nach oben

Erschienen in:

2015 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. PowerPoint-Präsentation

verfasst von : Susanne Krist, Katharina Noll, Rebekka Pick, Anika Pielstick, Sharmina Sayeed, Lukas Schmid, Michael Schneider

Erschienen in: Gute Hochschullehre: Eine evidenzbasierte Orientierungshilfe

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Zusammenfassung

Die Ergänzung eines gesprochenen Vortrags durch die Präsentation von Schlüsselbegriffen, Bildern oder Filmen erhöht die Behaltensleistung, führt zu besser vernetzten Gedächtnisrepräsentationen und wird von Studierenden begrüßt. Eine Präsentation ist effektiv, wenn ihre äußere Gestaltung die Aufmerksamkeit und das Arbeitsgedächtnis nicht unnötig belastet, sodass dem Publikum während der Präsentation möglichst viele mentale Ressourcen zur Verarbeitung der eigentlichen Lerninhalte zur Verfügung stehen. Die Verwendung von Schlüsselbegriffen anstelle von Sätzen oder Halbsätzen auf Folien erhöht die Effektivität stark. Alle überflüssigen Bilder, Texte oder Animationseffekte sind zu vermeiden. Inhaltlich Zusammengehöriges sollte auch zeitlich und räumlich zusammen präsentiert werden. Es ist lernförderlich, wenn Dozierende eine ergänzende Dokumentation der Inhalte zur Verfügung stellen, zum Beispiel eine Datei mit einem Skript oder mit den Präsentationsfolien.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Projektseminar

Nächstes Kapitel Prüfung

Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, l. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263. doi:10.1037/a0026147.CrossRef

Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439–444.CrossRef

Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00033-8.CrossRef

Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2006). The impact of presentation graphics on students experience in the classroom. Computers & Education, 47(1), 116–126. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.09.003.CrossRef

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 135–146). New York: Cambridge Universtiy Press.

Babb, K. A., & Ross, C. (2009). The timing of online lecture slide availability and its effect on attendance, participation, and exam performance. Computers & Education, 52, 868–881. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.009.CrossRef

Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relations to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.CrossRef

Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77–86. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7.CrossRef

Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychology & Marketing, 9(5), 347–363. doi:10.1002/mar.4220090502.CrossRef

Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. In Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.006.CrossRef

Boswell, D. A. (1980). Evaluations of transparencies for psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 171–173.CrossRef

Bowman, D. P. (1998). Presentations: Proven techniques for creating presentations that get results. Holbrook, MA: Adams.

Brunyé, T. T., Taylor, H. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2008). Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 877–895. doi:10.1002/acp.1396.CrossRef

Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.182.CrossRef

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.CrossRef

Chung, S. T. L. (2004). Reading speed benefits from increased vertical word spacing in normal peripheral vision. Optometry and Vision Science, 81(7), 525–535.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39–45.CrossRef

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.CrossRef

Colcombe, S., & Kramer, A. F. (2003). Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Science, 14(2), 125–130.PubMedCrossRef

Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57. doi:10.1177/0963721409359277.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation technology and the dynamics of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 147–160. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9017-5.CrossRef

Daniels, L. (1999). Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10(2), 42–56.CrossRef

de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.CrossRef

Doumont, J.-L. (2005). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Slides are not all evil. Technical Communication, 52(1), 64–70.

Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522–532.CrossRef

Etnier, J. L., Salazar, W., Landers, D. M., Petruzzello, S. J., Han, M., & Nowell, P. (1997). The influence of physical fitness and exercise upon cognitive functioning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise in Psychology, 19(3), 249–277.

