explain the St Thomas students' low rating.
Overall very few students reported a negative impact in any category. In only two instances did more than 10 percent of students report a negative impact. (The St Thomas students reported a negative effect for teaching legal relationships and discussing cases, 13.1 percent and 45.6 percent, respectively). It's noteworthy that when asked to identify weaknesses of the visual aids, the most common response of St Thomas students was "none" or leaving the comment blank (3 none six blank responses) and the second most common response of Curtin students (23 "none", 33 blank responses).
Undoubtedly the impact of this teaching method upon students' level of interest and attention in the course was an important factor in this positive assessment. More than 90% of all of the Curtin students and more than 84 % of the St Thomas students reported a positive effect on their interest and attention in class resulting from the teaching method.
The surveys also strongly suggested that students prefer use of presentation software over other lecture styles. In particular, the differences between the Curtin and St Thomas students made clear the weaknesses of using overhead transparencies in large lecture theatres. It is a well known principle that using bad visual aids are even worse than no visual aids at all. However, use of ineffective overhead transparencies persists in large lecture classes. Although the lecturer could design overhead transparencies using large font sizes and limiting the amount of information presented on each transparency, this would require the lecturer to continually interrupt the lecture to handle, and mishandle, the overheads.
One advantage of presentation software visual aids over transparencies is the efficiency and ease of handling the visual aids in class. Presentation software visuals can be advanced simply by clicking the mouse and can be immediately accessed with a couple of key strokes without interrupting the lecture. This allows the lecturer to use colour, font size, graphics and other affects to emphasise the desired message for each screen. There is no drawback to having only a few ideas on a screen, large font sizes and a large number of screens because they are so easily accessed in class. The large number of Curtin student comments about visibility and readability demonstrate the importance of this benefit of presentation software.
Presentation software's ability to utilise colour can be one of its great strengths or its great weakness depending on usage. In their comments, the Curtin students identified poor colour combinations that made visual aids difficult to read as the greatest weakness of the teaching method (91 responses) and also the most ineffective usage of presentation software (25 responses). These responses are largely attributable to some experimentation with colour conducted by my co-lecturer, Bill Willesee. As a first time presentation software user Mr Willesee tried a number of different text and background colour combinations, some of which succeeded and some which did not. Conversely, Mr Willesee's efforts to incorporate a highly visual style also drew praise from the Curtin students who said the visual aids effectively used colour (24 responses) and pictures and graphics (24 responses). When the Curtin students commented on usage of the presentation software which was especially effective the top two responses were the use of pictures and graphics (32 responses) and colour (11 responses).
In contrast the St Thomas student comments made no mention of the use of colour or pictures and graphics whatsoever. The author's visual aids used for the St Thomas course were almost entirely text based, and used basic, "tried and true" text and background combinations. The author avoided some of the problems that can result from poor colour choices, but unfortunately the author probably did not capitalise fully on the ability of presentation to create interest and attention through using colour.
The students' satisfaction with this improved learning environment also translates into positive perceptions of instructor performance. Over 70 percent of Curtin and St Thomas students reported a positive effect on their perception of the instructor's knowledge of the subject. More than 90 percent of students at both institutions noticed a positive effect on their perception of the instructor's preparedness for class. A positive impact on perceptions of the instructor's overall effectiveness was observed by 82.6 percent of St Thomas students and 92.9 percent of Curtin students. These findings = supported by an earlier study by the author at St Thomas. That study compared the results of standard course evaluations for business law classes both before and after incorporating presentation software. After presentation software was used, the study found statistically significant improvements in 12 of 18 categories measured by the evaluation (Kunkel 1995*).
The St Thomas students' comments indicate that using handout copies of the presentation outline is a helpful learning tool to use in conjunction with presentation software. They said the handouts gave them more time to listen and reflect on the professors comments instead of focusing on note taking. They also said that the class could move along more quickly and efficiently with less wasted time. This efficiency is a considerable benefit of presentation software as opposed to continually handling overhead transparencies or turning one's back on the class to take time to write on the board.
However, this benefit cannot be realised if the lecturer has to wait for students to copy down the content of the visual aids. The Curtin students reported that one of the weaknesses or ineffective uses of presentation software was that the lecturer could move too quickly through the material, not allowing them adequate time to take notes. The use of the handouts can reduce this problem. In a 1992 study by the author, the lecture handouts were identified as the single greatest strength of the teaching method by students in another business law class (Kunkel 1993). However, even with handouts, the St Thomas students' most commonly cited weakness was that the instructor lectured too fast.
The use of handouts is not without related problems, however. Some students commented that the handouts caused them to pay more attention to filling in the blanks rather than paying attention to the instructor. Others commented that they learned better by taking their own notes. Finally, in small classes such as those at St Thomas, an over reliance on the use of presentation software can detract from other teaching methods that students prefer. St Thomas students commented that one weakness of the method was that they focused on watching the screen rather than paying attention to the instructor. This over reliance can negate any advantage of increased interest and attention that presentation software can achieve. In the author's 1992 study, in which presentation software was used extensively in a small class, over half of the students felt the method reduced their attention in class. Students felt that the presentation interfered with the customary personal interaction between the student and instructor in small classes that is expected at St Thomas (Kunkel 1993). In small classes where a number of effective teaching techniques are possible, presentation software should be used only for the teaching tasks for which it is most effective, and other effective methods should be continued.
It is tempting when reviewing the positive assessment of presentation software use in class to conclude that because the students had a positive learning experience that they also learned more, but research show little connection between attitudes toward instructional media and instructional value (Dwyer, 1978). This study was not designed to attempted to measure the effect of presentation software on students learning. However, research by other educators who have used multimedia presentations in class have found no improvement in student performance (Karpoff, 1993 Casanova and Casanova, 1991; and Janda 1992). These studies have suggested that using presentation software in class conveys a different set of priorities in studying the course materials that may or may not be reflected by traditional methods of evaluation (Casanova and Casanova, 1991; Karpoff et al, 1993). Janda notes that new strategies are required to measure whether multimedia techniques produce other forms of learning not reflected in traditional assessment (Janda 1992).
Casanova, J. & Casanova, S. L. (1991). Computer as electronic blackboard: remodelling the organic chemistry lecture. Educom Review, 26, 31; 38.
Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State College: Learning Services.
Fifield, S. & Peifer, R. (1994). Enhancing lecture presentations in introductory biology with computer based multimedia. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 235-239.
Janda, K. (1992). Multimedia in political science: sobering lessons from a teaching experiment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(3), 341-54.
Katzman, N. & Nyenhuis, J. (1972). Color vs. black and white effects on learning, opinion, and attention. A V Communication Review, 20: 16, 18.
Karpoff, A. J. & Rude-Parkins, C. (1993). Using multimedia with large lecture sections: Does it work? Promises and challenges. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Multimedia in Education and Industry (2nd, Savannah, Georgia, July 29-3 1) 119-122.
Kunkel, R. (1993). The personal computer as a business law teaching tool. Australian Educational Computing, 139-148.
Kunkel, R. (1995*). Using presentation software to teach business law. Journal of Legal Studies Education. (article conditionally accepted for publication).
Pearson, M., Folske, J., Paulson, D. & Burggraf, C. (1994). The relationship between student perceptions of the multimedia classroom and student learning styles. Presented at the Eastern Communication Association Conference. Washington, DC.
| Question: What effect of teaching method upon: | 1 - Major Negative Effect | 2 - Minor Negative Effect | 3 - No Effect | 4 - Minor Positive Effect | 5 - Major Positive Effect | AVERAGE | ||||||
| St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | |
| Level of interest | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 13.0 | 2.4 | 47.8 | 37.6 | 37.0 | 58.6 | 4.20 | 4.70 |
| Level of attention | 2.2 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 10.9 | 4.3 | 47.8 | 41.2 | 37.0 | 52.6 | 4.15 | 4.44 |
| Level of participation | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 67.4 | 47.6 | 19.6 | 41.0 | 10.9 | 11.0 | 3.39 | 3.62 |
| Recall and retain | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 23.9 | 26.2 | 54.3 | 57.6 | 19.6 | 14.8 | 3.91 | 3.85 |
| Instructor knowledge | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 17.4 | 24.6 | 50.0 | 49.3 | 30.4 | 23.7 | 4.09 | 3.94 |
| Instructor prepared | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 7.1 | 23.9 | 27.5 | 71.7 | 63.5 | 4.65 | 4.52 |
| Overall effectiveness | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.2 | 6.6 | 28.3 | 49.8 | 54.3 | 43.1 | 4.33 | 4.35 |
| Amount learned | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 21.7 | 20.9 | 58.7 | 57.8 | 17.4 | 19.9 | 3.91 | 3.96 |
| Difficulty of material | 2.2 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 71.7 | 49.5 | 17.4 | 35.2 | 8.7 | 5.7 | 3.30 | 3.32 |
| Teaching method compared to: | 1 - Much less effective | 2 | 3 - About the same | 4 | 5 - Much more effective | AVERAGE | ||||||
| St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | |
| Lecture alone | 0.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 4.3 | 10.2 | 26.1 | 17.0 | 67.4 | 68.0 | 4.59 | 4.44 |
| Lecture and white board | 2.2 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 15.2 | 7.3 | 54.3 | 19.4 | 23.9 | 69.9 | 3.93 | 4.54 |
| Lecture and overheads | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 30.4 | 8.7 | 32.6 | 39.3 | 32.6 | 49.0 | 3.93 | 4.33 |
| Teaching method used to teach: | 1 - Much less effective | 2 | 3 - About the same | 4 | 5 - Much more effective | AVERAGE | ||||||
| St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | St Thom. % | Curtin % | |
| Terms | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 2.9 | 13.0 | 35.9 | 45.7 | 47.4 | 34.8 | 13.9 | 4.09 | 3.72 |
| Rules | 0.0 | 0.5 | 8.7 | 3.3 | 30.4 | 34.8 | 43.5 | 47.6 | 17.4 | 13.8 | 3.70 | 3.71 |
| Relationships | 2.2 | 0.0 | 10.9 | 3.8 | 32.6 | 30.3 | 41.3 | 51.0 | 13.0 | 14.9 | 3.52 | 3.77 |
| Liability | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.7 | 4.8 | 23.9 | 38.0 | 50.0 | 48.6 | 17.4 | 8.7 | 3.76 | 3.61 |
| Cases | 6.5 | 0.5 | 39.1 | 5.3 | 30.4 | 16.8 | 15.2 | 38.5 | 8.7 | 38.9 | 2.80 | 4.10 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Question: "Please comment on any aspects of the instructors use of these visual aids which was especially effective or ineffective:" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author: Assistant Professor Richard G. Kunkel Department of Entrepreneurship and Business Law University of St Thomas Mail No: MCN 6015 2115 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 USA Telephone (612) 962 5132 Fax (612) 962 5093 Email: rgkunkel@stthomas.edu Please cite as: Kunkel, R. G. (1996). Two countries, two class sizes, one teaching method. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (Eds), Proceedings of the Third International Interactive Multimedia Symposium, 213-220. Perth, Western Australia, 21-25 January. Promaco Conventions. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/iims/1996/ek/kunkel.html |