1. The impact of static versus interactive presentations on student achievement:
PowerPoint versus VoiceThread in an online US history course
Group Research Proposal
May 27, 2010
EDET 780
Maymester 2010
Lori Gwinn
Michele Kelly
Justin McCreary
Catherine Murphy
1

2. Introduction
In the contemporary college classroom, many faculty members are looking for ways to
incorporate technology into their courses. One of the most common uses involves PowerPoint
presentations. When done well, information presented using this software can be both
stimulating and useful. Because PowerPoint is so easily accessible and easy to use, it is
beginning to enjoy paradigmatic stature in college classrooms where students come to expect a
bulleted version of a lecturer’s lesson. Many educators argue that PowerPoint has become too
mainstream causing students to have less interaction and less meaningful engagement with the
material presented. This is perhaps even more problematic for online courses where PowerPoint
is used to present the same material to all participants. Without the benefit of face-to-face
communication that traditional classrooms use to supplement a PowerPoint presentation,
instructors who use PowerPoint as the primary delivery mode in online courses run the risk of
decreasing student satisfaction, student motivation, and student achievement.
New technology is being created increasingly more often for various purposes, including
education. Web 2.0 tools vary in capacities, breadth, depth, and price. Many Web 2.0 tools are
marked by the ability to promote interaction, and this engagement is especially important for the
online classrooms. The researchers for this study will use VoiceThread to test how interactive
courseware impacts student satisfaction, student motivation, and student achievement.
VoiceThread is a multimedia slide show that can display images, documents, and videos.
Unlike PowerPoint, Voicethread encourages learners to engage with their classmates through a
constant thread of commentary by leaving written or recorded remarks. To test which one may
have a greater advantage in the classroom, the same instructor will teach two sections of the
same US History course completely online using the same materials, same textbook, and the
2

3. same examinations. One section will deliver information using PowerPoint, while the second
section will present the same information using Voicethread. The literature and reflections on
professional experiences lead the researchers to question whether or not collaborative
instructional tools will lead to increases in student satisfaction, motivation, and achievement.
Figure 1. Screenshot of VoiceThread. This picture shows an example of the multimedia dimensions of this
platform
3

4. Review of the Literature
Savich (2008) conducts a study in which he analyzes the increase of critical thinking
skills in a history classroom. His study concludes that a lecture method does not motivate student
learning and stagnates critical thinking ability to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and conceptualize
information. To increase levels of critical thinking in the classroom, faculty looks toward
technological tools to enhance learning, stimulation, and satisfaction. The literature is rich with
resources supporting PowerPoint as both an effective and an ineffective instructional delivery
tool.
To argue for the benefit of PowerPoint versus not presenting information with the tool,
Fehn (2007) describes an explorative study of the use of PowerPoint as a tool for instruction in
an undergraduate history course for pre-service teachers. The purpose was to expose PowerPoint
as a valid tool for historical narrative instruction versus the traditional "chalk and talk" method.
Groups of students were assigned to compose PowerPoint presentations with varying levels of
instruction regarding the amount of information or content to be included in their presentations
from the instructor at the point in which they were supposed to present their presentations. Some
were instructed to use "words only" in their slides, while some "images only", while others used
words and images. The study also evaluated whether students would mimic the instructors
presentation style once exposed to the use of PowerPoint in their own presentations. Evaluations
were then conducted on which presentations yielded the most knowledge gains and the "pre-
service" teachers thoughts on using PowerPoint as an instructional tool to explore historical
narrative. Results showed that the use of PowerPoint enhanced the amount of knowledge gained
and increased participants' historical imaginations. Bartsch and Coburn (2003) also argue that
4

5. students preferred PowerPoint presentations as opposed to traditional transparent slides using an
overhead projector or chalkboard lectures.
While there are those who argue for PowerPoint, there are also those who argue against
the use of PowerPoint. In fact, Savoy, Proctor, and Salvendy (2009) argue that PowerPoint has
actually has a negative effect on the retention of verbalized information. Their findings also
suggest that more information is retained when PowerPoint is not used. PowerPoint
presentations have become nearly ubiquitous in forums where information must be presented.
While PowerPoint presentations can be useful in teaching a course while keeping an audience's
attention, they can also be ineffective or even have negative effects if done poorly. Klemm
(2007) in his article "Computer Slide Shows: A Trap For Bad Teaching" argues that PowerPoint
can cause teachers to form substandard teaching habits. When teachers form these massive
PowerPoint presentations, they tend to go into lecture mode with little regard to how the students
are reacting to or engaging with the material. Once students become accustomed to this style of
lecture, they may begin to believe that the bullet points on the slides are the only parts of the
class worth remembering.
But this may backfire for students because Klemm (2007) also argues that PowerPoint
presentations violate important memorization habits. Optimal memory occurs when students pay
attention and focus. Attentiveness is diminished when the learner is in a passive, “entertain-me”
mode. Memory also works best when instruction is delivered in short segments. Klemm (2007)
admits, however, that there are advantages to slideshows. For instance, instructors are able to
easily adjust information to suit the needs of the presentation. Another positive aspect of
PowerPoint is the high level of adaptation to many teaching environments, including online
(Apperson, Laws, & Scapansky, 2006). Some argue that PowerPoint presentations have become
5

6. so easy to make that in many cases the format has become the object of ridicule and parody. In
Bumiller’s (2010) article "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint,” General Stanley A.
McChrystal, the leader of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was shown a PowerPoint
slide in Kabul that was meant to portray the complexity of American military strategy. Bumiller
(2010) reports that McChrystal’s reaction was mocking; he found that the presentation only
succeeded in giving the presenter the “illusion of understanding and the illusion of control of the
situation,” and it would be dangerous if more people thought like that that. He also argued that
PowerPoint presentations do not give a clear picture of the seriousness of the situation.
Gallo (2009) believes that the brain does not pay attention to boring things. While
master presenters turn slideshows into awe-inspiring presentations, what makes them so effective
is the fact that they “add complementary, multisensory events designed to spark an emotional
response among audience members.” This helps keep the audience's attention. He states how the
most effective presentations are the ones that are informative, educational, and entertaining.
Skylar (2009), in a study comparing asynchronous online lectures with synchronous
online lectures found that 75% of the students surveyed not only preferred the collaborative
platform, but they reported having a richer learning. In distance education research, the
construct of interaction is at the center of the debate. Pang (2009) says that "video-driven
multimedia, interactive learning environment is pedagogically equivalent, as measured by
knowledge gains, to traditional, live training in the delivery of a competency-based program,"
(p.11). Moore (1989), in an oft-cited editorial, distinguished between types of interaction. The
author maintains that for genuine interactivity to occur, students must interact with the instructor
(i.e. learner-centered), with the content (i.e. learner-content), and/or with other students (i.e.
learner-learner). Anderson (2003) says that
6

7. Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of
interaction (student–teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other
two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the
educational experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely
provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as
cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences.
These distinctions are important when comparing PowerPoint to other, more interactive,
platforms such as VoiceThread. PowerPoint, unless supported by ancillary learning components,
may allow students to interact with content according to Moore’s (1989) definition of
interactivity, but does not allow for other dimensions of interactivity. VoiceThread, on the other
hand, allows for all three types of interactivity maximizing students’ learning experience. “For
meaningful learning experiences to occur, learning should emerge from students’ interaction
with meaningful contents, the course instructor, and peers,” (Yoon, 2003, p. 20).
Interactivity promotes an active learning environment where the class as a whole is
engaged and where each student participates in in-depth involvement. Also, interactive
classrooms build learning communities, provide rich feedback to faculty about student learning,
and increase the level of student motivation (Markett, Arnedillo Sanchez, Weber, & Tangney,
2006). Markett, Arnedillo Sanchez, Weber, and Tangney (2006) also contend that “interactivity
can be described as a complete message loop originating from the student and returning to the
student. The reciprocating participant can be instructor or fellow student(s) and the loop occurs
irrespective of the technology or medium of communication,” (p. 281). These researchers tested
text messaging in traditional face-to-face classrooms to examine whether or not this technology
would increase interactivity.
Although these researchers study interactivity in traditional classrooms, it seems
reasonable to translate the value of interactivity into a virtual classroom. In the case for online
7

8. discussion groups, Huang (2002) argues that learning does not take place in isolation and that
authentic learning is constructed through interaction and collaboration with the content and with
others. “Interactivity provides a way to motivate and stimulate learners,” (p. 33). While Huang
(2002) reasons for online discussion boards, a Web 2.0 product like VoiceThread is an enhanced
version of the traditional asynchronous discussion board. Interactivity, however, continues to be
the central point despite the arena. Motivation and stimulation may also affect student
satisfaction. Richardson and Swan (2003) define social presence as the extent to which
interaction with others in the virtual space seem real and the extent to which these interactions
contribute to the temper of the class. High levels of social presence are marked by high levels of
interaction which Richardson and Swan (2003) maintain increases the level of student
satisfaction with an online course.
Rationale
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine if high levels of interactivity positively
affect student achievement. The research shows that high levels of interactivity promote higher
levels of student satisfaction (Richardson & Swan, 2003), higher levels of student motivation and
stimulation (Huang, 2002), and more instances of meaningful learning experiences (Yoon,
2003). Research also shows that PowerPoint, as a supplementary tool can be useful and
informative (Apperson, Laws, & Scapansky, 2006). But, there is also a growing body of
research that shows that the static or non-interactive style of PowerPoint may stall student
learning (Savoy, Proctor, & Salvendy, 200). If interactivity and collaboration are prized in the
traditional classroom and in virtual classrooms (Markett, Arnedillo Sanchez, Weber, & Tangney,
2006), then instructors and course designers should use tools that promote interactivity such as
VoiceThread. This study will attempt to outline the positive effects on student achievement with
8

9. VoiceThread, an interactive tool, compared to the more frequently used, but non-interactive tool,
PowerPoint in an undergraduate US history course.
Research Questions
R1: How is student satisfaction affected by interactive presentation courseware?
R2: How is student motivation affected by interactive presentation courseware?
R3: How is student achievement affected by interactive courseware?
Design and Method
This study is a quantitative approach that includes a correlation study to analyze the
relationship between the use of two different instructional presentation methods and student
satisfaction, motivation, and achievement.
Participants
The target population for this study will be undergraduate students at a large university in
the southeastern United States. A convenience sampling of students enrolled in two concurrent
sections of a United States history course in the Fall semester of 2010 will act as the accessible
population.
Background
The United States history course is required for all undergraduate majors and is offered
through traditional face-to-face synchronous instruction as well as asynchronously through the
Blackboard learning management system (LMS). There are eight total sections of the course,
four of which are offered in the synchronous (traditional face-to-face) format, and four offered
through online (virtual) instruction. Each section of the course has an enrollment cap of 100
students. The two concurrent sections of the course used in this study will be offered online
through the Blackboard LMS and taught by the same instructor. Therefore, the total number of
9

10. participants should be 200, but this is contingent on course enrollment. Each section will be
assigned to act as either treatment group A (Static Lecture Format - PowerPoint Presentation
Lectures) or treatment group B (Collaborative Lecture Format - VoiceThread Enhanced
Presentation Lectures). An additional section of the course, taught by the same instructor in a
face-to-face format, will act as the control group.
Data Collection
A demographics survey will be taken from both treatment groups and the control group
and a pretest will be issued to participants in both treatment groups to determine previous
exposure to online learning and student perceptions of its effectiveness and equivalence to
synchronous instruction at the beginning of the course used in this study. All students' responses
will be coded according to their university assigned identification number. The two sections of
the course used in evaluation will be taught by the same instructor and receive the same
assignments and evaluations throughout the course.
The first treatment group (treatment group A) will receive instruction through
PowerPoint presentations composed by the instructor along with assigned course readings and
participation in the networking tools offered through the Blackboard LMS. The PowerPoint
presentations will include only words and/or images on the slides, without narration. The second
treatment group (treatment group B) will view the same PowerPoint presentations enhanced with
VoiceThread presentation narration software along with all assigned readings. The control group
will receive traditional face-to-face "chalk-and-talk" lectures. All groups will then participate in
a post-test (final exam) to determine knowledge gained from the course and will be analyzed for
significant differences. Finally, a post-test will be administered to treatment group A and B to
10

