The effect of power point and traditional lectures on students achievement in nursing .

http://doi.org/10.33698/NRF0190  Prabhjot kaur, Jasbir kaur, Mandeep kaur, Kanika  Thappar, Bindu k.

Abstract :Teaching is a distinctively human activity. With the advancement of new technology and changing needs of nursing students, newer methods of teaching are inculcated in nursing education. The effect of PowerPoint (PPT) in nursing education is continuously debated. PPT’s use in nursing lectures has influenced investigations of its effects on student achievement (e.g. overall exam scores) in comparison to presentations based on traditional lectures. A comparative-experimental (pretest-posttest design) study was used with an objective to assess the effect of PowerPoint-assisted lecture and traditional lecture on the students’ achievement. Total 80 nursing students of a nursing college were randomly allocated into 2 groups – Group A (PPT assisted lecture) & Group B (traditional lecture). Both the groups were taught the same topic. The knowledge of students was assessed by a 40 item multiple choice questionnaire and the subjects were assessed for immediate (post test 1) and retention memory 25 days after teaching (post test 2). Data was collected by self-report method. Findings revealed that mean knowledge score in post test immediate assessment of traditional lecture was higher as compared to PPT (33.15 ± 5.43 Vs 30.12 ±4.43 p<0.05) similarly in post test retention assessment the mean knowledge score in traditional lecture was higher as compared to PowerPoint assisted lecture (29.47± 6.06 Vs 27.00± 5.21 p<0.05). Maximum subjects had excellent level of knowledge in traditional group as compared to PowerPoint lecture respectively in post-test immediate (72.5% vs 30%) and retention assessment (27.5% vs 12.5%). Traditional lecture showed significantly better learning (both immediate and retention than PPT assisted lecture. No matter PPT makes the teaching process easier but nothing can replace a teacher’s creativity to engage the students in the classroom. Overuse of AV Aids make student in active and teacher attains a passive role. Moreover traditional lecture provides opportunity to foster teacher-learner interactions.

Keywords

PowerPoint-assisted lecture, traditional lecture, student achievement, nursing

Correspondence at

 Mrs Prabhjot Saini

DMCH College of Nursing Ludhiana

Introduction

In past, lectures were presented on chalkboards with written material in hand, or by transparencies on an overhead projector. Since few years, projecting visual information directly from computers onto the screen (power point presentations) is another method of delivering lectures that has been extensively used nowadays. In fact, many colleges and universities have class rooms equipped with technology necessary for any instructor to display information in this manner.1 Education is one of the fields where PowerPoint’s impact is most strongly felt2. PowerPoint is a software tool that has become a presentation staple in lecture halls, conference rooms. It is used in over 30 million presentations a day, and its software is on 250 million computers world- In addition, research shows that compared to writing on a board or using overhead transparencies, accompanying lectures with PowerPoint is a more efficient time management practice.19,20 Furthermore, PowerPoint can also make the information delivery process more efficient by supporting larger class sizes.21 In their survey of 259 students, wide 3. How effectively and meaningfully Rickman and Grudzinski (2000)22 found that PowerPoint is being used in education is a topic that has been under-researched.

Initially, PowerPoint helped as a means to develop presentations that are more structured and interesting to audiences 4.It gained popularity because of its ease of use, structure and popularity among students 5. Since lecturing is still the primary instructional method used in higher education 6, most faculty members routinely use PowerPoint to support their lectures7 because it allows them to easily integrate multimedia components such as graphics, sound, video, animations, and charts into students disliked PowerPoint when lecturers speeded through their presentations that were overloaded with information. Students also complain that their instructors directly read their slides for the entire class period23,rendering them passive victims of PowerPoint overload. Instead, students want their instructors to use PowerPoint ‘as a stimulus for elaboration, explanation, and discussion in classrooms7.

