June 26, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 29, 2011
Liberal Education/Engineering & Society
22.229.1 - 22.229.23
Common-Practice Slides Lead to Better Short-Term Recall of Simple Statistics, but Assertion-Evidence Slides Lead to Better Long-Term Recall of Key IdeasPresentation slides in engineering and science are strongly influenced by MicrosoftPowerPoint’s defaults. For instance, Garner et al. found that about 40% of slides have atopic phrase headline supported solely by a bulleted list, and another 25% of slides have atopic phrase headline supported by a bulleted list and a graphic.1 Extrapolating wouldgive that about two-thirds of slides projected in science and engineering follow a topic-subtopic structure. Because slides are used so often by engineering educators tocommunicate research, to teach students, and to have students demonstrate what theyhave learned, the question arises how effective this common practice for presentationslides is and whether using a different structure makes a difference. This paper comparesstudents’ learning from a topic-subtopic presentation versus students’ learning from apresentation that follows the assertion-evidence slide structure, which theoreticallyshould be more effective both from a communication perspective2 and from a cognitivepsychology perspective.1 In the assertion-evidence structure, the heading is a succinctsentence assertion and the body of the slide supports that heading with visual evidence.2 In the experiment, 55 students viewed the topic-subtopic slides and 58 otherstudents viewed the assertion-evidence slides. The presentation, which took 6 minutes toview, explained the process of magnetic resonance imaging. Both sets of students weretested immediately after the presentation and then again about one week later. Whatdistinguishes this experiment from earlier tests of topic-subtopic slides versus assertion-evidence slides was that the script and the visual evidence for both presentations arosefrom a talk originally developed with assertion-evidence approach. In the past, the testoccurred with a talk that was originally developed with the topic-subtopic approach. Results from the test given immediately after the presentations revealed thatstudents viewing the common practice slides were more likely than students who viewedthe assertion evidence slides to recall simple statistics, such as the number of breastcancer diagnoses in 2009 (λ = 46.8, p < 0.000, df = 1). These statistics were spoken andappeared in bulleted lists on the common-practice slides, but were simply spoken in theassertion-evidence presentation. However, results from the test given one week laterrevealed that students viewing the assertion-evidence slides better remembered (λ = 63.4,p = 0.011, df = 1) key ideas such as steps in the process of magnetic resonance imaging—for example, what occurs at the atomic level in the patient’s body when the transceiveremits radio waves, and what happens when those waves are turned off. A question arises whether the common-practice learners benefitted from the scriptand the visual evidence, both of which arose from an assertion-evidence approach.Ultimately, the goal for these types of experiments is to test, in a controlled manner, howdeeply learning would occur from a presentation originally created with the common-practice approach versus the learning that would occur from a presentation originallycreated with the assertion-evidence approach.References1. Joanna Garner, Michael Alley, Allen Gaudelli, and Sarah Zappe. 2009. Common Use of PowerPoint versus Assertion-Evidence Slide Structure: a Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Technical Communication, 56 (4), 331−345.2. Michael Alley and Katherine A. Neeley (2005). Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides: A Case for Sentence Headlines and Visual Evidence. Technical Communication, 52 (4), 417-426.
Garner, J. K., & Alley, M., & Wolfe, K. L., & Zappe, S. E., & Sawarynski, L. E. (2011, June), Assertion-Evidence Slides Appear to Lead to Better Comprehension and Recall of More Complex Concepts Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--17510
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2011 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015