Fiore, S. M., Cuevas, H. M., & Oser, R. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand connections: The facilitative effects of diagrams on mental model development and task performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 185–199.CrossRef

Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 117–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001.CrossRef

Ginns, P., & Fraser, J. (2010). Personalization enhances learning anatomy terms. Medical Teacher, 32(9), 776–778. doi:10.3109/01421591003692714.PubMedCrossRef

Gorn, G. J., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D. W. (1997). Effects of color as executional cue in advertising: They’re in the shade. Management Science, 43(10), 1387–1400.CrossRef

Hardin, E. E. (2007). Presentation software in the college classroom: Don’t forget the instructor. Technology in Teaching, 31(1), 53–57. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3401_13.

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seducative details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.CrossRef

Haskell, W. L., Lee, I.-M., Pate, R. R., Powell, K. E., Blair, S. N., Franklin, B. A., et al. (2007). Physical activity and public health: Updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation, 116(9), 1081–1093. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATION.107.185649.PubMedCrossRef

Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 58–65.PubMedCrossRef

Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.CrossRef

Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 47–53. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.013.CrossRef

Jessen, F., Heun, R., Erb, M., Granath, D.-O., Klose, U., Papassotiropoulos, A., et al. (2000). The concreteness effect: Evidence for dual coding and context availability. Brain and Language, 74(1), 103–112. doi:10.1006/brln.2000.2340.PubMedCrossRef

Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178–191. doi:10.1037/a0026923.PubMed

Kartal, G. (2010). Does language matter in multimedia learning? Personalization principle revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 615–624. doi:10.1037/a0019345.CrossRef

Katt, J., Murdock, J., Butler, J., & Pryor, B. (2008). Establishing best practices for the use of PowerPoint™ as a presentation aid. Human Communication, 11(2), 189–196.

Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Providing the instructor’s notes: An effective addition to student notetaking. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 33–39. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2001_5.

Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Students’ note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor’s notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378–386.

Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001.CrossRef

Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459–477. doi:10.1080/01443410500342070.CrossRef

Kosslyn, S. M., Kievit, R. A., Russell, A. G., & Shephard, J. M. (2012). PowerPoint presentation flaws and failures: A psychological analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 230. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00230.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.CrossRef

Legge, G. E., Pelli, D. G., Rubin, G. S., & Schleske, M. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading: I. Normal vision. Vision Research, 25(2), 239–252.PubMedCrossRef

Legge, G. E., Rubin, G. S., & Luebker, A. (1987). Psychophysics of reading: The role of contrast in normal vision. Vision Research, 27(7), 1165–1177.PubMedCrossRef

Levasseur, D. G., & Sawyer, J. K. (2006). Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. Review of Communication, 6(1–2), 101–123. doi:10.1080/15358590600763383.CrossRef

Locke, E. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture notetaking among college students. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 93–99.

Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures: Effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, 3(1), 18–21.

Mansfield, J. S., Legge, G. E., & Bane, M. C. (1996). Font effects in normal and low vision. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 37(8), 1492–1501.PubMed

Marsh, E. J., & Sink, H. E. (2010). Access to handouts of presentation slides during lecture: Consequences for learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 691–706. doi:10.1002/acp.1579.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 183–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484–490.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.CrossRef

Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. doi:10.1037/a0028228.PubMedCrossRef

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.PubMedCrossRef

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 724–733. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.724.CrossRef

Näsänen, R., Karlsson, J., & Ojanpää, H. (2001). Display quality and the speed of visual letter search. Displays, 22, 107–113.CrossRef

Nguyen-Michel, S. T., Unger, J. B., Hamilton, J., & Spruijt-Metz, D. (2006). Associations between physical activity and perceived stress/hassles in college students. Stress and Health, 22, 179–188. doi:10.1002/smi.1094.CrossRef

Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., et al. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465, 775–778. doi:10.1038/nature09042.

Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110–117. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001.CrossRef

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. doi:10.1037/h0084295.CrossRef

Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5–10. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.006.CrossRef

Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 34–38. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.34.CrossRef

Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312. doi:10.1002/acp.1086.CrossRef

Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.006.CrossRef

Pratt, C. B. (2003). The misuse of PowerPoint. In Public Relations Quarterly, 48(3), 20–24.

