Business Communication Quarterly

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Learn about Basics of Communication

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burke, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by James, K. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
This version was published on September 1, 2008
Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 3, 277-296 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1080569908317151

PowerPoint-Based Lectures in Business Education: An Empirical Investigation of Student-Perceived Novelty and Effectiveness

Lisa A. Burke

University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, lisa-burke{at}utc.edu

Karen E. James

Louisiana State University-Shreveport, kjames{at}lsus.edu

The use of PowerPoint (PPT)-based lectures in business classes is prevalent, yet it remains empirically understudied in business education research. The authors investigate whether students in the contemporary business classroom view PPT as a novel stimulus and whether these perceptions of novelty are related to students' self-assessment of learning. Results indicate that the degree of novelty that undergraduate business students associate with PPT-based teaching significantly relates to their perceptions of PPT's impact on cognitive learning and classroom interaction. Students' views of PPT as a novel stimulus are also associated with their perception of specific constructive and dysfunctional classroom behaviors and attitudes. The authors discuss their findings and offer implications for instructors and researchers in business education.

Key Words: business education • stimulus novelty • learner perceptions • PowerPoint • classroom learning and interaction

References

  • Alley, M., Schreiber, M., Ramsdell, K., & Muffo, J. (2006). How the design of headlines in presentation slides affects audience retention. Technical Communication, 53, 225-234.
  • Amare, N. (in press). To slideware or not to slideware: Students' experiences with PowerPoint vs. lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication.
  • Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., & Mohundro, S. (1998, November). Rewards and liabilities of presentation software as an ancillary tool: Prison or paradise? Presentation at the National Speech Communication Association Convention, New York.
  • Austin, A.E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94-122.[CrossRef]
  • Bartsch, R.A., & Cobern, K.M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77-86.[CrossRef]
  • Berlyne, D. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Berlyne, D. (1971). Aesthics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Berlyne, D., Graw, M., Salapatek, P., & Lewis, J. (1963). Novelty, complexity, incongruity, extrinsic motivation, and GSR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 560-567.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Burke, L.A., & Moore, J.E. (2003). A perennial dilemma in OB education: Engaging the traditional student. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 37-52.
  • Cox, D., & Locander, W. (1987). Product novelty: Does it moderate the relationship between ad attitudes and brand attitudes? Journal of Advertising, 16, 39-44.
  • Daniels, L. (1999). Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10, 42-56.
  • Depue, R.A. (1996). A neurobiological framework for the structure of personality and emotion: Implications for personality disorders. In J. F. Clarkin & M. F. Lenzenweger (Eds.), Major theories of personality disorder (pp. 347-390). New York: Guilford.
  • Frey, B.A., & Birnbaum, D.J. (2002). Learners' perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Center for Instructional Development and Distance Education.
  • Guernsey, L. (2001, May 31). Learning, one bullet point at a time. New York Times, 150(51770), E1.
  • Hanft, A. (2003). More power than point. Inc., 25(8), 116.
  • Harris, S. (2004). Missing the point. Government Executive, 36(15), 1-7.
  • Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (pp. 39-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Hewitt, W.C. (1972). What one little showing can do. Journal of Advertising Research, 12, 29-30.
  • James, K., Burke, L.A., & Hutchins, H. (2006). Powerful or pointless: Faculty vs. student perceptions of PowerPoint usage in business education. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 374-396.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Jones, N.B., & Bowen, A. (2004). Sticking up for PowerPoint. District Administration, 40(5), 9-11.
  • Kashdan, T., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291-305.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 386-483). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Lynch, J.G., & Srull, T.K. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice: Concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 18-37.[CrossRef]
  • McDonald, K. (2004). Examining PowerPointlessness. Cell Biology Education, 3, 155-161.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Murphy, B. (2002). Bringing the best of the Web to psychology education. Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/bestweb.html
  • Norvig, P. (2003). PowerPoint: Shot with its own bullets. Lancet, 362, 343-345.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Nowaczyk, R.H., Santos, L.T., & Patton, C. (1998). Student perception of multimedia in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25, 367-382.
  • Prasad, V.K. (1976). Communications-effectiveness of comparative advertising: A laboratory analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 128-137.[CrossRef]
  • Quible, Z.K. (2002). Maximizing the effectiveness of electronic presentations. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 82-85.[Free Full Text]
  • Spielberger, C.D., & Starr, L.M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr., & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 221-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers and Education, 35(3), 175-187.[CrossRef]
  • Tufte, E. (2003, September). PowerPoint is evil. Wired. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
  • Tufte, E. (2005). PowerPoint does rocket science-and better techniques for reports. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001yB&topic_id=1
  • Unger, L.S., & Kernan, J.B. (1981). Leisure and the QOL construct: A review and some modest proposals. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 607-611.
  • von Restorff, H. (1933). Uber die wirkung von bereichsbildungen in spurenfeld [On the effect of range formations in the trace field]. Psychologisch Forshung, 18, 299-342.[CrossRef]
  • Wineburg, S. (2003). Power pointless. American School Board Journal, 190(11), 11-16.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burke, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by James, K. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?