Studies that investigated the effects of PowerPoint on student learning and academic performance had mixed results their presentations, which make the lessons showing either positive effects 20,24 or no more interesting, engaging and structured8. Moreover, according to multimedia experts, representation of information using both auditory and visual inputs improves learning 9. Overall, research indicates that students prefer PowerPoint type presentations over other presentations from transparencies. 10-13 Unfortunately, information on whether computer presentations improve student performance is much less clear. Several studies point to the idea that graphics improve student effects8,23. Whether PowerPoint slides really have any positive or negative effects on student performance will continue to be a subject for discussion and research in the future.

The investigator had a curiosity to know which method was more appropriate for understanding and learning among nursing students. The effect of PowerPoint in nursing education is continuously debated, but both supporters and opponents have insufficient empirical evidence. PowerPoint’s use in nursing recall.14-17 However, many courses that lectures has influenced investigations of its adopted multimedia presentations have not shown a corresponding increase in student performance.12,13,17,18 effects on student achievement (e.g., overall exam scores) in comparison to presentations based on traditional lectures (e.g., “chalk-and-talk”), and PowerPoint- assisted lectures. Hence the present study was conducted with an objective to assess the effect of PowerPoint-assisted lecture and traditional lecture on the students’ achievement in nursing.

Material and Methods

This pretest-posttest comparative research design was adopted in this study to assess the effect of two lecture methods i.e. PowerPoint-assisted lecture and traditional lecture (chalk & talk) on students’ achievement. In total, 80 students of DMCH College of nursing Ludhiana, Punjab, were randomly allocated into 2 study groups – Group A (PowerPoint assisted lecture) & Group B (traditional lecture). Both the groups consisted of 40 nursing students and each completed the tests. Both the groups were selected from the same class and were taught the same topic (Anatomy & Physiology of liver). Same educator was considered for both the lecture methods to maintain homogeneity in teaching acquisition and skill.

The tool comprised of 3 parts: Part 1- Sample characteristics which consisted of age, habitat, board of education, education of father and mother, occupation of father and mother, present history of physical complaints during the class and favorite subject. Part 2- Multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ’s) tool to assess knowledge of nursing students. 40 item MCQ’s on Anatomy & Physiology of liver with subscales that address the topic in three sections : (a) Anatomy of liver -19 items, (b) Physiology of Liver –11 items and (c) Diagrammatic evaluation of liver -10 items were constituted. Each question had one correct answer among four choices & each correct answer is awarded one mark i.e. Maximum marks -40 and minimum marks- 0. The students were categorized on the basis of 4 categories as per there test scores: a) Excellent (>75%) b) Good (60- 74%) c) Average (40-59%) d) Below average (<40%). The subjects were assessed for immediate (post test 1) and retention memory 25 days after teaching (post test 2). Part 3- Structured teaching program in the form of lesson plan for traditional lecture (chalk and talk) and graphically prepared PowerPoint slides on the topic of Anatomy and physiology of liver. Content validity of tool was established by the experts from the field of Nursing education, Anatomy and Physiology department. Internal consistency reliability of the knowledge assessment tool was checked by split half method using spearman’s Brown Prophesy formula of correlation where r’=0.82. Hence tool was highly reliable. Data was collected by self- report method. Written consent was obtained from study subjects. Ethical clearance was obtained from ethics committee of DMC& Hospital Ludhiana. The confidentiality of data collected was maintained.