11. analyze participants' perceptions of effectiveness and equivalence of their assigned mode of
instruction compared to traditional instruction.
Instruments
A demographic survey will be constructed to determine basic demographic information
for all participants in this study. The survey will include questions about age, gender, level of
education at the time of the study (i.e. freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior), and academic
major with a question addressing previous exposure to online learning included for both
treatment groups.
Sample demographic survey questions
• What is your current age?
• What is your gender?
• What is your academic major?
A questionnaire will be constructed for both treatment groups analyzing students' perceptions
of online learning effectiveness and equivalence to synchronous instruction and administered
before and after treatment using a Likert Scale based system.
Sample Survey Questions (Strongly Agree – Strongly Disagree)
• I expect to be satisfied/have been satisfied with the amount of knowledge gained from
this course.
• I expect to be satisfied/have been satisfied with the way information is presented during
this course.
• I am motivated to study as much or more than I do when I take a course in the traditional
classroom.
• I feel this course will be/has been an enjoyable experience.
11

12. • I am motivated to study as much or more than I do when I take a course in the traditional
classroom.
Demographics survey
Post‐test
Treatment Group A Control Treatment Group B
Online: PowerPoint F2F: no tech Online: VoiceThread
Questionnaire No Questionnaire Questionnaire
Figure 2. Collection Chart. This figure charts the flow of groups and data collection.
Data Analysis
After the demographic data is collected and recorded for each group, statistical analysis will
be performed to compare questionnaire results and post-test mean scores for both treatment
groups. The Likert Scale questionnaire responses will be compared between the two treatment
groups using t-tests to analyze whether students' perceptions of effectiveness and equivalence to
synchronous instruction was affected by the type of virtual instruction they received (PowerPoint
lectures vs. VoiceThread enhanced). The post-tests (final examination) mean scores for both
treatment groups will be recorded and compared using a t-test to determine which group
experienced the most knowledge gains to see if the research hypotheses are supported.
Conclusion
Until this project has been tested in a number of classrooms, it cannot be determined
which form of presentation will prove to be more effective. Of course, once this has been tested,
12

13. the research can be pushed further in a number of ways. In the event that VoiceThread proves to
be more effective, this does not mean that PowerPoint does not work as a good presentation tool,
it has just been overused and many are poorly constructed. The main problem occurring is that
many instructors’ hesitation to change. As mentioned before, Klemm (200stated that PowerPoint
has caused many teachers to depend greatly on it's use for their courses, and when PowerPoint is
used too much it causes the presentations to become less stimulating. VoiceThread offers another
way to present the information and allows the creators of these presentations to easily add other
multimedia. VoiceThread also allows viewers to add comments, encouraging student
participation, and addresses a variety of learning styles. If the classroom does not change with
advances in technology, then it will become increasingly more difficult for the instructors to
keep their students attention.
13

14. References
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
Apperson, J. M .; Laws, E. L .; Scepansky, J. A .(2006). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in
lectures. Computers and Education, 47(1), 116-126.
Bartsch, R.A. & Coburn, K.M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers
and Education, 41(1), 77-86.
Bumiller, E. (2010, April 27). We have met the enemy and he is PowerPoint. The New York Times, 8A.
Fehn, B. (2007). Composing visual history: Using PowerPoint slideshows to explore historical
narrative. International Journal of Social Education, 22(1), 43-67.
Gallo, C. (2009, October 29). Why PowerPoint isn’t enough. BusinessWeekOnline. Retrieved on May
22, 2010 from:
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/oct2009/sb20091020_228161.htm
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Klemm, W. (2007). Computer slide shows: A trap or bad teaching. College Teaching, 55(3), 121-124.
Savoy, A, Proctor, R, and Salvendy, G. (2009). Information Retention from PowerPoint and Traditional
Lectures. Computers and Education, 52. 858-867.
Markett, C. Arnedillo Sanchez, I., Weber, S & Tangney, B. (2006). Using short message service to
encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers & Education, 46, 280-293.
Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education,
3(2), 1-7.
14

15. Pang, K. (2009). Video-driven multimedia, web-based training in the corporate sector: Pedagogical
equivalence and component effectiveness. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning 10(3), 1-14.
Richardson, J.C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students'
perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Savich, C. (2008). Improving critical thinking skills in history.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3d/bc/1b.
pdf
Skylar, A.A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous
interactive web-based conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education 18(20), 69-84.
Yoon, S. (2003). In search of meaningful online learning experiences. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 2003(100), 19-30.
15