Document Type : Original Research Paper


Faculty of Civil Engineering, Shahid Rajaei Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran


Many discussions are available about the benefits and drawbacks of PowerPoint software in literature; however, according to the author’s review, there is not any comprehensive research about the optimum percentage of time of the classes for teaching with this software. This paper represents the best methods and percentages of utilizing PowerPoint software in classes. For this purpose, eight different classes of a university course were chosen, and each two classes were taught with a specific training method. In other words, four teaching methods containing four different amounts of times used for teaching with PowerPoint files were selected. This experimental work took four semesters. The percentages of times used for teaching with PowerPoint software were 0%, 25%, 40% and 100% respectively. The statistical analyses on coefficient errors indicate that the suitable percentages of teaching with PowerPoint are from 37% to 52% of the time of classes.      


Main Subjects

[1] Alley M. and Neeley K., Discovering the power of PowerPoint: Rethinking the design of presentation slides from a skillful user's perspective, Proceedings of the 2005 American society of engineering education annual conference and exposition, Portland, Oregon, 2005, pp.12-15. [2] Amare N., to slide ware or not to slide ware: Students' experiences with PowerPoint vs. lecture, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Vol.36, 2006, pp.297-308. [3] Driessnack M., A closer look at PowerPoint, Journal of Nursing Education, Vol.44, 2005, p.347. [4] Tufte E., The cognitive style of PowerPoint, Available at: PowerPoint, 2003. [5] Stein K., The dos and don'ts of PowerPoint presentations, Journal of the American Dietic Association, Vol.106, 2006, pp.1745-1748. [6] Lowry R.B. Electronic presentation of lectures – Effect upon student performance, University Chemistry Education, Vol.3, 1999, pp.18-21. [7] Szabo A. and Hastings N., Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint?, Computers and Education, Vol.35, 2000, pp.175-187. [8] Apperson J.M., Laws E.L. and Scepansky J.A., The impact of presentation graphics on students' experience in the classroom, Computers and Education, Vol.47, 2006, pp.116-126. [9] Dodds C., PowerPoint presentations, Current Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Vol.15, 2004, pp.69-73. [10] Nickerson J.V., Corter J.E., Esche S.K. and Chassapis C., A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education, Computers and education, Vol.49, 2007, pp.708-725. [11] Short J., Williams E. and Christie B., The Social psychology of Telecommunication, London, John Wiley, 1976. [12] Daft R.L. and Lengel R.H., Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Management Science, Vol.32, 1986, pp.554-571. [13] Schubert T., Friedmann F. and Regenbrecht H., The experience of presence: factor analytic insights, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol.10, 2001, pp.266-281. [14] Pea R.D., Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: conversational analysis meets conceptual change, Educational Psychologist, Vol.28, 1993, pp.265-277. [15] Toumasis C., Cooperative study teams in mathematics classrooms, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Vol.35, 2004, pp.669-679. [16] Mazloom M. and Ranjbar A., Relation between the workability and strength of self-compacting concrete, Proceedings of Our World in Concrete and Structures, 2010, pp.315-322. [17] Mazloom M., Estimating Long-Term Creep and Shrinkage of High-Strength Concrete, Cement & Concrete Composites,Vol.30, 2008, pp.316-326. [18] Neville A.M., Dilger W.H. and Brooks J.J., Creep of plain and structural concrete, Construction Press, London and New York, 1983. [19] Mazloom M., Loading of buildings, Shahid Rajaee University, 2009.