Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 176
Journal of
TURKISH SCIENCE EDUCATION
Volume 8, Issue 3, September 2011
TÜRK FEN EĞİTİMİ DERGİSİ
Yıl 8, Sayı 3, Eylül 2011
http://www.tused.org
The Effect of PowerPoint and Traditional Lectures
on Students’ Achievement in Physics
Naki ERDEMİR 1
1
Assist. Prof. Dr., Yüzüncü Yıl University, Faculty of Education, Van-TURKEY
Received: 08.11.2010
Revised: 02.08.2011
Accepted: 08.08.2011
The original language of the article is English (v.8, n.3, September 2011, pp.176-189)
ABSTRACT
The effect of PowerPoint in physics education is continuously debated, but both supporters and
opponents have insufficient empirical evidence. PowerPoint’s use in physics 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.
Thus far, comparisons of overall exam scores have received mixed results. The present study
classifies overall exam scores into auditory, graphic and figures, and slides scores to reveal new
insights into the effects of PowerPoint presentations (PPP) on student achievement. Analyses
considered the success of the lecture information that was presented to students without the use of
PowerPoint (i.e., traditional lectures), as well as auditory and visual information displayed on
PowerPoint slides. Data were collected from 90 student teachers via pre- and post-tests. The students
at experimental group who participated in lectures supported by PPPs had higher grades than the
control group who were solely taught through traditional presentations. The present study supports the
premise that the “intelligent use” of PPPs in physics instruction is capable of increasing the students’
success.
Keywords: PowerPoint Presentation; Physics Lecture; Student Success.
INTRODUCTION
In the last twenty years, in a manner that paralleled the application of various other
approaches, models, and strategies to improve student achievement through the presentation
of visual information with lectures has gained prominence: namely, the projection of
information directly from a computer onto a screen (e.g., PowerPoint presentations, pr PPPs).
To emphasize particular points, many lecturers use written material presented on a
chalkboard, whiteboard, or by PPP on computers. In fact, many colleges and universities have
rooms or mobile carts that are equipped with the technology that is required for any instructor
to display information in this manner. Furthermore, some administrations are pushing for
instructors to use this technology (e.g., Carlson, 2002).
Correspondence Author email: [email protected]
© ISSN:1304-6020
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 177
PowerPoint is a software tool that has become a presentation staple in lecture halls,
conference rooms, and through the application of computer-based training. It is used in over
30 million presentations a day, and its software is on 250 million computers world-wide
(Alley & Neeley, 2005). Initially, PowerPoint was developed to improve learning by
providing the means to develop presentations that are more structured and interesting to
audiences (Amare, 2006). Researchers have examined the benefit that these types of
presentations bring to various audiences. Overall, research indicates that students prefer
PowerPoint-type presentations to traditional lectures (Cassady, 1998; Gok & Sılay, 2008;
Susskind, 2005). Unfortunately, information on whether computer presentations improve
student performance is much less clear.
Several studies point to the idea that graphics improve student recall (Chan Lin, 2000;
Szaba & Hastings, 2000). However, many courses that adopted multimedia presentations have
not shown a corresponding increase in student performance (Stolo, 1995; Susskind, 2005;
Szaba & Hastings, 2000).
PPPs can be as simple as consisting only of text on a coloured screen. Presentations can
also be complex and include tables, pictures, graphs, sound effects, visual effects, clips, etc.
The effectiveness of PowerPoint and other multimedia presentations may depend on the
complexity of the material that is being presented. In fact, several researchers have
demonstrated that material, such as interesting but extraneous text (Schraw, 1998), irrelevant
sounds (Moreno & Mayer, 2000) and irrelevant pictures (Mayer, 2001), can reduce
comprehension.
Some lecturers state that PowerPoint inhibits the presenter-audience interaction
(Driessnack, 2005), limits the amount of detail that can be presented (Tufte, 2003), and
reduces a presentation’s analytical quality (Stein, 2006). On the other hand, supporters claim
that PowerPoint improves learning (Lowry, 1999), invokes audience interest (Szaba &
Hastings, 2000), and aids explanations of complex illustrations (Apperson, Laws, &
Scepansky, 2006). In short, all software has advantages and disadvantages, and this debate
highlights the fact that PowerPoint is no exception.
There are many factors that affect student success in physics courses. In this study,
however, we will try to determine how success is influenced when lectures are solely
presented in PowerPoint format. Although the use of computers has become widespread in
academia since the eighties, physics PPPs have been discussed in order to better understand
intricate topics (Bartsch & Cobern, 2003; Gok & Sılay, 2008; Nouri & Shahid, 2005).
In general, physics lessons are taught in a traditional manner within the classroom
setting because of the nature of physics topics and depending on the students’ habits.
Therefore, the lectures have become monotonous, abstruse, and dependent on memorization
skills. To be successful in a physics course, students should possess a good cognitive
understanding ability, interpretation skills, math knowledge, and imagination. Therefore, the
physics lecture is perceived as being quite difficult in some countries (Erdemir, 2009; Lyons,
2004; Trumper, 2006). The first reason why such a perception is potentially true is that the
subject may be taught in a way that fails to correspond to the nature of physics and the
students’ perceptions, thereby disregarding the need to highlight and mentally combine visual
and verbal knowledge. The ineffective application of planned techniques can be shown as the
second reason for the problem or perception. The combination of these two challenges causes
students to be unsuccessful in physics education (Gok & Sılay, 2008; Redish, Saul, &
Steinberg, 1998; Trumper, 2006). Visual teaching methods that include the use of PPPs can be
used to overcome this perception and increase students’ initial success.
Numerous studies have been conducted to determine whether or not PPPs affect the
students’ success in physics instruction. Studies have revealed that the reason for success in
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 178
physics education have been associated with students’ motivation, interest, and the use of
PPPs in the classroom setting (e.g. Craker, 2006; Normah & Salleh, 2006). Furthermore,
studies have consistently indicated that students generally believed that the use of PowerPoint
facilitated their learning and retention (Apperson, Laws, & Scepansky, 2008; Mantei, 2000;
Rankin & Hoaas, 2001; Szaba & Hastings, 2000). Therefore, the use of the PPPs to increase
student teachers’ achievements should be considered as an important step in science
education.
Students who were exposed to teaching methods with PPPs emphasized that their
interest and achievements were improved. They said that PPPs enhanced their learning and
success (Frey & Birnbaum, 2002; Rickman & Grudzinzki, 2000) because they were able to
see the notes (e.g., slides and texts) on the screen and easily follow the subject. Moreover,
research has indicated that the sole use of traditional teaching methods has negative effects on
students learning or comprehension of physics concepts (Araujo, Veit, & Moreira, 2004;
Susskind, 2005). So, we can conclude that we need to implement contemporary teaching
methods, tools, and technology (e.g., PPPs and computerised teaching) into physics education
in order to increase the level of students’ academic success.
Educators hypothesize that the use of PPPs in physics courses aims to encourage
students’ active involvement in physics teaching and learning (Blas & Fernández, 2009; Gay,
2009). It enables students to learn, interpret the information, and retain the knowledge for a
long time. Further, it attracts the students’ attention to the subject, makes the lesson easy to
learn, and helps them to memorize abstract and concrete information (Erdemir, 2009; Savoy,
Proctor & Salvendy, 2009; Wofford, 2009). Students appreciate the details, distinctive
features, and critical points in the figures on the slides when graphic presentations are used.
Hand-drawn figures cannot be copied onto the board. The impact on the success of this type
of drawing is not as great as PPPs within the classroom setting (Bartsch & Cobern, 2003;
Yucel, 2007).
When the researchers used the presentation graphics, the figures and graphics were
more remarkable and clear in comparison to traditional teaching methods in which teachers
only drew pictures or graphics on the board. Moreover, with presentation graphics, teachers
can show many more pictures in less time. They can make rotate images in order to compare
pictures. As a last advantage of presentation graphics, the use of colourful and remarkable
signs on figures and graphics in PPPs might attract student teachers’ attention to physics
topics. Moreover, selections of pictures and graphics from daily life experiences and the
ability to enjoy sufficient time to discuss and question these figures and graphics in PPPS
might influence student teachers’ achievements in a positive way. Unfortunately, most of
these opportunities do not exist in traditional teaching methods.
If instructors are conducting presentations in a dark to a semi-dark room, it is difficult
for them to maintain eye contact with their audience. The speed of the presentation may make
it much more difficult for them to explain each of the points that they wish to communicate
and it becomes challenging for them to read out their notes that correspond to the material.
When the presentation is in progress, the instructors will not be able to look away from the
slides because they will not know which piece of information will come next. The presenter’s
dependence on the computer to advance the slides is a distraction and makes it difficult for
them to give their full enthusiasm and attention to the material.
The usage of PowerPoint software and computers in physics instruction began in the
eighties. Since then, there is a wide debate about the influence of PowerPoint-assisted
teaching on student success in physics courses (Chonacky, 2006; Kenny, Bullen, & Loftus,
2006). However, the studies point out that there are positive or negative relationships between
achievement and PPPs in physics instruction. The current study was conducted to determine
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 179
whether or not the use of presentation graphics (i.e., PowerPoint) in physics courses affected
student teachers’ success in the physics course. We believe that it is important to determine
the students’ success level in two different methods, such as the PPP and “chalk-and-talk”
approach, which are used to teach physics topics. Thus, a classroom setting was used to
investigate the differences in student achievement when they are exposed to traditional and
PowerPoint lectures.
The objective of this study was to investigate whether or not the use of PPPs had an
effect on science student teachers’ success in a physics course.
In this research, it is hypothesised that there is a significant difference between
achievements of science student teachers for the PPP and traditional lecture (“chalk-and-talk”)
formats.
METHODOLOGY
a) General Background of Research
The pretest-posttest control group research design (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006) guided
the present study. In this design, two groups of subjects are used, with both groups are
measured twice. The first measurement is designated as the pretest and the second is named
the posttest. These measurements are collected at the same time for two groups of subjects
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). In this section, the research sample, the instrument, procedures,
data collection, and data analysis are presented.
b) Research Sample
This study was conducted with 90 science student teachers ((i.e., 40 females and 50
males; aged 17 to 23---M = 19.18, SD = 4.13) who were conducting introductory physics
courses in the fall 2008 academic semester. These science student teachers were enrolled in
the department of science education in a large university in eastern Turkey. Science teachers
STs must complete this course during their first year because it is a prerequisite for future
physics courses. The science student teachers’ participation in the study was voluntary. Both
the experimental and the control groups consisted of 45 science student teachers, and each
completed the tests. One cohort of STs was randomly attributed as a control group and the
other was assigned as an experimental group.
c) Instruments
The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was administered as a pre-test at the beginning of
the physics course. The FCI is the best-developed and most widely used diagnostic test in
physics (Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992; Hake, 1998). the instrument revised by Hake
and Hestenes (1995) contains 30 items with subscales that address the Newtonian concept of
force (i.e., -Kinematics, the first law of motion, the second law of motion, the third law of
motion, superposition principle of forces, other kinds of force (e.g., solid contact, gravitation
etc.).
After completing the physics course, the students were administered the mechanics
baseline test (MBT) as the post-test. The MBT with 20 items--some of which involve simple
calculations without a calculator-- is more difficult than the FCI (Hestenes & Malcolm, 1992).
It focuses on concepts that can be understood only after formal training in Newtonian
mechanics).
The MBT included 25 questions, briefly, the researcher translated questions from
English to Turkish. In order to check and establish the validity and reliability of the test, 45
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 180
students from two different classes of the same department were pilot-tested. After this
application, in cooperation with two measurement and assessment experts and physicists, any
incomprehensible and unanswered questions (five items) from the test were deleted
(Appendix 1). In the reliabilities study, Cronbach’s alpha for scales were 0.83 (MBT).
d) The Content and Structure of Presentation Graphics
While the control group was only exposed to the traditional teaching method (e.g.,
lecturing), the experimental group observed presentation graphics as well as the traditional
teaching method. The presentation graphics were a kind of PPP that was prepared with the
help of Microsoft Office Power Point 2003 program. The presentation graphics mostly
consisted of certain components (e.g., figures, graphics, and texts). These components for
each physics topic (e.g., vectors, motion in one dimension, planar motion (two dimensions),
particle dynamics I and particle dynamics II) were reflected on computer screens. In the first
week, the presentation graphics including figures, texts, and vector-related images were
presented to the STs. In the second week, presentation graphics including figures, texts, and
motion-related images that pertained to one dimension were presented to the STs. In the
following weeks, this method was retained for all of the remaining course topics. All of the
presentation graphics implementation lasted for eight weeks. In order to provide a better
understanding of physics topics, the graphics and figures were selected from daily life. For
example, with respect to the topic of “motion in one dimension,” the figure explaining balloon
movement was selected. Overall, the texts, graphics, and figures were colorful and simple to
improve students’ achievements in physics courses. Generally, the principles related to the
physics topics were presented visually. For example, on the subject of “horizontal shot,” this
event was presented with the picture in the presentations graphics. Therefore, the STs easily
observed all steps of “horizontal shot.” Moreover, when the STs wanted to take notes about
important parts of presentation graphics content, sufficient time was allocated to them. As a
last note, when it is necessary, the course instructor read some presentation graphics,
including texts about the topics. At the end of the presentation graphics lecture, the instructor
summarized the related topic. If the STs asked questions about the topic, the instructor
returned to the related presentation graphic and provided necessary information with the help
of related presentation graphics (Appendix 2).
e) Procedures
The lecture delivery style was composed of the traditional presentation (i.e., lecture
without slides) and the PowerPoint presentation (i.e., lecture with slides) in the physics
courses. Traditional lectures 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, references to maps, traditional/conventional methods, direct
speech, and other basic materials in the classroom during regular course lectures (Apperson et
al., 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 control group. The PowerPoint
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, tables, and diagrams related to subjects in mechanics were presented. The majority
of the material was presented on the laptop and presentations were supported verbally in order
to teach the student teachers in a more comprehensive manner.
The same physics topics were taught to both groups by the same instructor and on the
scheduled time and day (i.e., two days per week--totally four hours) on a weekly basis for
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 181
eight weeks. 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 a group of
mechanics topics (e.g., vectors, motion in one dimension, planar motion (two dimensions),
particle dynamics I, and particle dynamics II). Both groups were taught the same topics
related to the mechanics. The course instructor used the laptop and projector to assist in his
PowerPoint presentation. The “intelligent use” of the PPP was administered in order to curtail
interruptions to the instructor’s presentation: The PPP was closed for a short time after a brief
lecture and questions and explanations had been discussed with the instructor. The students
were focused solely on the points presented in the slides, and they were able to focus on the
instructor’s explanations. The instructor tested whether or not they comprehended the
concepts and topics that had been taught
The procedure followed in the present study is summarized as below:
• The STs were given the FCI as a pre-test, and then the teaching physics was started.
• The experimental group was instructed with the presentations graphics as well as lecturing,
and the control group was instructed with only lecturing. The instruction period was completed in 8
weeks (32 hours).
• Students from both groups completed the posttest (the MBT).
• Since both groups were presented topics related to mechanics, the MBT was applied to
both groups by the instructor after the instruction was over and the data had been collected.
When analysing the data obtained from both groups, t-test statistics were used to
determine whether or not the use of the presentation graphics (i.e., PowerPoint) affected the
student teachers’ success in the physics course.
FINDINGS
a) Effect of the PPP on Student Teachers’ Success in Physics
The t-test was applied to verify whether or not there was a significant difference
between the mean scores of the student teachers in the experimental and the control groups
before instruction.
Table 1. T-test results of the pre-test scores of the experimental and the control groups in the
Readiness Test.
Groups
N
M
SD
df
t
p
Significance level
EG
CG
45
45
61.02
60.92
13.39
13.48
88
0.00
.317
p< .05*
Significant at level p< 0.05; EG: Experimental Group; CG: Control Group
When the mean of the pre-test scores and standard deviations of the FCI were calculated
for both groups, the achievement means of the groups were found to be the same, as is seen in
Table 1. These results indicated that the student teachers’ achievement levels in both groups
were the same before instruction. As a result, it was determined that there was no statistically
significant difference between the pre-test scores of the experimental and control groups
(t(88)= 0.00, p<.317) before instruction.
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 182
Table 2. T-test of the post-test scores of experimental and control groups
Groups
EG
CG
*
N
45
M
72.59
SD
15.05
45
64.52
12.57
df
88
t
10.86
p
.005
Significance level
P< .05*
Significant at level p< 0.05; EG: Experimental Group; CG: Control Group
As shown in Table 2, the mean score of the experimental group was higher than the
mean score of the control group. These results shows that there is a statistical difference
between the scores of both groups (t(88)= 10.86, p<.005) after instruction. This significant
difference indicated that the use of PowerPoint for teaching had a positive impact on student
teachers’ success in physics courses.
b) Determining the Effect of the PPP on the Student Teachers’ Success after
Instruction
The t-test was conducted in order to determine whether or not there was any statistical
difference between the pre- and post-test mean scores of the experimental group.
Table 3. The difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group
Variables
N
Pre-test
45
Post-test
45
*
Significant at level p< 0.05
M
61.02
72.59
SD
13.39
15.05
df
88
t
-6.51
p
.000
Significance level
p<.05*
The results of the test indicated that the pre-test mean score of the experimental group
was M = 61.02 before instruction, and the post-test mean score was M = 72.59 after
instruction. The standard deviations of the post- and pre-test scores of the experimental group
were calculated as SD = 13.39, SD = 15.05, respectively, as seen in Table 3. According to the
results of the test, there was a significant difference between mean scores of the pre- and posttest of the experimental group (t(88)= 6.51, p<.000).
Table 4. The difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the control group
Variables
N
Pre-test
45
Post-test
45
*
Significant at level p< 0.05
M
60.92
64.52
SD
13.48
12.57
df
88
t
4.21
p
.056
Significance level
p< .05*
The pre-test mean score of the control group was M = 60.92, the post-test mean score
was M = 64.52, and the standard deviations of the pre- and post-test scores of the control
group were calculated as SD = 13.48, SD = 12.57 after instruction, respectively, as seen in
Table 4. According to these results, there was a slight difference between the pre- and posttest mean scores of the control group after instruction (t(88)= 4.21, p<.056).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not the use of presentation
graphics (PowerPoint) affected students’ success (i.e., when compared to a traditional lecture)
in physics courses. The mean scores of both groups were the same before instruction, as seen
in Table 1. It can be said that achievement levels of the student teachers related to mechanics
topics were the same at the beginning of the course.
According to the post-test results, the students who were exposed to PPP-supported
physics lectures were more successful than those in traditional lectures after the instruction.
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 183
The post-test score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group. This
result can be accepted as evidence that the presentation graphics (PowerPoint) method has
positively affected student teachers’ success in the physics course and, furthermore, this result
has been supported by other studies in science education such as those conducted by Kaptan
and Korkmaz (2002) and Tao (2001). They stated that the teaching method that included
presentation graphics had a positive effect on student achievement at every teaching level.
Thus, the stated hypothesis that there was a significant difference between student
achievements in the experimental and control groups after they were exposed to the PPPs and
traditional “chalk-and-talk” lectures was supported.
When students are taught the PPP-supported physics course, they are able to interpret
and understand the physical terms, principles, and concepts based on the knowledge taught
while making a connection between knowledge and formulas. In addition, the present study
has indicated that PowerPoint-aided education enhances student teachers’ achievements and
concentrates their students’ attention on the physics course. The work of Bartsch and Cobern
(2003), and Gonen and Basaran (2008) supports this idea. They have expressed that
PowerPoint-aided education facilitated learning, attracted students’ attention and enhanced
his/her motivation.
Complex and coloured shapes that provide a suitable enough rendition of the original
image cannot easily be drawn by hand on the board. Students also get difficult the
understanding of physics lesson. However, texts and complex figures in a PPP can be easily
reflected from a laptop onto a screen. In this way, coloured and concrete presentation graphics
can help students to better understand and remember knowledge during physics exams
because such graphics are identical to the original image. Therefore, the rationale behind the
success of the students in the experimental group stems from the alleged views. According to
the present research results, a teaching method that incorporates PPP positively affected the
student teachers’ achievement. Additional studies support this view (Bartsch & Cobern, 2003;
Gok & Sılay, 2008).
It is also important to note that when a PowerPoint slide is shown on the screen, the
students focus on the slide. In during of the presentation, the instructor-student interaction is
occasionally interrupted. In addition, students had an opportunity to take notes. When learning
occurs, students will place relevant words into their auditory working memories and relevant
images into their visual working memories. They then organize the information separately in
their auditory and visual memory and, finally, integrate these representations with prior
knowledge. This idea has been supported by Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning
(2001). Similar discussions had been put forward by Bohlin & Milheim (1994) and Moore
(1993), who highlighted that PowerPoint-aided presentations enhance an adult student’s
success, attention, and motivation.
CONCLUSIONS
Several results can be drawn from the present study, in which PPP-aided instruction
affected students’ success in physics courses. Indeed, this method can be more effective in
physics instruction.
The present study revealed that graphics were not necessary for simple declarative
information, but could help students to better understand more difficult, complex, or abstract
ideas that are presented in lectures. Therefore, the teaching method supported by PPP had a
positive impact on the student teachers’ achievement. According to this study, that positive
impact can be related to the use of PPPs, because they helped to improve organization, clarity,
and comprehensibility of the physics lessons.
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 184
The results indicated that verbal explanation was necessary after teaching supported by
PPP, because they were expected to more comprehended concepts and complex graphics,
figures, abstract concepts and physics principles.
Consequently, according to the results of this research, the PowerPoint can be an
optimal or more appropriate way for student's learning styles to be utilized in physics
education. It is possible to state that PowerPoint-aided education has a positive effect on the
learning, understanding, and success of students. Some advantages of this method can be that
it helps students to construct meaningful learning and fosters an awareness of fine details of
complex topics.
The present study provides an important contribution to the academic community
because the intelligent use of PPPs in physics teaching can shed some light on how to help
students to better understand scientific concepts and apply them in their lives. Therefore, these
findings give us some insights into how we can improve student success in physics teaching
and learning in the classroom setting. Based on the results of this study, we recommend that
the use of a PowerPoint-based learning system requires reinforcement from an instructor,
especially when applying such a system to students with different abstract reasoning abilities.
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 185
REFERENCES
Alley, M., & Neeley, K. (2005). 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, June 12 –15.
Amare, N. (2006). To slide ware or not to slide ware: Students ’experiences with PowerPoint
vs. Lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36 (3), 297 –308.
Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2006).The impact of presentation graphics
on students’ experience in the classroom. Computers and Education, 47, 116 –126.
Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J.A. (2008). An assessment of student
preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers
& Education, 50(2008), 148–153.
Araujo, I. S., Veit, E. A., & Moreira, M. A. (2004). Uma revisa˜o da literatura sobre estudos
relativos a tecnologias computacionais no ensino de Fı´ sica. In II Encuentro
Iberoamericano sobre Investigacio´n Ba´ sica em Cieˆncias, Burgos, Espanha.
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in
lectures. Computers and Education, 41(1), 77-86.
Blas, T. M. & Fernández, A. S. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process:
Model as a teaching tool in Physics, Computers & Education, 52 (2009), 35-44
Bohlin, R. & Milheim, W. (1994). Application of an adult motivational instructional design
model. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations, California,
USA.
Carlson, S. (2002, March 29). Wired to the hilt. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A33 –
A35.
Cassady, J. C. (1998). Student and instructor perceptions of the efficacy of computer-aided
lectures in undergraduate university courses. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 19, 175 –189.
ChanLin, L.-J. (2000). Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 27, 228 –238.
Chonacky, N. (2006). Has computing changed physics courses? Computing in Science and
Engineering, 8(5), 4-5.
Craker, D. E. (2006). Attitudes toward science of students enrolled in introductory level
science courses at UW-La Crosse, UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research IX, 1-6.
Driessnack, M. (2005). A closer look at PowerPoint Feature Article. Journal of Nursing
Education, 44 (8), 347.
Erdemir, N. (2009). Determining students’ attitude towards physics through problem-solving
strategy. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(2), Article 1.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education.
New York: The McGraw Hill.
Frey, B.A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learners’ perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in
lectures. ERIC Document Reproduction Service: ED 467192.
Gay, G. (2009). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity, Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1-2) 143-152. Downloaded from http://jte.sagepub.com by on
February 12, 2010.
Gok, T. & Sılay, I. (2008). Effects of problem-solving strategies teaching on the problem
solving attitudes of co-operative learning groups in physics education, Journal of
Theory and Practice in Education, 4(2), 253-266.
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 186
Gonen, S. & Basaran, B. (2008). The new method of problem solving in physics education by
using scorm-compliant content package, Turkish Online Journal of Distance EducationTOJDE, 9(3), 112-120.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of
Physics, 66 (1), 64-74.
Hestenes, D & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159166.
Hestenes, D, Wells, M., & Swachhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics
Teacher, 30, 141-153.
Kaptan, F. & Korkmaz, H. (2002). The effects of co-operative problem solving approach on
creativity in science course. Journal of Qafqaz, 9, 143-150.
Kenny, R., Bullen, M., & Loftus, J. (2006). A pilot study of problem formulation and
resolution in an online problem-based learning course. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3), 1-20.
Lowry, R.B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures effect upon student performance.
University Chemistry Education, 3(1), 18-21.
Lyons, T. (2004). Choosing physical science courses: The importance of cultural and social
capital in the enrolment decisions of high achieving students. Paper presented at the XI
IOSTE Symposium, Lublin, Poland.
Mantei, E. J. (2000). Using internet class notes and PowerPoint in the physical geology
lecture. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 301-305.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, A. (1993). Computer assisted instruction for adults. Paper presented at the annual
international conferences 15th, Austin, TX, May, Canada.
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R.E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for
minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117-125.
Normah. Y., & Salleh, I. (2006). “Problem solving skills in probability among matriculation
students”. Paper presented at National Educational Research Seminar XIII, 40-55
European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 40-55.
Nouri, H. & Shahid, A. (2005). The effect of PowerPoint presentations on student learning
and attitudes. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 2, 53-73.
Rankin, E. L. & Hoaas, D. J. (2001). The use of PowerPoint and student performance. Atlantic
Economic Journal, 29, 113.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J.M., & Steinberg, R. N., (1998). Student expectations in introductory
physics, Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), 212-224.
Reid, N., & Skryabına, E, A. (2002). Attitudes towards physics. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 20 (1), 67-81
Rickman, J. & Grudzinzki, M. (2000). Student expectations of information technology use in
the classroom. Educause Quarterly, 1, 24-30.
Savoy, A, Proctor, R.W, & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint and
traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(2009), 858-867.
Schraw, G. (1998). Processing and recall differences among seductive details. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 3-12.
Stein, K. (2006).The dos and don’ts of PowerPoint presentations. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 106(11), 1745 –1748.
Stolo, M. (1995). Teaching physiological psychology in a multimedia classroom. Teaching of
Psychology, 22, 138-141.
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 187
Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ selfefficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education, 45(2), 203-215.
Szaba, A. & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace
the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35, 175-187.
Tao, P. K. (2001). Confronting students with multiple solutions to qualitative physics
problems. Physics Education, 36(2), 135-139.
Trumper, R. (2006). Factors affecting junior high school students’ interest in physics. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 47-58.
Tufte, E. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/PowerPoint
Retrieved 06.07.2010.
Wofford, J. (2009). K-16 Computationally rich science education: A ten-year review of the
Journal of Science Education and Technology (1998–2008). Journal of Science
Education Journal and Technology, 18, 29–36.
Yucel, S. (2007). An analysis of the factors affecting student achievement in chemistry
lessons. World Applied Science Journal, 2(S), 712-722.
.
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 188
Appendix 1
1. Three identical blocks slide down the frictionless slopes A, B and C of equal heights as shown. All three
blocks are initially at rest. Which block would reach the ground at the greatest speed?
A. block A
B. block B
C. block C
D. all three blocks have the same speed
E. block B and C
A
B
C
2. A block is sliding up a rough slope as shown. The angle between the force of kinetic friction acting on the
block and the force of gravity acting on the block is:
A. less than 90 degrees
B. equal to 90 degrees
C. greater than 90 degrees
D. none of the above
E. not enough information to answer
3. One example of an object in equilibrium is:
A. a 2400-kg car, moving north at a speed of 90 km/h
B. a vertically thrown ball at the top of its trajectory
C. a satellite moving around the Earth in a circular orbit
D. a simple pendulum swinging in vacuum
E. a 1500-kg truck, moving circular motion at a speed of 120 km/h
4. Two forces, of magnitudes 5 N and 15 N, are applied to an object. The relative direction of the forces is
unknown. The net force acting on the object:
A. may not be directed perpendicular to the 5-N force
B. may be directed perpendicular to the 15-N force
C. may not equal to 5 N
D. may not equal to 15 N
E. may equal to 3 N
5. Three identical blocks are connected by ideal strings are being pulled along a horizontal frictionless table by a
constant horizontal force F (see the diagram). What is the magnitude of force F is the tension of the string
connecting blocks B and C is 60 N?
A. 60 N
B. 120 N
C. 180 N
D. 240 N
E. none of the above
A
B
60Nt
C
F-?
Erdemir / TUSED / 8(3) 2011 189
Appendix 2
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 6.
Figure 5.