The lecture delivery style was composed of the traditional presentation (i.e., lecture without slides) and the PowerPoint presentation (i.e., lecture with slides) on the topic. Traditional lecture or lecturing methods include the lecture and the chalkboard presentation, which is often referred to as a “chalk-and-talk. “Chalk and talk” methods include writing on the blackboard, traditional/conventional methods, direct speech, and other basic materials in the classroom during regular course lectures (Apperson etal., 2008). The majority of the material was verbally presented in the lecture. Graphs and figures were drawn on the chalkboard when illustrations were needed. There was no other equipment used for presentation of the information to the traditional lecture group. The Power Point lectures consisted of the instructor and the corresponding graphics presentations. The presentations were reflected from a laptop on the screen using PowerPoint software. Only basic text and diagrams related to topic were presented. The majority of the material was presented on the laptop and presentations were supported verbally in order to teach the nursing students in a more comprehensive manner. The same topic was taught to both groups by the same instructor and on the scheduled time and day i.e., one hour for each group at mid morning time at 10 am for traditional lecture group and 11 am for Powerpoint presentation. The course instructor used the same textbook, tests, and lecture materials during the instruction; the only difference in the experimental group was the use of the PPP as a supplement to the traditional lecture. The content of the course consisted of 3 sections (i.e. Anatomy of liver, physiology of liver and diagrammatic representation of liver). The course instructor used the laptop and projector to assist in his PowerPoint presentation. The instructor concluded, summarized and recaptualized the topic in both the groups. Collected data was analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistics. Percentage, mean, standard deviation, t-test and ANOVA were used for describing the findings of the study.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 depicts that majority of nursing students of both the groups were from age group of 17-18 years with mean age of 18.31 ± 0.46.Two third of subjects i.e. 70% from group A and 60% from group B had basic education from Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) and hailed from rural area. In both the groups47.5% subject’s fathers and 65%of mothers were qualified up to matriculation. In group A fathers of 35% subjects’ were servicemen as compared to 60% in group B Whereas more than 80% of mothers’ were homemaker in both the groups. Both the groups were homogenous in respect to age, habitat, Board of education, parents’ education and occupation, favorite subject in BSc nursing first year and physical complaints (p<0.05 as per X2 test).

The pre-test mean scores and standard deviations of both the groups was almost same i.e. 17.17+5.40 vs 18.57+4.83 in Group A( power point method of teaching)and Group B (Tradition lecture method of teaching) respectively and no statistical difference observed (p>0.05 as per z2 test) table -2 and fig – 1. The mean score of the Group A was lower than the mean score of the Group B in the posttest 1 taken immediately after both the lectures. These results show that there is a statistical difference between the scores of both groups (t78= 2.73, p<.05) after instruction. This significant difference indicated that the use of Traditional chalk and talk method for teaching had a positive impact on students’ success in nursing. Table 3 also depicts the mean score of the Group A was lower than the mean score of the Group B in the post test 2

Table 1: Sample characteristics among PowerPoint assisted lecture (Group A) and

Traditional lecture (Group B)                                     N=80

Sample characteristics Group A n=40 f (%) Group B n=40 f(%) Total Chi square test
Age ( in years)*        
17-18 26 (65.0) 27 (67.5) 53 x2 = 0.20NS
19-20 14 (35.0) 13 (32.5) 27 p = 0.81
Habitat        
Rural 28 (70.0) 24 (60.4) 52 x2 = 0.879NSM
Urban 12 (30.0) 16 (40.0) 28 df = 1, p = 0.34
Board of senior secondary education        
CBSE 12 (30.0) 16 (40.0) 28 x2 = 0.879NS
PSEB 28 (70.0) 24 (60.0) 52 df = 1, p = 0.34
Education of mother        
Illiterate 03 (07.5) 03 (07.5) 06 x2 = 1.133
Matric 22 (66.0) 26 (65.0) 48 df = 3, p = 0.76
Graduate 12 (30.0) 08 (20.0) 24  
Post graduate 03 (07.5) 03 (07.5) 06  
Education of father        
Illiterate 00 (00.0) 03 (07.5) 03 x2 = 4.287NS
Matric 19 (47.5) 19 (47.5) 38 df = 3, p = 0.23
Graduate 16 (40.0) 16 (40.0) 32  
Post graduate 05 (12.5) 02 (05.0) 07  
Father occupation        
Businessman 04 (10.0) 05 (12.5) 09 x2 = 6.323NS
Serviceman 24 (60.0) 14 (35.0) 38 df = 2, p = 0.09
Agriculture & Others 12 (30.0) 21 (52.5) 13  
Mother occupation        
Housewife 32 (80.0) 35 (87.5) 67 x2 = 2.467NS
Working 08 (20.0) 05 (12.5) 13 df = 1, p = 0.29
Favourite subjects in B.Sc (Ist) year        
Microbiology 04 (10.0) 01 (02.5) 05 x2 = 6.117NS
Nutr&Biochem 01 (02.5) 01 (02.5) 02 df = 4, p = 0.19
Nsg foundation 06 (15.0) 05 (12.5) 11  
Psychology 17 (42.5) 11 (27.5) 28  
Anat & Physio 12 (30.0) 22 (55.0) 34  
Any present physical complaints        
None 25 (62.5) 19 (47.5) 44 x2 = 8.429NS
Headache 04 (10.0) 12 (30.0) 16 df = 3, p = 0.07
Menstrual pain 03 (07.5) 05 (12.5) 08  
Backache & others 08 (20.0) 04 (10.0) 12  

for retention memory taken after 25 days. These results show that there is a statistical difference between the scores of both groups (t78= 1.96, p<.05) after 25 days of instruction. This significant difference also indicated that the use of Traditional chalk and talk method for teaching had a long term positive impact on students’ success in nursing than the PowerPoint assisted lecture method.

Table 2: Effect of PowerPoint-assisted lecture (Group A) and Traditional lecture (Group B) on Nursing student scores.                                                    N= 80

  Groups n Mean Mean % SD df t test p value Significance level
Pretest PowerPoint 40 17.17 42.92 5.40 78 1.22 0.22 p>0.05
Traditional 40 18.57 46.42 4.83
Post test 1

immediate

 PowerPoint 40 30.12 75.30 4.43 78 2.73 0.007 P<0.05
Traditional 40 33.15 82.87 5.43
Post test 2

retention

 PowerPoint 40 27.00 67.50 5.21 78 1.96 0.05 P<0.05
Traditional 40 29.47 73.67 6.06

Maximum Score = 40       Minimum Score = 40                                          Not Significant at p>0.05

Figure 1 describes the mean percentage distribution of scores among nursing students of both groups i.e. PowerPoint assisted lectures (Group A) and traditional lecture (Group B) in pretest and post test. It shows that traditional lecture showed better percentage scores among students than PowerPoint lectures in both post test immediate (75.3% vs. 82.8%) and post test retention scores (67.5% vs. 73.6%) respectively.

Figure 1: Mean Percentage scores of PowerPoint assisted lecture (Group A) and Traditional Lecture (Group B) among nursing students’

When the mean difference was compared of the pre pretest -posttest immediate scores and pretest-posttest retention scores of PowerPoint assisted lecture (Group A) and traditional lecture (Group B) among nursing students, the achievement Mean difference of Group A was found to be the lower than Group B in both pre-posttest immediate ( 12.45+4.13 Vs. 13.77+4.92, p>0.05) and pre-posttest retention (9.45+4.49 Vs. 10.52+5.41, p>0.05) respectively, as is seen in Table 3. These results indicated that the student’ achievement levels in traditional chalk and talk method was better than PowerPoint assisted lecture method in both recent (immediate) and recall (retention) memory, however the results were not significant at p>0.05.

 

Table 3: Comparison of Mean Difference in pretest -posttest immediate scores and pretest-posttest retention scores of PowerPoint assisted lecture (Group A) and traditional lecture (Group B) among nursing students.

N = 80

  Groups MeanD SD df t test p value Significance level
Pretest – Post test I (immediate) PowerPoint 12.45 4.13 78 1.29 0.19 p>0.05
Traditional 13.77 4.92
Pretest – Post test II (retention) PowerPoint 09.45 4.49 78 0.96 0.33 p>0.05
Traditional 10.52 5.41

 Not Significant at p>0.05

Discussion

The effect of PowerPoint in nursing education is continuously debated, but both supporters and opponents have insufficient empirical evidence. PowerPoint’s use in nursing lectures has influenced investigations of its effects on student achievement (e.g., overall exam scores) in comparison to presentations based on traditional lectures (e.g., “chalk-and-talk”), and PowerPoint-assisted lectures. The purpose of this study was to investigate which of the lecture method is better in nursing i.e. PowerPoint assisted lecture method or traditional chalk and talk method on students’ success in nursing.

The mean scores of both groups i.e. PowerPoint assisted lecture method and traditional chalk and talk method were same before instruction. In the post-test results, the nursing students who were exposed to PowerPoint assisted lecture showed lower scores as compared to traditional chalk & talk lectures(after the instruction in both immediate and posttest retention scores. Findings of the present study preferand support the use of traditional chalk & talk method over PowerPoint lectures. Few researchers reflect that the failure of PowerPoint assisted lectures is due to its overuse and misuse. However PowerPoint teachings provides visual stimuli but it often unfortunately crosses between mind- numbing and a tool that instructors rely on like a crutch or even a wheel chair for teaching. PowerPoint often finds itself as a background piece to help engage students through visual learning. (Roehling and Trent-Brown 2011)25.

With PowerPoint, the presenter may point at everything as an equally weighted learning objective and thus nothing receives emphasis or priority (Adams 2006)26. Thus, with information overload, students may experience little deep learning. In the majority of institutions, no set standard exists for the use of PowerPoint in the classroom. (Vallance and Towndrow, 2007)27. Moreover it puts students into receive mode for information that likely lacks participation and analytical thinking (Alley and Neely)3. In nursing education, PowerPoint appears to be the savior –in a cost effective and modern manner. For providing simple information transfer, this can work in an effective program. However, for providing memorable ideas and promoting discussion backgrounds are not changed and the headers remain very boring. Photos and pictures that might better explain a concept are omitted (Clark)29. On the other hand, some instructors use photos bearing no relevance to the lecture or class topic, thus resulting in further confusion or lack of interest (Tufte 2003)24.This common practice results in even the most intriguing, colorful, and attentive slides becoming less useful and causes students to reduce their attention spans. (Mackiewicz 2008)28. All of these issues lead to a complete lack of open discussion and the ability to synthesize lessons. Therefore misuse and overuse of the Information technology may cause hindrances in teaching and learning process both for teachers as well as students.

Many students report they prefer the old fashioned way of teaching where teachers used their imaginations to make class interesting and that it is more beneficial as it promotes interaction, open discussion and critical thinking. More important than technology is information from a professor that knows what’s going and active learning in the classroom, it often on.22 Another student reported that fails (Mackiewicz, 2008)28. PowerPoint has overcome the traditional lecture methods in nursing nowadays, thus reducing the interactive sessions between students and teachers. Repeated lectures on Powerpoints and its 100% usage can make even highly technology is good until it starts taking over teacher’s job, therefore it should be used minimally or between 25-50%.

Findings of the present study prefer and support the use of traditional chalk & talk method over PowerPoint lectures in motivated students off by overuse.22  In    nursing education. However various points dimly lit rooms during the repeated sessions, students get fatigued. Complaints also often arise from instructors that simply flip through their slides with little depth on each topic (Clark, 2008)29. They make their slides overly- wordy, often with as many as 25-70 words per slide, or even including large paragraphs (Brock and Jocklegar, 2011)30 . The are to be kept in mind while providing lectures by both the methods. While delivering PowerPoint assisted lectures, teacher educators should be aware of PowerPoint overload. Therefore, teacher educators should incorporate discussions and group activities into their presentations and plan for question time that would allow students to digest information and create personal meaning for them. Teachings require more of interaction between learner and learnee which is usually neglected in PowerPoint assisted lectures but actively used in traditional chalk and talk method. Amalgamation of both will create effective and meaningful learning experiences for students.

References

  1. Carlson Wired to the hilt. The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 29 ,2002; A33 – A35.
  2. Isakson Presentation skills, PowerPoint and beyond. Education Abstracts. 2005; 71(1): 79–80.
  3. Alley M &Neeley Discovering the power of PowerPoint: Rethinking the design of presentation slides from a skilful user’s perspective. In Proceedings of the 2005 American society of engineering education annual conference and exposition, Portland, Oregon, 2005 June 12 –15.
  4. Amare To slide ware or not to slide ware: Students ‘experiences with PowerPoint vs. Lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication2006; 36 (3): 297 –08.
  5. Murray, (2002, April). Tech enrichment or overkill? Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved J a n u a r y 5 , 2 0 1 4 ,           f r o m http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr02/tech.html
  6. Armbruster, B.B.. Taking notes from In FlippoR.A. &CaverlyD.C. (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2000:175–99.
  7. Apperson JM, Laws EL, Scepansky An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education 2008; 50:148–53.
  8. Susskind JE. PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self efficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education 2005; 45(2): 203-15.
  9. Moreno R, Mayer A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology2000; 92: 117-125.
  10. Cassady Student and instructor perceptions of the efficacy of computer-aided lectures in undergraduate university courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research:19; 175 –89.
  11. Perry T, Perry University students’ attitudes towards multimedia presentations. British Journal of Educational Technology 1998: 29; 375–77.
  12. Susskind J, GurienRA . Do computer- generated presentations influence psychology students’ learning and motivation to succeed? Poster session presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Denver, 1999
  13. West RL. Multimedia presentations in large classes: a field Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC. 1997
  14. ChanLin LJ .Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology 1998;25:166–75.
  15. ChanLin LJ. Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of Instructional 27; 228–38.
  16. Lowry Electronic presentation of lectures—effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education 1999;3(1): 18-21.
  17. Szaba A, Hastings N.Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education2000; 35:175-87.
  18. Teaching physiological psychology in a multimedia classroom. Teaching of Psychology 1995; 22: 138–41.
  19. Introducing technology into the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step. Journal of Computing in Higher Education1999 Spring ;10: 42–56.
  20. Mantei EJ .Using internet class notes and PowerPoint in the physical geology Journal of College Science Teaching 2000;29 :301-05.
  1. Parker RE, Bianchi A ,Cheah Perceptions of instructional technology: Factors of influence and anticipated consequences. Educational Technology & Society 2008; 11(2):274–93.
  2. Rickman J,Grudzinski Student expectations of information technology use in the classroom. Educause Quarterly 2000; 23(1): 24–30.
  3. Burke LA , James KE. PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and Business Communication Quarterly 2008; 71: 277–96.
  4. Kunkel A research note assessing the benefit of presentation software in two different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology 2000;32:188–96.
  5. Roehlin, Patricia V, Sonja “Differential use and benefits of PowerPoint in upper level versus lower level courses.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education March -2011; 113–124. Online January 5 , 2014. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080

/1475939X.2011.554018

  1. Adams, Catherine. “PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 38.4 (2006): 389-411. O n l i n e J a n u a r y 5 , http://cne.fct.unl.pt/file.php/386/modda ta/forum/1078/3634/ADAMS_C._2006_._Po werPoint_habits_of_mind_and_classroom_c ulture._Journal_of_Curriculum_Studies_38_ 4_389-411.pdf.
  1. Vallance, Michael, Towndrow AP .Towards the ‘informed use’ of information and communication technology in education: a response to Adams’ ‘PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom Journal Curriculum Studies 2007;39(2): 219-27.
  2. Mackiewicz J. Comparing PowerPoint Experts’ and University Students’ Opinions about PowerPoint Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 2008;38(2): 149-65. Online January 5, 2014.http://catshuler.net/engl421fa08/sites/d efault/files/Powerpoint.pdf.
  3. Clark, Jennifer. Powerpoint and Pedagogy: Maintaining Student Interest in University College Teaching 2008; 56(1): 39-45. O n l i n e J a n u a r y 5 , 2014..http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~flannerm/p ower.pdf.
  4. Brock, Sabra,Yogini Joglekar. “Empowering PowerPoint: Slides and Teaching ” Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management2011;6(1): 85-94. Online J a n u a r y 5 ,

2014..http://languagability.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/Empower_Yogini.p df.