Comparing students’ evaluations and recall for Student Pecha Kucha and PowerPoint Presentations
Main Article Content
Two experiments compared student reaction to and memory of peer presentations using either a fast-paced, images only format (Pecha Kucha) or a traditional PowerPoint presentation. In experiment 1, students saw a prerecorded 5-minute PowerPoint, 10-minute PowerPoint, or 5-minute Pecha Kucha presentation. Students rated the presentation and wrote down main points. One week later students completed an on-line survey. There were no recall differences, but a visual purpose rating was higher for Pecha Kucha. In experiment 2, students watched two presentations (10-minute PowerPoint and 5-minute Pecha Kucha) in a counterbalanced within-subjects design (same procedures used). Although students rated the Pecha Kucha presentation more positively, there were no recall differences. Results suggest Pecha Kucha is a useful student presentation style that maintains similar levels of retention.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology (JoTLT) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in JoTLT.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoTLT publications, JoTLT encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoTLT, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
Adesope, O.O., & Nesbit, J.C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250-263. Doi:10.1037/a—26147.
Beyer, A.M., & Earle, M. (2009). Pecha Kucha presentations as an exam review activity. Poster presented at International Society for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning meeting, Bloomington, IN (October, 2009).
Beyer, A.M. (2011). Improving student presentations: Pecha Kucha and just plain PowerPoint. Teaching of Psychology, 38 (2), 122-126. doi: 10.1177/0098628311401588
Dunn, D., McCarthy, M., Baker, S., Halonen, J., & Hill, G.W. (2007). Quality benchmarks of an undergraduate psychology program. American Psychologist, 62(7), 650-670. doi: 10.1037/0003066X.62.7.650
Eves, R.L., & Davis, L.E. (2008). Death by PowerPoint? Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(5), 8-9. Retrieve from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32085818&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A metaanalysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287.
Glendall, J. (2007, December). 20 presentations. 20 slides. 20 seconds. Architecture, 66-69. Retrieved from http:www.architechturemagzine.com
Halonen, J.S., Appleby, D.C., Brewer, C.L., Buskist, W., Gillem, A.R., Halpern, D.F., et al. (APA Task Force on Undergraduate Major Competencies). (2002). Undergraduate psychology major learning goals and outcomes: A report. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Klein Dytham architecture. (n.d.). Pecha Kucha night. Retrieved August 4, 2011from http://www.pecha-kucha.org/
Klentzin, J.C., Paladino, E.B., Johnson, B., & Devine, C. (2009). Pecha Kucha: Using “lightning talk” in university instruction. Computers & Education, 35(3), 175-187. DOI: 10.1016/S03601315(00)00030-0.
Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52. DOI : 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire M., & Vagge S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology , 91, 638-643. DOI: 10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2068
Paradi, D. (2003, September). Communicating Using Technology. Retrieved from http://www.communicateusingtechnology.com/pptresults.htm
Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109-131. DOI:10.1191/0265532202lt224oa
Pink, D. (2007, August 21). Pecha Kucha: Get to the PowerPoint in 20 slides and then sit the hell down. Wired Magazine, 15(9). Retrieved August 4, 201 from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-09/st_pechakucha
Savoy, A., Proctor, R.W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52, 858-867. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005
Slamecka, N.J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 592-604. doi: 10.1037/0278-73220.127.116.112
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
Wecker, C. (2012). Slide presentations as speech suppressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers & Education, 59, 260-273. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.013