Raver, S. A., & Maydosz, A. S. (2010). Impact of the provision and timing of instructor-provided notes on university students’ learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 189–200. doi:10.1177/1469787410379682.CrossRef

Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., et al. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 359–379. doi:10.1037/a0029082.CrossRef

Reinwein, J. (2012). Does the modality effect exist? And if so, which modality effect? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 1–32. doi:10.1007/s10936-011-9180-4.PubMedCrossRef

Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216–237. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.003.CrossRef

Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint™ and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858–867. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005.CrossRef

Schnettler, B., Knoblauch, H., & Pötzsch, F. S. (2007). Die PowerPoint-Präsentation: Zur Performanz technisierter mündlicher Gattungen in der Wissensgesellschaft. In B. Schnettler, & H. Knoblauch (Hrsg.), PowerPoint-Präsentationen (S. 9–34). Konstanz: UVK.

Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47–69.CrossRef

Sheedy, J. E., Subbaram, M. V., Zimmerman, A. B., & Hayes, J. R. (2005). Text legibility and the letter superiority effect. Human Factors, 47(4), 797–815. doi:10.1518/001872005775570998.PubMedCrossRef

Sibley, B. A., & Etnier, J. L. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatic Exercise Science, 15, 243–256.

Smith, P. J., Blumenthal, J. A., Hoffman, B. M., Cooper, H., Strauman, T. A., Welsh-Bohmer, K., et al. (2010). Aerobic exercise and neurocognitive performance: A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72(3), 239–252. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181d14633.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Stanford Center on Longevity & Max Planck Institute for Human Development (2009). Expert consensus on brain health.

Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 191–203.CrossRef

Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203–215. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.005.CrossRef

Susskind, J. E. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1228–1239. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.001.CrossRef

Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy effect in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 159–167). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J. J. G. v., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRef

Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394.PubMedCrossRef

Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35, 175–187.CrossRef

Thompson, C. PowerPoint makes you dumb. (2003, December 14). New York Times.

Thompson, E., Palacios, A., & Varela, F. J. (1992). Ways of coloring: Comparative color vision as a case study for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 1–26. doi:10.1017/S0140525×00067248.CrossRef

Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within. Cheshire: Graphics Press.

Um, E. R., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498. doi:10.1037/a0026609.CrossRef

VanKim, N. A., & Nelson, T. F. (2013). Vigorous physical activity, mental health, perceived stress, and socializing among college students. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(1), 7–15. doi:10.4278/ajhp.111101-QUAN-395.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Vaynman, S., & Gomez-Pinilla, F. (2006). Revenge of the „sit“: How lifestyle impacts neuronal and cognitive health through molecular systems that interface energy metabolism with neuronal plasticity. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 84, 699–715. doi:10.1002/jnr.20979.PubMedCrossRef

Wecker, C. (2012). Slide presentations as speech suppressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers & Education, 59(2), 260–273. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.013.CrossRef

Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: Student patterns and instructional strategies. Journal of General Education, 51(3), 173–199.CrossRef

Wilmoth, J., & Wybraniec, J. (1998). Profits and pitfalls: Thoughts on using a laptop computer and presentation software to teach introductory social statistics. Teaching Sociology, 26(3), 166–178.CrossRef

Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211–247.CrossRef

Wolfson, S., & Case, G. (2000). The effects of sound and colour on responses to a computer game. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 183–192. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00037-0.CrossRef

Yager, D., Aquilante, K., & Plass, R. (1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38, 2527–2531.PubMedCrossRef

Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 266–277. doi:10.1037/a0031971.CrossRef

Titel: PowerPoint-Präsentation
verfasst von: Susanne Krist
Katharina Noll
Rebekka Pick
Anika Pielstick
Sharmina Sayeed
Lukas Schmid
Michael Schneider
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch: Gute Hochschullehre: Eine evidenzbasierte Orientierungshilfe
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45061-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-662-45062-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45062-8_5

Springer Professional

Zusammenfassung

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner