You are here:

What Are You Looking At? An Investigation Into the Relationship of Text, Graphics, and Audio of a PowerPoint Presentation, Student Eye Movements and Science Learning
PROCEEDINGS

, North Carolina State University, United States ; , James Madison University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Phoenix, AZ, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-55-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to use eye-tracking technology to explore the relationship of text and graphic combinations displayed in a PowerPoint presentation. The effect of an audio narration was also explored. A taxonomy of graphic/text relations was applied to slides in a presentation on the differentiation in the Galapagos Islands. Fifteen undergraduate students were eye-tracked in a university laboratory to determine their gaze points and subsequent point of interest. Results indicate that students paid greater attention to graphics with high relevance to the text, with and without added narration. Results also indicated that during the first five seconds that a student viewed a slide the relevance of the graphic to the text was influential as to how eye gaze was distributed between the two. In cases where the graphic was largely ornamental, this tended to be the text.

Citation

Annetta, L. & Slykhuis, D. (2005). What Are You Looking At? An Investigation Into the Relationship of Text, Graphics, and Audio of a PowerPoint Presentation, Student Eye Movements and Science Learning. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3620-3623). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 2, 2023 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Carrell, L.J., & Menzel, K.E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education, 50(3), 230-240.
  2. Chapman, B. (2003). Product shootout: PowerPoint to e-learning. Training, 40(3).
  3. Kozma, R.B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 949-968.
  4. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Scanlon, E. (1998). How beginning students use graphs of motion. In van Someren, M.W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H.P.A., & De Jong, T. (Ed.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 67-86). Oxford: Elsevier.
  6. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237.
  7. Stark, L.W., & Ellis, S.R. (1981). Scanpaths revisited: cognitive models direct active looking. In D.F. Fisher, et al. (Eds.), Eye movements: cognition and visual perception (pp. 193-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Tufte, E.R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press LLC.
  9. Vine, R. (2002). Cyberpulse: Presentation tips for the conference and classroom. Bibliotheca Medica Canadiana, 23(4), 157-158.
  10. Wickens, C.D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). Champaign-Urbana, IL: Harper Collins.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections