STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES ON THE DESIGN OF ELECTRONIC TEACHING
PRESENTATION AND THEIR LEARNING STYLE
LIM SIEW HUANG
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
i
STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES ON THE DESIGN OF ELECTRONIC
TEACHING PRESENTATION AND THEIR LEARNING STYLE
LIM SIEW HUANG
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award
of the degree of Master of Education (Educational Technology)
Faculty of Education
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
2008
iii
To:
Almighty GOD,
my beloved father, mother, brothers, sisters ,and friends
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am so proud to have such opportunity to indicate my appreciation to
my supervisor, Dr Jamalludin Harun for his moral support and guidance
throughout the research writing, and for his impressive integrity and academic
responsibility.
I feel grateful to mother and father for their support; and thanks to my
brothers and sisters. Thanks them for taking care and be with me always.
I would like to thank my course mates and friends without whom I
would not success to complete my research on time. Thanks for their sincere
help, cares and comments that encourage me a lot during the process of
development.
Lastly, I thank God for giving me good health, strong will and wisdom
to complete this thesis.
v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to find out the most annoying about
electronic teaching presentation specifically for delivery techniques and visual
design among the final year students. The researcher investigated the final
year students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation. In addition, the researcher identified the students’ preferences
learning style, in order to determine whether there is any relationship between
final year students’ learning style and their preferences on the visual design of
electronic teaching presentation. There are 150 respondents among the final
year students from SPI, SPK, SPL, SPP, SPS, and SPT of Faculty of Education,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The learning style model used in this research
was Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. A set of questionnaire used as the
research instrument consisted of 56 items. There were four sections in the
questionnaire. The reliability of research instrument had been determined
through a pilot study with the alpha value 0.719 for Section C and 0.754 for
Section D. The data had been analysed descriptively by using Statistical
Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 13 for Windows software and
had been presented in the form of percentage, mean or Eta value. The findings
showed the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on the visual
design was the text small in size which cannot be read (28.7%) and on delivery
method was the instructors read the slide to the students (21.3%). Besides that,
students preferred image background, image or picture as the main element to
deliver the content of presentation, san-serif font type, and the title to be
always on top of the slides than at the bottom. The students’ learning style
preferred was feeler (converger) with 32%.
Finally, there was a weak
relationship between the final year students’ learning style and their
preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation with Eta
value 0.166.
vi
ABSTRAK
Kajian tersebut dijalankan dengan tujuan untuk mengenalpasti elemen
yang paling mengganggu tentang persembahan pengajaran elektronik mengikut
perspektif reka bentuk visual dan kaedah penyampaian di kalangan para pelajar.
Selain itu, kami mengkaji tentang reka bentuk visual persembahan pengajaran
elektronik yang digemari oleh para pelajar. Tambahan pula, kajian tersebut
mengenalpasti gaya pembelajaran para pelajar, dan seterusnya menentukan
sama ada wujud hubungan di antara gaya pembelajaran dengan reka bentuk
visual persembahan pengajaran elektronik yang digemari oleh para pelajar.
Seramai 150 orang pelajar tahun akhir sebagai responden dalam kajian tersebut
dan mereka terdiri daripada pelajar SPI, SPK, SPL, SPP, SPS, and SPT di
Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Model gaya pembelajaran
yang telah digunakan adalah Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Borang soal
selidik digunakan sebagai instrumen kajian dengan sebanyak 56 item. Borang
soal selidik ini dibahagikan kepada 4 bahagian. Kebolehpercayaan instrumen
kajian telah ditentukan melalui kajian rintis dengan nilai alfa adalah 0.719 bagi
Bahagian C dan 0.754 bagi Bahagian D. Data dianalisis secara diskriptif
dengan menggunakan perisian Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS)
version 13 for Windows dan dapatan kajian dipersembahkan dalam bentuk
peratus, min atau nilai Eta. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa elemen yang
paling mengganggu dalam persembahan pengajaran elektronik dari perspektif
reka bentuk visual adalah saiz teks yang terlalu kecil dan tidak boleh dibaca
(28.7%) manakala dari perspektif kaedah penyampaian adalah pensyarah
membaca kandungan persembahan kepada pelajar (21.3%). Selain itu, pelajar
lebih mengemari latar belakang persembahan dengan imej, imej atau gambar
sebagai elemen utama untuk menyampaikan maklumat persembahan, bentuk
tulisan san-serif dan tajuk persembahan diletakkan di atas slaid berbanding di
bawah slaid. Gaya pembelajaran yang lebih digemari oleh pelajar adalah
feeler (converger) dengan 32%. Akhirnya, terdapat hubungan yang lemah di
vii
antara gaya pembelajaran para pelajar akhir tahun dengan kecenderngan reka
bentuk visual persembahan pengajaran elektronik dengan nilai Eta 0.166.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
SUBJECT
SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
TITLE PAGE
1
DECLARARION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
NOMENCLATURE
xi
LIST OF TABLES
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
xvi
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Background of Problem
2
1.3
Statement of Problem
4
1.4
Objective of the Research
5
1.5
Research Questions
5
1.6
Significance of the Research
6
1.7
Rationale of the Research
6
1.8
Scope and limitation of the Research
8
1.9
Operational Definition
8
1.9.1 Electronic Teaching Presentation
8
ix
1.10
2
1.9.2 Visual Design
9
1.9.3 Learning Style
9
Conclusion
10
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
11
2.2
The Role of Computer in Education
11
2.3
Electronic Presentation in Teaching and Learning
14
2.3.1 The Benefits of Electronic Teaching
14
Presentation
2.3.2 The future of Electronic Teaching
18
Presentation
2.4
Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
19
2.4.1 Information Design of Electronic Teaching 20
Presentation
2.4.2 Interaction Design of Electronic Teaching
20
Presentation
2.4.3 Visual Design of Electronic Teaching
21
Presentation
2.5
Problem of Electronic Teaching Presentation
22
2.6
Learning Style
23
2.6.1 Dunn & Dunn’s Three Basic Learning Style 24
2.7
2.6.2 Honey and Mumford Learning Style
25
2.6.3 Howard Gardner’ Multiple Intelligences
27
2.6.4 Kolb’s Learning Style
27
2.6.4.1 The Strength of Kolb’s Learning Style
30
Research on Learning Style in Teaching and
31
Learning
2.8
Conclusion
33
x
3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
34
3.2
Research Design
34
3.3
Research Procedure
35
3.4
Population and Sample
37
3.5
Research Instrument
40
3.5.1 Respondents’ Background
41
3.5.2 The Most Annoying about Electronic
41
Teaching Presentation
3.5.3 The Students’ Preferences on the Visual
42
Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
3.5.4 Students’ Learning Style
44
3.6
Reliability and Validity / Pilot Study
47
3.7
Data Analysis
48
3.7.1 Analysis on Demography
49
3.7.2 Analysis on the Most Annoying about
50
Electronic Teaching Presentation
3.7.3 Analysis on the Students’ Preferences on
51
Visual Design of Electronic Teaching
Presentation
3.7.4 Analysis on Students’ Learning Style
53
3.7.5 Analysis on the Relationship between
53
Students’ learning Style and Their
Preferences on the Visual Design of
Electronic Teaching Presentation
3.8
4
Conclusion
54
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT
4.1
Introduction
55
4.2
Result of Questionnaire
55
4.3
Respondents’ background
56
xi
4.4
Data Analysis on The Most Annoying about
57
Electronic Teaching Presentation
4.5
Data Analysis on Students’ Preferences on the
58
Visual Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
4.6
Students’ Learning Style
62
4.7
The Relationship between Final Year Students’
63
Learning Style and Their Preferences on the
Visual Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
4.8
5
Conclusion
63
DISCUSSION, SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION
5.1
Introduction
64
5.2
The Most Annoying about Electronic
64
Presentation
5.3
Students’ Preferences on the Visual Design of
67
Electronic Teaching Preferences
5.4
Data Analysis on Students’ Learning Style
70
5.5
The Relationship between Final Year Students’
71
Learning Style and Their Preferences on the
Visual Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
5.6
Summary
72
5.7
implication of Research Findings
72
5.8
Research Suggestion
73
5.9
Suggestion For Further Research
74
5.10
Conclusion
75
REFERENCE
76
APPENDIX
86
Questionnaire
87
xii
NOMENCLATURE
SPK
-
Analyze, Design, Development, Implementation,
AC
-
Abstract Conceptualization
AE
-
Active Experimentation
CE
-
Concrete Experience
CD
-
Compact Disc
CDROM
-
Compact Disc-Read Only Memory
N
-
Number of Respondent
RO
-
Reflective Observation
SD
-
Standard Deviation
SPI
-
Bachelor of Science and Education (Islam)
SPK
-
Bachelor of Science and Computer with Education
(Chemistry)
SPL
-
Bachelor of Science and Education (TESL- Teaching
English as Second Language)
SPN
-
Bachelor of Science and Education (Science)
SPP
-
Bachelor of Science and Computer with Education
(Physics)
SPS
-
Bachelor of Science and Education (Sport Science)
SPSS
-
Statistical Package for the Social Science
SPT
-
Bachelor of Science and Computer with Education
(Mathematics)
xiii
LIST OF TABLE
TABLE
2.1
TITLE
Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences with the
PAGE
27
capability and perception
2.2
Kolb’s Learning Style
28
3.1
Research design according to the data being collected
35
3.2
Research implementation
37
3.3
The number of final year students as the sample of the 39
research according to the courses taken
3.4
The number of item according to the sections
40
3.5
The research instrument on the most annoying about
electronic teaching presentation on the visual design
perspective
41
3.6
The research instrument on the most about electronic
teaching presentation on the deliver method
perspective
42
3.7
The Likert Scale
43
3.8
The research instrument to determine the students’
preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation
43
3.9
The research instruments on learning style for active
44
experimentation (AE) and reflective observation (RO)
3.10
The research instruments on learning style for
abstract conceptualization (AC) and concrete
experience (CE)
45
3.11
The Kolb’s learning style
46
3.12
Learner categories according to the Kolb’s Learning
Style
47
xiv
3.13
Cronbach’s Alpha value for items in Section C from
questionnaire
48
3.14
The number and percentage of respondents according
to gender
49
3.15
The number and percentage of respondents according
to the courses
49
3.16
The research instrument on the most annoying about
electronic teaching presentation on the visual design
perspective
50
3.17
The research instrument on the most annoying things
in bad electronic teaching presentation on the deliver
method perspective
51
3.18
Analysis on the data for the students’ preferences on
the visual design of electronic teaching presentation
51
3.19
Analysis on the students’ learning style
53
3.20
The interpretation of Eta squared values
54
4.1
The number and percentage of respondents according
to gender
56
4.2
The number and percentage of respondents according
to their courses
56
4.3
The frequency and percentage on the most annoying
about electronic teaching presentation on the visual
design perspective
57
4.4
The frequency and percentage on the most annoying
about electronic teaching presentation on the deliver
method perspective
58
4.5
Mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the background of electronic teaching
presentation
59
4.6
Mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the multimedia elements of electronic
teaching presentation
59
4.7
Mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the text of electronic teaching
presentation
60
4.8
Mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the image of electronic teaching
presentation
60
xv
4.9
Mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the audio of electronic teaching
presentation
61
4.10
Mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the animation of electronic teaching
presentation
61
4.11
Mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the layout of electronic teaching
presentation
62
4.12
The frequency table for the students’ learning style
62
4.13
The data analysis on the relationship between final
year students’ learning style and their preferences on
the visual design of electronic teaching presentation
63
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
2.1
A model of teaching with technology
PAGE
13
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
1
TITLE
Questionnaire
PAGE
87
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
The use of computer in education has started to gain foot in most schools in
our beloved country, Malaysia. From The Chicago Handbook for Teachers: A
Practical Guide to the College Classroom, Brinkley et al. (1999) stressed out the
usefulness of the computer and related electronic resources have come to play a
central role in education. He stated the five promising uses of the technology
including administration, resources or readings, presentation, lectures, and discussion.
For administration purpose, computers can help us with the routine administration to
manage the students’ information, arrange the timetable, provide copies of the
syllabus, promote courses, and spread the news.
Moreover, Malaysian Government has undertaken major initiatives to boost
the use of computer. Ministry of Education took a few strategies in enhancing the
use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) in education such as the
preparation of sufficient and up-to-date tested ICT infrastructure and equipment to all
educational institutions, the roll-out of ICT curriculum and assessment and the
emphasis of integration of ICT in teaching and learning. The government provided
the computers and projectors for the schools. They even provided the software and
compact disc (CD) for the teachers.
2
Let’s us take a close-up on the use of computer in a classroom. As known,
teachers used to project the transparencies by over-head projector before instructors
had the computer. After all, when the computer had been introduced and provided in
the schools, most of the teachers used electronic teaching presentation as teaching aid
for the teaching and learning process. As the five promising uses of the computer
have been discussed, the computer with presentation software can provide a single
tool for augmenting lectures with outlines, slides, statistical charts and tables, images,
music, and even video clips (Brinkley et al., 1999).
In addition, the internet is widely used in the education field, yet there are
still a great number of teachers using the electronic teaching presentations. This is
due to the internet also plays a role as a medium to help the instructors to spread their
electronic presentation. Most of the instructors are familiar with the electronic
teaching presentations but the focus of this research is on the characteristic of
electronic teaching presentation; Do they really understand and able to use the
technology smartly?
1.2
Background of Problem
It is clearly shown that the use of computer is significant in our routine even
in the educational field. The researcher focused on the usage of computer as
teaching aids in the classroom especially as a tool to present the content of lessons.
Research showed good feedback from the students which the use of technology such
as PowerPoint (one of the presentation software) did tell us about the students’ liked
the PowerPoint. Anderson and Sommer (1997) had pointed out that students liked
PowerPoint because of the use of visual content and the easiness to see the visual;
they can perceive organization more easily.
However, there were some findings or articles stated that the problems
occurred when the improper use of PowerPoint had happened. The problems meant
3
including the delivery method of the instructor which failed to gain the students’
attention and some even with the poor visual design which make the students find the
slides difficult to be read. In other words, students complained the presentation
material and the way of instructors delivered their presentations. Therefore, the most
annoying about electronic teaching presentation would be determined specifically on
its’ visual design and delivery methods among the students’ perspective.
Furthermore, the instructors did not sure about the characteristics of
electronic teaching presentation although they had used for several years. Some of
the presentation really annoying the audience and even caused the distraction of
learners’ attention. Do the instructors keen on the characteristics of the electronic
presentation which can help them to attract the attention of the students and then to
achieve the learning outcomes? Therefore, the researcher found out the
characteristics of the visual design preferred by most of the students.
Students have different levels of motivation, different attitudes about teaching
and learning, and different responses to specific classroom environments and
instructional practices (Felder & Brent, 2005). Students are characterized by
different learning styles, preferentially focusing on different types of information and
tending to operate on perceived information in different ways (Corno & Snow, 1986).
To reduce attrition and improve skill development, instruction should be designed to
meet the needs of students (Stice, 1987). Therefore, it is important for instructors to
determine the students’ learning styles and in succession to help the students to
achieve the learning outcomes. The electronic teaching presentations are widely
used by the instructors as they try to attract the students’ attention, that’s why the
researcher figured out is there any relationship between the between students’
learning style and their preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation
4
1.3
Statement of Problem
There is a great number of electronic teaching presentation have been used in
education. There are some annoying about electronic teaching presentation which
will distract the learners’ attention. Yet, the purpose of having electronic teaching
presentation is to help the instructors’ delivery and also attract and further more to
help them in their understanding in the certain lesson.
Electronic teaching presentation can be an effective visual tool to present
content of the lesson. At the same time, it can be a distraction to the students when it
was used improperly. Therefore, the most annoying about electronic teaching
presentation for both the design and also the delivery method used by instructors
would be determined. Furthermore, the researcher found out the students’
preferences on the visual design of the electronic teaching presentation. This is to
figure out the preferences of students in order to guide the instructors to improve
their electronic presentations from the students’ point of view.
Moreover, the researcher studied on the relationship between students’
preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation and their learning
styles. With such findings, instructors can have an idea on how to improve their
electronic teaching presentation in the visual design aspect. In other words, the
instructors should take the students’ learning styles in their consideration during the
planning of the lesson. According to Johnson & Johnson (1978), there can be a
strong relationship between learning styles and attitudes towards learning, including
motivation to learn, involvement in learning activities, attitudes towards instructors,
and self-efficacy. As a result, the students will pay more attention and perform
much better.
5
1.4
Objective of the Research
There are four main objectives of the research, namely:
a. To find out the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation
specifically for delivery methods and visual design among the final year
students.
b. To investigate the final year students’ preferences on the visual design of
electronic teaching presentation.
c. To identify the learning styles among the final year students based on
Kolb’s Learning Style.
d. To identify whether there is a relationship between final year students’
learning style and their preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation.
1.5
Research Questions
The research questions include:
a. What are the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation
specifically for delivery methods and visual design among the final year
students?
b. What are the final students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation?
c. What are the learning styles among final year students based on Kolb’s
Learning Style?
d. What are the relationship between final year students’ learning style and
their preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation?
6
1.6
Significance of the Research
The importance of this project is to help instructors to determine the most
annoying about electronic teaching presentation especially for delivery methods and
visual design. With the findings, the instructors can have a better presentation by
avoid having the annoying elements in their presentation. Hence the instructors can
improve their teaching qualities. With these, the students can attain better result or
understand better during the lessons.
Besides that, the electronic teaching presentation can be improved by
including the students’ preferences especially on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation. The students will pay more attention and then gain better
understanding in the lessons. Hence the students can perform better in their curricular
achievement.
1.7
Rationale of the Research
The computer plays a helpful role in our daily life. Taylor (1980) described
three modes of using computers in education which included tutor, tool and tutee.
Taylor framed potential uses of the computer as (a) tutor, computer assisted
instruction in which the computer teaches the students, (b) tool, in which the
computer amplifies ability to address academic tasks, and (c) tutee, in which students
learn by programming (tutoring) the computer. The researcher highlighted computer
as a tool in the classroom with the electronic teaching presentation as the centre of
attention.
The main purpose to use the electronic teaching presentation is to draw the
students attention and furthermore to increase the effectiveness on students’
achievement after the lesson. The problems occurred when the students felt boring
and unattractive during the lesson. The researcher specified the problems due to the
7
electronic teaching presentation. In addition, the electronic teaching presentation is
widely used in the lessons regardless the sizes of classes. This happened because of
the easiness to use the electronic teaching presentation. Besides that, the
presentation materials are reusable and portable. Therefore, the researcher
determined the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation specifically for
delivery methods and visual design among the final year students. The instructors
can avoid the annoying about electronic teaching presentation.
Electronic teaching presentation can be an effective visual tool to present
material during the lesson. At the same time, it can be a distraction to students’
attention when it was used improperly. Consequently, it is important to understand
some basic principles of the electronic teaching presentation in order to make the
lesson become more effective and understandable. There is information on basic
principles of the electronic teaching presentation from the internet or book. However,
there is no specific reference about the students’ preferences on the visual design of
electronic teaching presentation particularly for the Malaysia. In the auxiliary, this
research would find out the students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation.
This research would study on students’ learning style in order to determine
the relationship between students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation and their learning style. This is due to each individual learns
differently but the students would be categorized according to their learning styles.
This research tried to help the instructors to make more efficient decision on the
design of the electronic teaching presentation if there is some possible relationship
between the students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation and their learning style.
8
1.8
Scope and limitation of the Research
The focus of this research is to figure out the most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation specifically for delivery methods and visual design. The
research determined the visual design of electronic teaching presentation according
to the final year students’ preferences. The findings from this research can be used
as the reference for the instructors especially lecturer involved in tertiary education.
Therefore, the targeted respondents in this research are the final year students from
Faculty of Education in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. This population had been
chosen with the reason they have better experience in the instructors’ electronic
teaching presentations. Besides that, most of them are taking the courses minor
computer which they have the basic about the visual design of digital application
such as electronic teaching presentation.
The electronic teaching presentation in this research specially referred to the
Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. This is due to this software can be obtained
easily. On the other hand, it has been widely used in the Faculty of Education in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The instructors can make use of the findings from
this research as guideline or references about the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation which are according to the students’ preferences.
1.9
Operational Definition
1.9.1
Electronic Teaching Presentation
From Answer.com, teaching refers to the act, process or art of imparting
knowledge and skill. The Word Tutor defines teaching as the activities of education
or instructing. Basically, electronic teaching presentation refers to the digital
presentation materials used in the classroom for the educational purposes. Besides
9
that, the researcher specifically investigates the electronic teaching presentation as
the Microsoft PowerPoint presentation in this research.
1.9.2
Visual Design
Benson et al. (2002) stated that a good visual design is about communication.
A well-designed application will make it easy for the user to understand the
information that is being presented, and show them clearly how they can interact
with that information. In this research, visual design of the electronic teaching
presentation referred to the background and layout of the slides, font face being used
and the multimedia elements being integrated.
1.9.3
Learning Style
According to Wikipedia (2008), learning style is the method of learning
particular to an individual that is presumed to allow that individual to learn best.
There are a number of learning styles. In this research, Kolb’s learning style had
been chosen as the guideline to categorize the students according to their learning
styles.
Kolb's model works on two levels through a four-stage cycle which includes
Concrete Experience - (CE), Reflective Observation - (RO), Abstract
Conceptualization - (AC) and Active Experimentation - (AE). With this four-stage
cycle, there is a four-type definition of learning styles which include Diverging
(CE/RO), Assimilating (AC/RO), Converging (AC/AE) and Accommodating
(CE/AE). The definition of each learning styles as below:
a. Watcher (Diverger)
- views situations from many perspectives and rely
heavily upon brainstorming and generation of ideas.
10
b. Thinker (Assimilator) - uses inductive reasoning and have the ability to
create theoretical models.
c. Feeler (Converger)
- relies heavily on hypothetical-deductive reasoning.
d. Doer (Accommodator) - carries out plans and experiments and adapt to
immediate circumstances.
1.10
Conclusion
In this chapter, a brief discussion had been done about the electronic teaching
presentation and some of the related issues. A survey would be carried out according
to the research objectives. The literature review would be discussed in the following
chapter.
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
This research focused on electronic teaching presentation. The literature
review started with the role of computer. Then, the researcher discussed on the
electronic presentation in teaching and learning. Besides that, the researcher
discussed the design of electronic teaching presentation and the problems about
electronic teaching presentation. The researcher discussed several learning styles
such as Dunn & Dunn’s Three Basic Learning Styles, Honey and Mumford Learning
Style, Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence, and Kolb’s Learning Style.
Moreover, research on learning style in teaching and learning was reviewed.
2.2
The Role of Computer in Education
Taylor (1980) has described three modes of using computers in education,
which he labels tutor, tool and tutee. When being used as a tutor, computer presents
some subject material, the student responds, the computer evaluates the response,
and, from the results of the evaluation, determines what to present next; when being
used as a tool, the computer has some functionality that saves the learner time and
allows her to focus her intellectual energy on higher order tasks; when being used as
a tutee the computer is 'taught' something by being programmed by the learner.
12
From the other perspective, instructors have found many useful electronic
teaching methods. The researcher has chosen five ways which seem particularly
likely to help significant numbers of instructors. The five ways in which Alan et al.
(1999) suggest instructors consider using electronic resources involve tasks are listed
as below.
i.
Administration: The routine administration of courses (advertising a class,
providing copies of the syllabus, assigning discussion sections, and getting
out course news) can be more efficiently handled with a course home page,
electronic discussion groups, and e-mail lists. These tools can also
dramatically improve the continuity and the community aspects of courses,
helping students to engage with and learn from each other and even from
people outside the course.
ii.
Readings/sources: The Web and CD-ROMs provide a wider variety of
secondary and primary sources (including visual and audio sources) than has
previously been available. With your guidance, your students can now gain
access to materials that were once accessible only to experts because they
were too cumbersome to reproduce for classroom use or too expensive for
students to purchase. By taking their own paths through these sources,
students can bring their own evidence and arguments into lectures and
discussion sections, as well as write on a wider range of research topics.
iii.
Papers/presentations: Rather than performing assignments and taking exams
from the teacher alone, students can perform more independent exercises in
publishing, exhibit building, or assembling and presenting teaching units and
other materials for their peers. A web archive of several terms' work can
make the course itself an ongoing and collaborative intellectual construction.
iv.
Lectures: A computer with presentation software can provide a single tool
for augmenting lectures with outlines, slides, statistical charts and tables,
images, music, and even video clips. In addition to printing them as handouts,
you can save in-class presentations in a web-compatible format for later
review and discussion.
v.
Discussion: Electronic discussion tools such as e-mail, conferencing
software, and on-line chat services can seed discussion questions before the
class meets, draw out your shy students, and follow up on discussions or
13
questions on the reading between classes. For courses without face-to-face
discussion sections, these tools can bring the course to life over great
distances and help overcome scheduling difficulties.
According to the Centre for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT)
from University of Michigan (2004), teaching with technology involves four major
components: the students, the instructors, course content, and technology tools as
shown in the Figure 2.1. In order to make technology integration a success,
instructors have to consider on each component. Content can be examined in terms
of learning outcomes and the discipline being taught. Instructors can think of their
own experience with technology, the amount of time they have for planning and
teaching, and their view of their role in the teaching and learning process. Instructors
need to think carefully about the students, their exposure and access to technology as
well as their preferred learning styles. Finally, the technology itself should be
analyzed according to its functions. This approach to teaching and learning with
technology assumes that the four component parts are integrated and that changes in
one part will require adjustments to the other three in order to achieve the same goals.
Student
Instructor
Teaching
with
Technology
Technology
Figure 2.1: A model of teaching with technology
Content
14
2.3
Electronic Presentation in Teaching and Learning
With each new technological development educators attempt to incorporate it
into their classroom with the intent of increasing student learning and achievement.
Donna et al. (2005) stated that many large university lectures incorporate PowerPoint
into the curriculum. PowerPoint is an application for creating and delivering
presentation (Graham Lewis, 2002). It was originally developed for public speaking
and not specifically for teaching and what works in a boardroom may not necessarily
work in a classroom. However, its use in teaching and learning situations should
provide a better way of communicating information to students. PowerPoint can
enhance instructors’ teaching sessions, reinforcing what being deliver verbally and
allowing the use of graphics and other multimedia to clarify understanding and to
support different learning styles. The benefits of using PowerPoint technology in
teaching and learning are anything but clear. The pervasive use of PowerPoint in the
classroom is viewed by some instructors as an indispensable tool (Anderson &
Sommer, 1997, Ptaszynski, 1997; Grabe et al., 2005; Susskind, 2005).
2.3.1
The Benefits of Electronic Teaching Presentation
One of the common software used to produce electronic teaching presentation
materials is Microsoft PowerPoint. PowerPoint can help instructors to create
interactive presentations containing text, art, animation, and audio and video
elements. It is probably the best-known presentation graphics program available.
PowerPoint's widespread availability is not the only reason for its popularity; it is
due to the choices it allows.
PowerPoint offers many features and options beyond those have been
mentioned above. Linda Starr (2000) stated that one can be able to choose from a
variety of presentation types, designs, and layouts; create original designs and
layouts as well as change colors and color schemes in pre-selected designs; add,
delete, and rearrange slides within a presentation; insert web art, scanned images, or
15
create your own drawings; create charts and graphs; incorporate sound and videos;
add hyperlinks; and save work in html.
Bryant and Hunton (2000) stated that the degree of improved learning is a
function of a complex set of interactions among learner and medium attributes.
Mason and Hlynka (1998) stated that PowerPoint helps structure the content and
processing of a lesson or lecture. Aiding note-taking and facilitating study are other
purported advantages of using PowerPoint (Cook, 1998). Parks (1999) reported that
students liked the lecture outline and graphs on the screen, and that the PowerPoint
presentation had a positive influence on students. Harrison (1999) argued that
PowerPoint enhances instruction and motivates students to learn.
Besides that, Ptaszynski (1997) had stated that putting PowerPoint before
class required me to finely tune the content of my class and this make me tended to
be more organized. It is just like practicing a speech out loud helps you find errors
your normally would not find through "silent practice," putting everything down on
PowerPoint made me pay closer attention to the value of each of my visuals.
Ptaszynski (1997) continued that PowerPoint helps him not having to write a
complex visual such as a positioning map on the board and this help him to save
class time. Ptaszynski (1997) stated that another element that PowerPoint changed
was student attention. Knowing that the PowerPoint slides would be available for
later viewing or download from our network, the students could concentrate on the
discussion rather than on being scribes. This engendered a much more lively
discussion.
Martha (1997) had stated that the use of PowerPoint presentations as a lecture
aid in the higher education. He suggested the PowerPoint can accomplish help
instructors in the following purpose:
i.
to support lectures by highlighting key points
ii.
to present tips and outlines
iii.
to present examples
16
iv.
to provide pictures and other graphics supporting the material
v.
to stimulate interest by use of clipart and cartoons
vi.
to display assignment information
vii.
to make important announcements
As the multimedia can be integrated into the PowerPoint presentation, let’s
further into the benefits of integrated such multimedia into the PowerPoint.
Multimedia allows computing to move from text and data into the realm of graphics,
sound, images, and full-motion video; thus multimedia allows users to use the power
of computers in new ways (Gantt, 1998). In short, multimedia can be thought of as
using a computer to provide a multi-sensory experience. This experience enhances
lectures, laboratory experiments, and individualized instruction by allowing
participants to control and manage multimedia navigation (Gantt, 1998).
According to United States Department of Defense data, we have short-term
retention of approximately 20% of what we hear, 40% of what we see and hear, and
75% of what we see, hear, and do (Oblinger, 1991). Students completed courses
with multimedia in one-third of the time as those receiving traditional instruction,
and reach competency levels up to 50% higher.
Other studies have focused on the educational effectiveness of technology in
general. Feitcher (1991) states that in broad terms, computer-based instruction works.
It offers a 10 to 20% improvement in performance over conventional training
methods and a one-third reduction in time on task. Instructors can reduce the amount
of time that a student spends learning by one-third.
There are other benefits to learning through multimedia such as learning is
self-paced, information is easier to access, learning becomes more interesting, and
independent discovery-oriented learning is fostered. Jensen and Sandlin's study
(1991) has outlined further benefits of multimedia, which include:
17
i.
Multimedia mirrors the way in which the human mind thinks, learns, and
remembers by moving easily from words to images to sound, stopping along
the way for interpretation, analysis, and in-depth exploration.
ii.
The combination of media elements in a multimedia lesson enables trainees
to learn more spontaneously and naturally, using whatever sensory modes
they prefer. For example, some people learn best by seeing, others learn best
by seeing and hearing, still others learn best through manipulation or
kinesthetic (tactile) exercises.
iii.
Combining media elements with well-designed, interactive exercises enables
learners to extend their experience to discover on their own, so that they are
no longer passive while information is "fed" to them. Additionally, programs
may be designed to include immediate feedback in order to clarify
misconceptions before trainees become confused and to provide direct
reinforcement for correct responses.
iv.
While students may only raise their hands to ask a question so many times,
many multimedia programs (expert systems) are designed to allow learners to
pause, branch, or stop for further remediation, exploration, or enhancement
opportunities; these interactive qualities encourage non-linear thinking.
v.
By combining words with pictures, graphics, and audio, multimedia programs
enable people with varying levels of literacy and math skills to learn by using
sight, hearing, and touch. Evidence suggests that using multimedia segments
as context for trainees significantly aids in reading comprehension.
vi.
Instructional technologies help people learn to problem-solve and work in
teams, which support the development of interpersonal skills.
vii.
With a multimedia program as assistant, trainers can provide more
individualized attention to trainees as they need it most.
viii.
Instructors have time to focus on activities that demand participation while
students are able to learn on their own.
18
2.3.2
The Future of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Let's not overlook the use of technology in the old-fashioned classroom. For
example, instructors can easily create presentations in PowerPoint. Instructors can
display presentations on a computer monitor, television, or screen. Instructors can
distribute printed copies of the presentation as take-home materials for the students.
Ellen Finkelstein (2000) has pointed out electronic presentation of
educational material is not only live in class as it is for most of the time, the
presentation can be live through the internet or synchronous when the internet is
available. This usually happens when the teaching and learning process is at a
distance. Or, some have saved the presentation and then recorded or posted via the
Internet or asynchronous, for both locally or at a distance.
To further define these new terms, synchronous education is live. The
teacher and the students are present at the same time, but they are in different
locations. The Internet creates the connection between the teacher and the students.
Students have the opportunity to ask questions in real time, either orally or via a chat
window (Kevin Kruse, 2004).
Asynchronous education is not live; rather, the
lesson is saved and made available at a later time, often at the student's convenience
(Wegerif, 1998). Students usually access the lesson via the Internet, although lowtech solutions such as videotapes are also available.
As traditional education is being compared with synchronous and
asynchronous education modes in terms of the volume of students they can reach, the
subjective experience for the student and the cost both to attend and to deliver,
educators can noticed both asynchronous and synchronous education offer greatly
expanded reach compared to traditional education.
Synchronous education involves a real-time, faculty-led online learning event
where all students are logged on at the same time (Kevin Kruse, 2004). This type of
19
education is sometimes called a virtual classroom. It is ideal when all students are in
similar time zones. There are a number of ways to create a synchronous session.
For example, instructors use PowerPoint to create presentations for students. On the
other hand, teleconferencing or Internet meeting software is used to deliver the
presentation. The audio portion is streamed along with the presentation or delivered
via a conference phone call, depending on the available bandwidth and the
capabilities of the software.
Asynchronous education creates a time-delayed learning experience (Wegerif,
1998). Self-paced courses are asynchronous. This type of program is ideal when
students are widely dispersed or not available all at one time. There are many options
for creating asynchronous learning experiences, such as posting a PowerPoint
presentation on the web for viewing any time and e-mailing presentations to students
who have PowerPoint software. In addition, PowerPoint presentations offer a good
balance in terms of cost and ease of use.
In a nutshell, PowerPoint offers many opportunities in the field of education.
Instructors can easily create in-class presentations that are lively and informative,
they can teach live courses via the Internet, and they can design courses that students
can take from any location, whenever convenient to them. PowerPoint is easy to use
and flexibility, from the point of view of both the instructors and the students. This
makes it a valuable option when you need to present course material in any
educational setting.
2.4
Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Three types of design in the electronic presentation which are namely
interaction design, information deign and visual design as Kristof and Satran (1995)
had broken them into three design steps. The first step involves information design;
where instructors ask themselves and students what is the presentation should be.
20
The second step is interaction design, addressing how it the presentation will work.
The final design stage involves presentation design which considers how it should
look. In other words, the design of PowerPoint presentation should be well-planned
before it has been produced.
2.4.1
Information Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Information design has been defined as the art and science of preparing
information so that it can be used by human beings with efficiency and effectiveness
(Jacobson, 2000). During the 1980s, information design broadened to include
responsibility for message content and language ( Felker et al., 1981; Albers et al.,
2003), and a greater role for user-testing and research than had been traditional in
mainstream graphic design ( Waller, 1979; Easterby & Zwaga, 1984).
The better the information, the better the people. Information design is
dedicated to make information as effective as possible. In order to be as effective as
possible, information must carefully balance a variety of factors, including, but not
limited to clarity, relevance, timeliness, amplitude, volume, and differentiation
(Gabriel-Petit & Petit,2004). Different students have different needs to obtain the
same content.
2.4.2
Interaction Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Answers. com (2008) has defined interaction design as the discipline of
defining and creating the behavior of technical, biological, environmental and
organizational systems. Examples of these systems are software, products, mobile
devices, environments, services, wearable, and even organizations themselves.
Interaction design defines the behavior or interaction of an artifact or system in
response to its users over time.
21
Interaction design aims to minimize the learning curve and increase the
accuracy and efficiency of task completion, without diminishing the value of a
product's useful functionality (Cooper & Robert, 2003). The objective to have
interaction design is to lead to less frustration, higher productivity, and higher
satisfaction for users.
Interaction design attempts to improve the usability and experience of the
object or system, by first researching and understanding certain users' needs and then
designing to meet and exceed these needs. However, in this research context, the
interaction design refers to the delivery method of the instructors.
As we know that interaction design defines how presentations communicate
their functionality to students and how students can interact with presentation, good
interaction design is consistent and facilitates people’s tasks (Gabriel-Petit & Petit,
2004). They added that good interaction design also ensures that presentations are
usable by effectively communicating the presentations’ functionality with students,
interactivity and defining user interactions that are indubitable or easy to learn and
easy to perform, and specifying behaviors that students communicate presentations’
responses to user interactions.
2.4.3
Visual Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Visual design or interface design encompasses three distinct, but related
constructs-usability, visualization, and functionality (Vertelney et al., 1990).
Interface design is most often associated with the development of web pages,
computer software, and multimedia, but is relevant to the creation of any
instructional media or technical equipment. In short, interface design is all about
what user can see on the screen.
22
Visual interface design encompasses layout, imagery, color, and typography;
establishes your brand identity; and is the aspect of user experience design that users
notice first (Gabriel-Petit & Petit, 2004). A well-ordered, visually pleasing user
interface makes a good first impression, gives students’ confidence in the quality and
usability of presentation, and attracts and engages the interest of students. The
presentation’s visual interface design communicates its functionality, shows
functional groupings, expresses hierarchical and associative relationships, directs
users’ attention, and especially in information products, facilitates comprehension
through the clear presentation of information (Gabriel-Petit & Petit, 2004). Good
visual interface design must have the consistency between slides in order contributes
greatly to the usability consistency to their user interfaces.
2.5
Problem of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Wynn (1996) has stated that the negative comments from the survey with the
respondents who experienced electronic presentation as below:
i.
Slide design is very often poor, with too many colors, too much clip-art
and type size either far too large or too small.
ii.
Having to have the room darkened made it very difficult to stay awake,
particularly for part-time students attending evening classes.
iii.
Far too many slides with no way of knowing how many there were in
total.
iv.
The slides became monotonous and even where video was used; the
quality was often so poor that it wasn't worthwhile. One student
commented that she would rather watch the video than have snippets
integrated into PowerPoint.
v.
Whilst over eighty percent of the students preferred the electronic
presentation, nearly every one of them found that there were aspects that
they didn't like.
vi.
The students felt that lectures where electronic presentations were not
used were less professional, although some conceded that these lectures
23
were often more enjoyable because the lecturer created interest in other
ways.
Sweller (2007) from the University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia
who developed the cognitive load theory has claimed that the use of the PowerPoint
presentation has been a disaster. He added it is effective to speak to a diagram,
because it presents information in a different form. However, it is not effective to
speak the same words that are written, because it is putting too much load on the
mind and decreases your ability to understand what is being presented.
There are a number of the problems of electronic teaching presentation
caused by the insufficient skills of the instructors. The instructors are either
inadequate of the knowledge on visual design of the electronic presentation or the
lack of the technique to conduct a class with technology confidently.
2.6
Learning Style
With the shift from an instructional to a learning paradigm, there is growing
acceptance that understanding the way students learn is the key to educational
improvement. To achieve a desired learning outcome, one should provide teaching
and counseling interventions that are compatible with the students’ learning styles.
Thus, ‘learning style’ is a concept that is important not only in shaping teaching
practices, but also in highlighting issues that help administrators and instructors to
think more deeply about their roles in facilitating student learning.
Before discussion about the learning style, let’s have a look on what is
learning. According to Zuber-Skerritt (1992), he stated that learning is a process as
well as an outcome. Learning styles can be defined as a set of cognitive, emotional,
characteristic and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of
24
how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment
(Keefe, 1979).
A student’s style of learning, if accommodated, can result in improved
attitudes toward learning and an increase in thinking skills, academic achievement,
and creativity (Irvine & York, 1995). Fielding (1994) told us that an understanding
of learning styles is a necessary component in the groundwork of emancipator
pedagogy. A learning style is the method of learning particular to an individual that
is presumed to allow that individual to learn best. It has been proposed that teachers
should assess the learning styles of their students and adapt their classroom methods
to best fit each student's learning style.
There are several types of learning style would be discuss in this section
including Dunn & Dunn’s Three Basic Learning Styles, Honey and Mumford
Learning Style, Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence, and Kolb’s Learning Style.
2.6.1
Dunn & Dunn’s Three Basic Learning Styles
Despite the wide range of learning models, the three basic perceptual learning
styles as described by Dunn & Dunn are visual, verbal and kinesthetic or tactile.
Dunn and Dunn (1978) developed a comprehensive model dealing with
environmental, emotional, sociological, physical, and psychological learning style
elements and claimed that these elements could provide information directly to
teaching strategies.
Dunn & Dunn (1978) described the visual learners relate to the most
effectively to visual displays like written information, notes, diagrams and pictures.
They tend to prefer sitting at the front of the classroom to avoid visual obstruction, to
have a clear view of the instructors when they are speaking so that they can see the
body language and facial expression. Visual learners often prefer to take detailed
25
notes to absorb information. They learn best by writing down key points, and
visualizing what they learn. They follow written instructions better than oral ones.
Auditory learners relate most effectively to verbal lectures, discussions and
by listening to what others have to say. Written information may have little meaning
until it is verbalized or read aloud. Auditory learners like participating in class
discussions and debates, as well as discussing ideas verbally. They would rather
listen to a lecture than read the material in a textbook. They are good in making
speeches and presentations.
Kinesthetic or tactile learners learn through moving, doing and touching.
Kinesthetic learners learn best through a hands-on approach. They may be
considered hyperactive, take frequent breaks and may become distracted by their
need for activity and exploration. In learning, they skim through learning materials to
get a gist of the content before settling down to read it in detail. They enjoy working
with their hands.
2.6.2
Honey and Mumford Learning Style
Honey & Mumford (1982) developed a model of learning styles by linking
the different stages of Kolb’s cycle to produce a model of four descriptions of
learning. The four types of learners are called activists, reflectors, theorists and
pragmatists.
Activists are those involve themselves fully without bias to new experiences.
They are open-minded, enthusiastic; constantly thriving for new challenges but are
bored with implementation and long-term consolidation. They would enjoy learning
through games, competitive teamwork tasks and role-plays. In other words, activists
who those are ‘hands-on’ learners and prefer to have a go and learn through trial and
error.
26
Reflectors prefer to step back to ponder and observe others before taking
action. They are in general cautious, may be perceived as indecisive and tend to
adopt a low profile. The reflector prefers learning activities that are observational
(like carrying out an investigation) and give allowance to ponder upon. Or, reflectors
are ‘tell me’ learners and prefer to be thoroughly briefed before proceeding.
Theorists adapt and integrate information in a step-by-step logical way. They
prefer to maximize certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgments,
lateral thinking and anything flippant. The theorist prefers activities that explore the
interrelationship between ideas and principles. The theorists have been declared as
‘convince me’ learners because they want reassurance that a project makes sense.
Pragmatists are keen to try out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they
work in practice. They are essentially practical, down-to-earth people, like making
practical decisions, act quickly on ideas that attract them and tend to be impatient
with open-ended discussions. The pragmatist prefers learning activities which are as
close as possible to direct work experience. Pragmatists are ‘show me’ learners and
want a demonstration from an acknowledged expert.
It is generally agreed that a combination of different types of learners will
make an effective team in an organization. In discussing an issue, the most likely
question the reflector will pursue is why it is important; the theorist, in contrast, will
be interested in what it is all about; the pragmatist will be concerned with how it can
be applied in the real world; the activist will be keen to know what if they were to
apply it here and now.
27
2.6.3
Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory focuses on the content of learning.
The seven intelligences are Linguistic or Verbal, Spatial or Visual, Bodily
Kinesthetic, Logical or Mathematical, Musical, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal.
While the first three learning styles conform to the basic perceptual learning styles as
described by Dunn & Dunn, the inclusion of all seven intelligences are conceived as
a more holistic approach to learning in the real world as shown in the Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences with the capability and
perception
Intelligence type
Linguistic
Capability and Perception
words and language
Logical-Mathematical
logic and numbers
Musical
music, sound, rhythm
Bodily-Kinesthetic
body movement control
Spatial-Visual
images and space
Interpersonal
other people's feelings
2.6.4
Kolb’s Learning Style
Kolb's learning theory sets out four distinct learning styles (or preferences),
which are based on a four-stage learning cycle. In this respect Kolb's model is
particularly elegant, since it offers both a way to understand individual people's
different learning styles, and also an explanation of a cycle of experiential learning
that applies to us all. Kolb includes this 'cycle of learning' as a central principle his
experiential learning theory, typically expressed as four-stage cycle of learning, in
which immediate or concrete experiences provide a basis for 'observations and
reflections'. These observations and reflections are assimilated and distilled into
abstract concepts producing new implications for action which can be 'actively
tested' in turn creating new experiences.
28
Kolb says that ideally this process represents a learning cycle or spiral where
the learner 'touches all the bases', such as a cycle of experiencing, reflecting, thinking,
and acting. Immediate or concrete experiences lead to observations and reflections.
These reflections are then assimilated (absorbed and translated) into abstract
concepts with implications for action, which the person can actively test and
experiment with, which in turn enable the creation of new experiences.
Kolb's model therefore works on two levels - a four-stage cycle: 1- Concrete
Experience (CE), 2- Reflective Observation (RO), 3- Abstract Conceptualization
(AC), 4- Active Experimentation (AE) and a four-type definition of learning styles.
Each representing the combination of two preferred styles, rather like a two-by-two
matrix of the four-stage cycle styles, as illustrated below table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Kolb’s Learning Style
If you are AE and CE
then you are a Doer
(Accommodator)
Concrete Experience and
Active Experimentation
If you are RO and AC
then you are a Thinker
(Assimilation)
Reflective Observation and
Abstract Conceptualization
If you are RO and CE
then you are a Watcher
(Diverger)
Reflective Observation and
Concrete Experience
If you are AE and AC
then you are a Feeler
(Converger)
Active Experimentation and
Abstract Conceptualization
The converger's dominant learning abilities are Abstract Conceptualization
(AC) and Active Experimentation (AE). This person's greatest strength lies in the
practical application of ideas. A person with this style seems to do best in those
situations like conventional intelligence tests where there is a single correct answer
or solution to a question or problem. This person's knowledge is organized in such a
way that through hypothetical-deductive reasoning this person can focus it on
specific problems. Research on this style of learning shows that Converger's are
relatively unemotional, preferring to deal with things rather than people. They tend to
29
have narrow technical interests, and choose to specialize in the physical sciences.
This learning style is characteristic of many engineers.
The diverger has the opposite learning strengths of the converger. This
person is best at Concrete Experience (CE) and Reflective Observation (RO). This
person's greatest strength lies in imaginative ability. This person excels in the ability
to view concrete situations from many perspectives. This style has been labelled as
Diverger because a person with this style performs better in situations that call for
generation of ideas such as a "brainstorming" idea session. Research showed that
Divergers are interested in people and tend to be imaginative and emotional. They
have broad cultural interests and tend to specialize in the arts. This style is
characteristic of individuals from humanities and liberal arts backgrounds.
Counselors, organization development specialists and personnel managers tend to be
characterized by this learning style.
The Assimilator's dominant learning abilities are Abstract Conceptualization
(AC) and Reflective Observation (RO). This person's greatest strength lies in the
ability to create theoretical models. This person excels in inductive reasoning and in
assimilating disparate observations into an integrated explanation. This person, like
the converger, is less interested in people and more concerned with abstract concepts,
but is less concerned with the practical use of theories.
For this person it is more important that the theory be logically sound and
precise; in a situation where a theory or plan does not fit the "facts," the Assimilator
would be likely to disregard or re-examine the facts. As a result, this learning style is
more characteristic of the basic sciences and mathematics rather than the applied
sciences. In organizations this learning style is found most often in the research and
planning departments.
The Accommodator has the opposite learning strengths of the Assimilator.
This person is best at Concrete Experience (CE) and Active Experimentation (AE).
This person's greatest strength lies in doing about carrying out plans and experiments
30
and involving oneself in new experiences. This person tends to be more of a risktaker than people with the other three learning styles. This person has been labelled
as Accommodator because this person tends to excel in those situations where one
must adapt oneself to specific immediate circumstances. In situations where a theory
or plan does not fit the "facts," this person will most likely discard the plan or theory.
This person tends to solve problems in an intuitive trial and error manner, relying
heavily on other people for information rather than on one's own analytic ability.
The Accommodator is at ease with people but is sometimes seen as
impatient and "pushy." This person's educational background is often in technical or
practical fields such as business. In organizations people with this learning style are
found in "action-oriented" jobs often in marketing or sales."
2.6.4.1 The Strength of Kolb’s Learning Style
According to Healey and Jenkins (2000), there is a number of the strength of
Kolb’s learning Style as shown below.
i.
provides ready pointers to application;
ii.
directs us to ensure that a range of teaching methods are used in a course;
provides a theoretical
iii.
rationale for what many of us already do as teachers and then points us as to
how to improve on that practice (in particular ensuring effective links
between theory and application);
iv.
makes explicit the importance of encouraging our students to reflect and
providing them with feedback to reinforce their learning;
v.
support us in developing a diverse aware classroom;
vi.
makes us aware of the way in which different learning styles have to be
combined for effective learning;
vii.
can be readily applied to all areas of the discipline;
viii.
can be used by individuals and course teams; and
31
ix.
can be applied widely from a single classroom session to a whole degree
programme.
2.7
Research on Learning Style in Teaching and learning
The Centre for research on Learning and Teaching in University of Michigan
has stated reason to incorporate an understanding of learning styles in teaching and
learning. Susan & Linda (1998) stated that the current teaching practices assume
students as an empty vessel and role of instructors is to fill them with knowledge.
However, research on student learning suggested the metaphor of dialogue is more
appropriate in that it emphasizes the interactive, cooperative, relational aspect of
teaching and learning (Tiberius, 1986). Furthermore, the students are diverse not
only in terms of gender, age, ethnic, nationality and cultural background, but also in
terms of learning styles. Therefore, it is important to determine the students’
learning style in order to make teaching and learning interactively.
As it has been mentioned in the earlier part, the technology came in to the
education, one of the technology that has been used widely in the lecture is electronic
teaching presentation. This is clearly shown when Donna et al. (2005) stated that
many large university lectures incorporate PowerPoint into the curriculum. Due to
the widely used presentation, there is a number of researches being carried out to
take in learning style of the students as part of their findings.
Many of the students surveyed experienced electronic presentations in
several classes and were able to compare the different methods used by different
lecturers. A summary of some of their comments follows (Wynn, 1996):
i.
Slide design is very often poor, with too many colors, too much clip-art
and type size either far too large or too small.
ii.
Having to have the room darkened made it very difficult to stay awake,
particularly for part-time students attending evening classes.
32
iii.
Far too many slides with no way of knowing how many there were in
total.
iv.
Whilst it was good to have advance access to the teaching materials
(some lecturers published the whole semester's slides in a book prior to
the first class), it created a fairly static and packaged feel to the class.
v.
The advance access to the slides created the opportunity to formulate
intelligent questions, but there was often no time in which to ask them in
class.
vi.
The slides became monotonous and even where video was used; the
quality was often so poor that it wasn't worthwhile. One student
commented that she would rather watch the video than have snippets
integrated into PowerPoint.
vii.
Whilst over eighty percent of the students preferred the electronic
presentation, nearly every one of them found that there were aspects that
they didn't like.
viii.
The students felt that lectures where electronic presentations were not
used were less professional, although some conceded that these lectures
were often more enjoyable because the lecturer created interest in other
ways.
ix.
One hundred percent of the students recognized the fact that electronic
presentations were unbeatable when demonstrating or explaining facets of
computing software.
x.
Eighty percent of the lecturers commented on the convenience and time
and money saving elements of using electronic overheads, but conceded
that, as with acetate overheads, there was a danger of "recycling" lectures
by simply changing the date at the bottom.
xi.
Both students and lecturers acknowledged that there was not enough time
to provide the opportunity for students to articulate, interact and reflect.
33
2.8
Conclusion
In this chapter, the researcher had overviewed the use and problems of
electronic teaching presentation. All these information would be applied during the
construction of questionnaire and the analysis of the findings.
34
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
This chapter focused on the research methodology. The researcher discussed
about the method used to construct each section of the questionnaire and the steps
should be taken in each phase of research procedure. Furthermore, the researcher
studied the sampling technique used to determine the sample of research. Further
discussion on the research instrument and its’ validity and reliability has been carried
out. Finally, the researcher looked into the method to process and analyse the data
collected. Then, the conclusion can be made based on the findings of the research in
order to accomplish the research objectives.
3.2
Research Design
A research design is a plan, structure and strategy of investigation so
conceived as to obtain the answer for research questions (Kerlinger, 1986). A
research study is to be completed by operationalizing the variables so they can be
measured, selecting the sample of interest to study, collecting data to be used as a
basis for testing hypothesis, and analyzing the results (Thyer,1993).
Generally, there are two approaches to carry out a research which include
qualitative and quantitative. According to Bandolier (2007), qualitative research is
used to explore and understand people's beliefs, experiences, attitudes, behavior and
interactions. It generates non- numerical data. On the other hand, quantitative
35
research refers to the research which generates numerical data or data that can be
converted into numbers. Quantitative research approach is an objective, formal
systematic process in which numerical data findings. It describes, tests, and examines
cause and effect relationships (Burns & Grove, 1987), using a deductive process of
knowledge attainment (Duffy, 1985). In this research, quantitative research has been
used. The research design has been described in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Research design according to the data being collected
Data being collected
Quantitative research design
The most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation specifically for
delivery methods and visual design
Survey through the distribution of
among the final year students
questionnaire.
The final year students’ preferences on
the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation
The learning styles among the final year
students based on Kolb’s Learning Style
The relationship between final year
Analysis on the data collected through
students’ learning style and their
survey using questionnaire.
preferences on the visual design of
electronic teaching presentation.
3.3
Research Procedure
Several steps have been taken in order to make this research a success. As
the usage of electronic presentation increased tremendously in the educational field,
the researcher would like to find out some ideas to detail the students’ preferences on
the electronic teaching presentation. At the beginning, the researcher collected some
general ideas on this topic; then, the researcher discovered some articles about the
most annoying about electronic teaching presentation. The most annoying about
36
electronic teaching presentation became part of the findings in this research.
Meanwhile, student-centred teaching strategies are no longer the new thing in
educational field. With the analysis on the students’ learning styles, the researcher
would like to find out is there any the relationship between the students’ learning
style and their preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation.
The decision has been made to target final year students of Faculty of Education in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia as respondents in this research.
For the construction of the research instrument, the items have been
constructed based on the research objectives and also the consideration on the
background of targeted respondents. There are several resources have been taken to
construct the research instruments. Some of the items are taken from the previous
research papers such as the items to find out the students’ learning style according to
the Kolb’s Learning Style. Besides that, there are some items adapted from the
related topic readings and they have been modified to be part of the research
instruments in this research. Some of the items have been written based on the
information from the related topics readings and researcher’s own experiences.
A pilot study has been carried out to measure the reliability and validity of
the research instruments. There are 10 students from the population who involved in
the pilot study. The questionnaire has been modified to achieve better reliability and
validity based on the Cronbach’s alpha value. The total number of population has
been obtained from the Faculty of Educational in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
The questionnaires have been distributed to the respondents. The questionnaires
have been distributed in several ways due to the large number of respondents. Part
of them were distributed at the beginning of lecture and collected at the end of the
lecture. Some of them were distributed to the respondents and they answered and
gave back spontaneously. Some of the respondents brought the questionnaires and
gave them back on the next meeting.
After all, all the collected data have been keyed in and processed by using
software namely Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 13. SPSS
helps to analyze the data in the form of figure. All of the research procedures have
37
been summarize in Table 3.2. With these, the researcher drew out the conclusion of
this research.
Table 3.2: Research implementation
Month
Task
January - March
Determine the research objective and the targeted respondents.
April- June
Construct the research instrument.
July
Conduct the pilot study and modify the questionnaire.
August
Distribute the questionnaire (actual research).
September
Analyze the data collected.
October
Complete the final report according to the findings.
3.4
Population and Sample
A population is the total possible of the group being studied (Wilson, 2000).
Burns and Grove (2001) stated population as all of the subjects which fulfil the
criteria for inclusion in a study. In this research, the population refers to the final
year students from Faculty of Education in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia which is
taking courses minor computer. There are seven courses minor in computer offered
by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia which include as below:
a) Bachelor of Science and Education (Islam) – SPI
b) Bachelor of Science and Computer with Education (Chemistry) – SPK
c) Bachelor of Science and Education (TESL- Teaching English as Second
Language) – SPL
d) Bachelor of Science and Computer with Education (Physics) – SPP
e) Bachelor of Science and Education (Science) – SPN
f) Bachelor of Science and Education (Sport Science) – SPS
g) Bachelor of Science and Computer with Education (Mathematics) – SPT
38
The respondents have been chosen with the reason they have better
experience in the instructors’ electronic teaching presentations. In addition, most of
them are taking the courses minor in computer so they have the basic about the visual
design of digital application such as electronic teaching presentation. The basic
computer subjects have been included in their curriculum such as Technology in
Teaching and Learning and Graphic, Animation, Audio, Video and Digital
Technology.
Sampling is the process of making a selection of the sample of study (Burn &
Grove, 2001). However, the sample taken must represent the population. According
to Will (2000), the sample must be representative of the population to generalize
from the sample to the population and the safest way to ensure that it is
representative is to use a random selection procedure.
Stratified sampling is a procedure for selecting a sample that includes
identified subgroups from the population in the proportion that they exist in the
population. This method can be used to select equal numbers from each of the
identified subgroups if a comparison between subgroups is important. Stratified
random selection has been used which the sample is divided into subgroups. In this
research, the sample is divided to subgroup according to their courses.
Besides that, proportional sampling is used in combination with stratified
sampling. Proportional sampling (Van Dalen, 1979) provides the researcher a way to
achieve even greater representativeness in the sample of the population. This is
accomplished by selecting individuals at random from the subgroup in proportion to
the actual size of the group in the total population.
There are 235 students as our targeted respondents. According to the Krejcie
and Morgan (1970), at least 142 students are needed as the sample of this research.
The actual number of t sample in this research is 150 students. With the above
mentioned stratified and proportional sampling, proportional allocation has been
39
done on each of courses in order to obtain a representative sample as shown in the
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: The number of final year students as the sample of the research according
to the courses taken
Courses
Number of
Percent for
Sample
Actual
population
group (%)
needed
sample
50
21
30
32
49
21
30
31
37
16
23
24
29
12
17
18
24
10
14
15
23
10
14
15
23
10
14
15
235
100
142
150
Bachelor of Science and
Computer with Education
(Mathematics) – SPT
Bachelor of Science and
Education (Islam) – SPI
Bachelor of Science and
Education (TESL- Teaching
English as Second Language)
– SPL
Bachelor of Science and
Education (Science) – SPN
Bachelor of Science and
Education (Sport Science) –
SPS
Bachelor of Science and
Computer with Education
(Physics) – SPP
Bachelor of Science and
Computer with Education
(Chemistry) – SPK
Total
40
3.5
Research Instrument
Quantitative approach has been used in this research. Surveys are used to
obtain information about people’s beliefs, attitudes, opinions and interests
(Abrahamson, 1992). Burns and Grove (1993) have defined quantitative approach as
a systematic process in which numerical data are utilized to obtain information about
the phenomenon. Questionnaires have been distributed to collect the data. The
research instruments have been constructed according to the research objectives.
Most of the research items are close-ended questions. This is due to the data would
be analysed descriptively in order to generalise the findings of this research.
Table 3.4 shows the items in the questionnaires according to the criteria. In
this research, there are four sections namely Section A, Section B, Section C and
Section D. There are 2 items in Section A concern on the respondents’ background.
A total of 20 questions in Section B are equally divided into two parts which help to
determine the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation especially for the
visual design and the delivery method. On the other hand, Section C items focus on
the students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation with
18 items. In Section D, there are 18 items on students’ learning style.
Table 3.4: The number of item according to the sections
Section
Criteria
Number of item
A
Respondents’ background
2
B
The most annoying about electronic teaching
20
presentation
C
The students’ preferences on the visual design of
18
electronic teaching presentation
D
Students’ Learning style
18
41
3.5.1
Respondents’ Background
The first section of the questionnaire determined the respondents’ background.
The respondents have to choose their gender and write their courses. The data on the
respondent’s background is important during the sampling. The sampling technique
has been used is stratified and proportional sampling. These two items are suggested
by the researcher due the needs of the research objective.
3.5.2
The Most Annoying about Electronic Teaching Presentation
There are two parts in this section. The first part of Section B in the
questionnaire studied on the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation in
the perspective of visual design. The latter part investigated on the deliver method of
the instructors.
The respondents are requested to arrange the most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation on the visual design perspective as shown in Table 3.5. Most of
these items are edited from a previous survey from Paradi (2004) in the article of
Survey Shows How to Stop Annoying Audiences with Bad PowerPoint. The same
instruction is given for the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on
the deliver method perspective as shown in Table 3.6. Most of these items are
created by researcher with own experiences and some readings.
Table 3.5: The research instrument on the most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation on the visual design perspective
Item Annoying Things
1
2
3
4
5
6
Text so small I couldn't read it
Full sentences instead of bullet points
Slides hard to see because of colour choice
Moving/flying text or graphics
Annoying use of sounds
Overly complex diagrams or charts
Rank
42
Item
7
8
9
10
Annoying Things
No flow of ideas - jumped around too much
Too many fonts used
Graphic images that did not fit the topic of the slide
Poor quality video or audio segment
Rank
Table 3.6: The research instrument on the most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation on the deliver method perspective
Item Annoying Things
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.5.3
Rank
No clear purpose of presentation
The instructor reads slides to you
The instructor does not have eye contact with audience
The instructor speaks in monotone
The instructor’s voice is undertone (not loud enough)
The instructor static in one fixed position
The instructor never ask any question
The instructor asks you to read the slides yourself
The instructor speaks something else which is not
related to the presentation
The instructor does not show the presentation slide
using the slide show mode
The Students’ Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic Teaching
Presentation
In this section, 5-point Likert Scale has been used as shown in Table 3.7 to
determine the students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation as shown in Table 3.8. These items have been created by the research
with own experiences, discussion with lecturer and the readings about the visual
design of articles. The visual design of electronic teaching presentation has been
detailed in the preferred background, multimedia elements and the layout of the
electronic presentation. For the multimedia, the elements have included text, graphic,
audio and animation.
43
Table 3.7: The Likert Scale
Scale
Agreement
Abbreviation
1
Strongly Disagree
SDA
2
Disagree
DA
3
Undecided (Neither agree nor disagree)
U
4
Agree
A
5
Strongly Agree
SA
Table 3.8: The research instrument to determine the students’ preferences on the
visual design of electronic teaching presentation
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Criteria
I prefer bright and striking colour such as red and yellow.
I prefer the presentation with image background.
I prefer text as the main element to deliver the content of presentation.
I prefer serif font such as Times New Roman, Garamond and Georgia.
I prefer simple san-serif font such as Arial, Tahoma and Verdana.
I like the effect and transition of text during the presentation.
I prefer image/picture as the main element to deliver the content of
presentation.
I prefer presentation using illustration graphic such as clipart and
cartoons.
I prefer presentation using realistic photo (real image).
I prefer audio/sound as the main element to deliver the content of
presentation.
I like to have background music during the presentation.
I like to hear the responding sound such as mouse-over the links or click
on the links.
I prefer presentation showing animation/video as the main element to
deliver the content.
I like to see the animation in presentation although it is not related to the
content.
I prefer the text on the left and the image/graphic on the right than the
text on the right and the image/ graphic on the left.
I prefer the text on the top of the image/graphic than the text at bottom of
image/graphic.
I prefer one point in a slide than all the points in a slide.
I prefer the title is always on top of slides than at the bottom of slides.
44
From Table 3.8 shown above, item 1 and 2 are to test on the background of
the electronic teaching presentation specifically on the colour choices and the images.
Item 3-14 refer to the multimedia elements integrated in the electronic teaching
presentation. Item 3 – 6 refer to the visual design in terms of the text which include
the font face preferred by students. Item 7 – 9 detail in the graphic element which
include the types of image used in electronic teaching presentation. Item 10 -12 refer
to the audio elements in the electronic teaching presentation. Item 13 – 14 are about
the animation or video used in the presentation. Item 15 – 18 refer to the layout of
the presentation.
3.5.4
Students’ Learning Style
Kolb’s Learning Style (Loo, 1997) has been chosen as a guideline for this
research to find out the students’ learning style. Kolb referred learning style into
four stages as: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract
conceptualization (AC) and active experimentation (AE). The sample has been
requested to choose the best one of the two statements given in each item. Each of
the statement represents either AE or RO for Part 1 as shown in Table 3.9; either AC
or CE for Part 2 as shown in Table 3.10. There are two parts of question in this
section. Each part has nine items.
Table 3.9: The research instruments on learning style for active experimentation (AE)
and reflective observation (RO)
Part 1
1
(AE) – I often produce off-the-cuff ideas that at the first might
seem silly or half- baked.
(RO) – I am thorough and methodical.
2
(AE) – I am normally the one who initiates conversations.
(RO) – I enjoy watching people.
3
(AE) – I am flexible and open-minded.
(RO) – I am careful and cautious.
45
Part 1
4
(AE) – I am happy to have a go at new things.
(RO) – I draw up lists up possible courses of actions when starting
a new project.
5
(AE) – I like to try new and different things without too much
preparation.
(RO) – I investigate a new topic or process in depth before trying it.
6
(AE) – I like to get involved and to participate.
(RO) – I like to read and observe.
7
(AE) – I am loud and outgoing.
(RO) – I am quiet and somewhat shy.
8
(AE) – I make quick and bold decision.
(RO) – I make cautious and logical decisions.
9
(AE) – I speak slowly, after thinking.
(RO) – I speak fast, while thinking.
Table 3.10: The research instruments on learning style for abstract
conceptualization (AC) and concrete experience (CE)
Part 2
1
(AC) – I ask probing questions when learning a new subject.
(CE) – I am good at picking up hints and techniques from other people.
2
(AC) – I am rational and logical.
(CE) – I am practical and down to earth.
3
(AC) – I plan events down to the last detail.
(CE) – I like realistic but flexible plans.
4
(AC) – I like to know the right answers before trying something new.
(CE) – I try things out by practicing to see if they work.
5
(AC) – I analyze reports to find the basic assumptions and
inconsistencies.
(CE) – I rely upon others to give me the basic gist of reports.
46
Part 2
6
(AC) – I prefer working alone.
(CE) – I enjoy working with others.
7
(AC) – Others would describe me as serious, reserved and formal.
(CE) – Others would describe me as verbal, expressive and informal.
8
(AC) – I use facts to make decisions.
(CE) – I use feelings to make decisions.
9
(AC) – I am difficult to get to know.
(CE) – I am easy to get to know.
The total number of AE, RO, AC and CE would be calculated. The greater
number in each part would be deliberated to categorize the students’ learning style
based on the scoring table as shown in Table 3.11. In other words, each preference
(high score) from the two above parts is used to determine students’ learning style.
Some simple explanations have been provided for the each learning styles as shown
in Table 3.12. These items are taken from the Learning Styles by Clark (2000).
Table 3.11: The Kolb’s learning style
If you are AE and CE
If you are RO and CE
then you are a Doer
then you are a Watcher
(Accommodator)
(Diverger)
Concrete Experience and
Reflective Observation and
Active Experimentation
Concrete Experience
If you are RO and AC
If you are AE and AC
then you are a Thinker
then you are a Feeler
(Assimilation)
(Converger)
Reflective Observation and
Active Experimentation and
Abstract Conceptualization
Abstract Conceptualization
47
Table 3.12: Learner categories according to the Kolb’s Learning Style
No
Learner
Explanation
1
Doer
- carry out plans and experiments and adapt to immediate
(Accommodator)
circumstances.
Watcher
- view situations from many perspectives and rely heavily
(Diverger)
upon brainstorming and generation of ideas.
Thinker
- use inductive reasoning and have the ability to create
(Assimilator)
theoretical models.
Feeler
- rely heavily on hypothetical-deductive reasoning.
2
3
4
(Converger)
3.6
Reliability and Validity/ Pilot Study
Reliability is “the degree of consistency or dependability with which an
instrument measures the attributes it is designed to measure” (Uys & Basson, 1994).
Validity defines as the degree to which the instrument measures what it is intended to
measure (Talbot et al., 1996). Brink and Wood (2001) referred the validity to the
measurement of data as it would be used in answering the research questions.
Cronbach's alpha is the most common form of internal consistency reliability
coefficient (Garson, 2008). Garson (2008) stated that alpha equals zero when the
true score is not measured at all and there is only an error component; alpha equals
1.0 when all items measure only the true score and there is no error component.
With these, a pilot study has been carried out with 10 respondents which are
from the homogeneity population for this research. They included one student from
SPL, one student from SPN, three students from SPS and five students from SPT.
The data collected from the pilot study was then being processed to obtain the
Cronbach's alpha.
48
According to Garson (2008), alpha value should be at least .70 or higher to
retain an item in an "adequate" scale. In this research, the Cronbach’s alpha value is
0.41 for 20 items from the Section C of the questionnaire which are being tested.
Therefore, the first item and third item had been deleted from this questionnaire to
increase the Cronbach’s alpha value. Table 3.13 showed the value of Cronbach’s
alpha when certain item has been deleted. The new Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.719.
Therefore, there are only 18 items in Section C. On the other hand, the Cronbach’s
alpha value of Section D is 0.754, so all the items from this section are remained.
Table 3.13: Cronbach’s Alpha value for items in Section C from questionnaire
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected ItemTotal Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
question1
66.00
29.111
-.483
.608
question2
66.00
20.000
.145
.393
question3
66.30
29.789
-.639
.582
question4
65.00
22.889
.220
.395
question5
65.80
27.289
-.766
.506
question6
66.60
22.489
.099
.402
question7
64.50
22.722
.135
.397
question8
65.50
19.167
.420
.312
question9
64.80
18.400
.829
.254
question10
65.20
21.511
.697
.352
question11
64.90
22.322
.290
.381
question12
65.70
17.122
.834
.210
question13
66.30
16.011
.623
.204
question14
66.70
18.900
.331
.326
question15
65.60
22.044
.073
.410
question16
65.90
19.211
.553
.297
question17
65.50
23.833
-.088
.428
question18
66.20
22.844
.235
.393
question19
65.20
19.067
.628
.287
question20
65.20
25.511
-.322
.481
3.7
Data Analysis
Data analysis refers to the process to determine how the data collected can be
analysed and evaluated by using the research instrument in the questionnaire through
the correct and appropriate methods. This is to make sure the findings apposite with
49
the research objectives and then to answer the research questions. A quantitative
research has been conducted to analyse the data by using the categories with figures.
According to Kennedy (2000), data is measured in numbers for quantitative research.
Wegner (2002) stated that there is a need to organize, summarize and extract
the essential information contained within this data for communication to
management when large volumes of data have been gathered from a variety of
sources. This is the role of descriptive statistics. It aims to identify the essential
characteristics of a random variable and produce a profile of its behavior. All the
data collected would be analyzed using SPSS. Each analysis on specific section
would be included in the further discussion.
3.7.1
Analysis on Demography
The respondents’ background would be analyzed by summarise them
according to their gender and courses taking. Table 3.14 showed the example of the
analysis table for the number and percentage of respondents according to gender.
The respondents would be categorised according to their courses in Table 3.15.
Table 3.14: The number and percentage of respondents according to gender
Gender
Number of respondent
Percentage
Male
Female
Total
Table 3.15: The number and percentage of respondents according to the courses
Courses
SPI
SPK
SPL
Number of respondent
Percentage
50
Courses
Number of respondent
Percentage
SPN
SPP
SPT
SPS
Total
3.7.2
Analysis on the Most Annoying about Electronic Teaching Presentation
The analysis on the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation
would be done by calculating the frequency and percentage of each item. The result
specifically on visual design perspective obtained would be used to construct a
frequency table as shown in Table 3.16. For the delivery method, the result would be
shown in the other frequency table, Table 3.17. The most frequent item which has
been chosen as the first among all other items would be determined as the most
annoying about electronic teaching presentation. In other words, the frequency of
certain item which has been chosen as the first on the arrangement list would be
counted to determine the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation.
Table 3.16: The research instrument on the most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation on the visual design perspective
Item Annoying Things
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Text so small I couldn't read it
Full sentences instead of bullet points
Slides hard to see because of colour choice
Moving/flying text or graphics
Annoying use of sounds
Overly complex diagrams or charts
No flow of ideas - jumped around too much
Too many fonts used
Graphic images that did not fit the topic of
the slide
Poor quality video or audio segment
Frequency
Percentage
51
Table 3.17: The research instrument on the most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation on the deliver method perspective
Item Annoying Things
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.7.3
Frequency Percentage
No clear purpose of presentation
The instructor reads slides to you
The instructor does not have eye contact with
audience
The instructor speaks in monotone
The instructor’s voice is undertone (not loud
enough)
The instructor static in one fixed position
The instructor never ask any question
The instructor asks you to read the slides
yourself
The instructor speaks something else which is
not related to the presentation
The instructor does not show the presentation
slide using the slide show mode
Analysis on the Students’ Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic
Teaching Presentation
For the students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation, Likert scale has been used for eighteen items involved. As a result, the
researcher would determine the mean and standard deviation of each item as shown
in Table 3.18.
Table 3.18: Analysis on the data for the students’ preferences on the visual design of
electronic teaching presentation
Item
1
Criteria
I prefer bright and striking colour such as red and
yellow.
2
I prefer the presentation with image background.
3
I prefer text as the main element to deliver the content of
presentation.
Mean
SD
52
Item
4
Criteria
I prefer serif font such as Times New Roman, Garamond
and Georgia.
5
I prefer simple san-serif font such as Arial, Tahoma and
Verdana.
6
I like the effect and transition of text during the
presentation.
7
I prefer image/picture as the main element to deliver the
content of presentation.
8
I prefer presentation using illustration graphic such as
clipart and cartoons.
9
I prefer presentation using realistic photo (real image).
10
I prefer audio/sound as the main element to deliver the
content of presentation.
11
I like to have background music during the presentation.
12
I like to hear the responding sound such as mouse-over
the links or click on the links.
13
I prefer presentation showing animation/video as the
main element to deliver the content.
14
I like to see the animation in presentation although it is
not related to the content.
15
I prefer the text on the left and the image/graphic on the
right than the text on the right and the image/ graphic on
the left.
16
I prefer the text on the top of the image/graphic than the
text at bottom of image/graphic.
17
I prefer one point in a slide than all the points in a slide.
18
I prefer the title is always on top of slides than at the
bottom of slides.
Mean
SD
53
3.7.4
Analysis on Students’ Learning Style
As it has been mentioned earlier, Kolb’s Learning Style has been chosen as
the guideline to determine the students’ learning style. The respondents would be
categorised into four groups of learner according to their preferences’ learning style
as shown in Table 3.19.
Table 3.19: Analysis on the students’ learning style
No
Learner
Number of respondent
1
Doer (Accommodator)
2
Watcher (Diverger)
3
Thinker (Assimilator)
4
Feeler (Converger)
Percentage
Total
3.7.5
Analysis on the Relationship between Students’ Learning Style and Their
Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Carl (2008) has defined nominal scale as a measurement scale in which
numbers are assigned to attributes of objects or classes of objects solely for the
purpose of identifying the objects. Student’ learning style has been classified as
nominal scale due to the definition of nominal scale. Students’ preference on visual
design of electronic is interval scale. Elene and Seaman (1997) stated that some
considerations must be observed when treating Likert scale as interval. There must
be “intervalness” in the attribute of the data. It means that the data must have
continuous sense of measurement; the assigned numbers are not merely for the sake
of labelling, such as the numbers used in nominal scale data. Due to the
measurements scale determined, Eta in SPSS has been used to check on the
relationship between students’ learning style and their preferences on the visual
design of electronic teaching presentation. According to the SPSS 16.0 guidebook
54
(2007), nominal scale by interval scale would be measure using Eta. Eta is a
coefficient of nonlinear association or in other words, Eta indicates the degree of
relationship between two variables even if the relationship is nonlinear (David
Garson, 2008). Eta squared represents the proportion of the variance of the
dependent variable that is explained b the independent variable. Values for Eta
squared can range from 0 to 1. To interpret the strength of Eta squared values the
following guidelines can be used (Cohen, 1988) as in Table 3.20.
Table 3.20: The interpretation of Eta squared values
3.8
Value of Eta squared
Relationship
0.01
Small
0.06
Moderate
0.14
Large
Conclusion
In this chapter, the method to analyse the data has been well-planned. The
coming chapter would report the findings of the research according to the methods
have been determined.
55
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT
4.1
Introduction
In this chapter, the data obtained from the distribution of questionnaire would
be analysed according to the methods that have discussed in the previous chapter.
The analysis would be started from the descriptive analysis on the respondents’
background. The next procedure is the analysis on the frequency for the most
annoying about electronic teaching presentation. The mean and standard deviation
for the item using Likert scale which is specifically on the students’ preferences on
the visual design of electronic teaching presentation would be calculated. The
researcher would categorise the students according to their learning style in order
identify is there any relationship between final year students’ learning style and their
preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation.
4.2
Result of Questionnaire
A total of 230 questionnaires have been distributed but there are only 195
questionnaires returned. There are only 150 questionnaires which have been
completed correctly. 45 questionnaires have errors in Section B which include the
items on the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation. The errors
happened when the respondents simply numbered the items in state of arrange them
56
from the most annoying to the less annoying in electronic teaching presentation. 150
set of completed questionnaires are just adequate in this research.
4.3
Respondents’ background
The responses that have been analysed are from 150 respondents. There are
two items on the respondents’ background. From Table 4.1, the respondents have
been analysed according to their gender. Among the respondents, thirty of them are
male which is equal to 20% of all the respondents and the rest are female (80%).
Table 4.1: The number and percentage of respondents according to gender
Gender
Number of respondent
Percentage (%)
Female
120
80
Male
30
20
Total
150
100
* N= 150 respondents
Besides that, the respondents have been grouped according to their courses as
shown in Table 4.2. Twenty-one percents of the respondents are taking SPS, twenty
percents are taking SPI, sixteen percents are taking SPL, and twelve percents are
taking SPN. Three courses included SPK, SPP, SPT have the same percentage, ten
percents each.
Table 4.2: The number and percentage of respondents according to their courses
Courses
Number of respondent
Percentage (%)
SPT
32
21
SPI
31
21
SPL
24
16
SPN
18
12
SPS
15
10
57
Courses
Number of respondent
Percentage (%)
SPP
15
10
SPK
15
10
Total
150
100
* N= 150 respondents
4.4
Data Analysis on The Most Annoying about Electronic Teaching
Presentation
The results of the data analysis on the most annoying about electronic
presentation are shown in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4. These tables are divided
according to the details of electronic teaching presentation which included its visual
design and the delivery method used.
Table 4.3 shows the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on
the visual design with the value of frequency and percentage. As shown, the most
annoying about the visual design of electronic teaching presentation is item 1 with 43
votes (28.7%). The least value of mode is item 6 with 5 votes (3.3%).
Table 4.3: The frequency and percentage on the most annoying about
electronic teaching presentation on the visual design perspective
Item
1
2
8
3
9
Annoying Things
Text so small I couldn't read it
Full sentences instead of bullet points
Too many fonts used
Slides hard to see because of colour choice
Graphic images that did not fit the topic of
the slide
5
Annoying use of sounds
4
Moving/flying text or graphics
7
No flow of ideas - jumped around too much
10
Poor quality video or audio segment
6
Overly complex diagrams or charts
* N= 150 respondents
Frequency
43
24
17
16
11
10
10
7
7
5
Percentage
(%)
28.7
16.0
11.3
10.7
7.3
6.7
6.7
4.7
4.7
3.3
58
For the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on the delivery
method perspective, the result showed in Table 4.4. The highest frequency value is
32 for item 2 (21.3%). Item 6 has the smallest frequency value, 1(0.7%).
Table 4.4: The frequency and percentage on the most annoying about
electronic teaching presentation on the deliver method perspective
Item Annoying Things
2
1
5
The instructor reads slides to you
No clear purpose of presentation
The instructor’s voice is undertone (not loud
enough)
4
The instructor speaks in monotone
8
The instructor asks you to read the slides
yourself
3
The instructor does not have eye contact with
audience
7
The instructor never ask any question
9
The instructor speaks something else which
is not related to the presentation
10
The instructor does not show the presentation
slide using the slide show mode
6
The instructor static in one fixed position
* N= 150 respondents
4.5
Frequency
32
27
22
Percentage
(%)
21.3
18.0
14.7
18
12
12
18
11
9
8
4
1
7.3
6.0
5.3
2.7
0.7
Data Analysis on Students’ Preferences on the Visual Design of
Electronic Teaching Preferences
As it has been mentioned in the previous chapter, 5-point Likert Scale has
been used to determine the students’ preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation. Therefore, the values of mean and standard deviation have
been chosen to analyse the students’ preferences. The visual design of electronic
teaching presentation has been detailed in the preferred background, multimedia
elements and the layout of the electronic presentation. For the multimedia elements,
the elements have included text, graphic, audio and animation.
59
Table 4.5 shows the mean and standard for the students’ preferences on the
background of electronic teaching presentation. There are 2 items for this portion
and both of the items have low mean values. Item 2 has a higher mean value, 3.11.
Item 1 has a lower mean value, 2.33.
Table 4.5: Mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the
background of electronic teaching presentation
Item
Criteria
Mean
SD
2
I prefer the presentation with image background.
3.11
1.177
1
I prefer bright and striking colour such as red and
2.33
1.153
yellow.
* N= 150 respondents
The mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the
multimedia elements being used in the electronic teaching presentation are showed in
Table 4.6. There are four items for this portion, each of them has mean value lower
than 4. The highest mean value, 3.70 come is item 7. The lowest mean value, 3.23
is item 10.
Table 4.6: Mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the
multimedia elements of electronic teaching presentation
Item
7
Criteria
I prefer image/picture as the main element to deliver the
Mean
SD
3.70
1.022
3.51
1.060
3.40
1.187
3.23
1.026
content of presentation.
13
I prefer presentation showing animation/video as the
main element to deliver the content.
3
I prefer text as the main element to deliver the content of
presentation.
10
I prefer audio/sound as the main element to deliver the
content of presentation.
* N= 150 respondents
60
Item 4– 6 refer to the visual design in terms of the text which included the
font face preferred by students. The data analysis on the students’ preferences on the
text of electronic teaching presentation has been done using the mean and standard
deviation of each item as it is showed in Table 4.7. Item 5 has the highest mean
value among the three items, 4.04. The lowest mean value, 2.81 goes to item 4.
Table 4.7: Mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the text of
electronic teaching presentation
Item
5
Criteria
I prefer simple san-serif font such as Arial, Tahoma and
Mean
SD
4.03
.912
3.44
1.111
2.81
1.180
Verdana.
6
I like the effect and transition of text during the
presentation.
4
I prefer serif font such as Times New Roman, Garamond
and Georgia.
* N= 150 respondents
Item 8 and 9 detail to the graphic element which include the types of image
used in electronic teaching presentation. Again, the researcher determined the mean
and standard deviation of them as shown in Table 4.8. Item 9 has 3.83 as the mean
value higher than the item 8 with mean value 3.59.
Table 4.8: Mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the image of
electronic teaching presentation
Item
Criteria
Mean
SD
9
I prefer presentation using realistic photo (real image).
3.83
.862
8
I prefer presentation using illustration graphic such as
3.59
1.011
clipart and cartoons.
* N= 150 respondents
Table 4.9 shows the mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the audio elements being integrated in the electronic teaching
presentation. Both two items for the audio elements in the electronic teaching
61
presentation show a lower mean value which are lower than 3. Item 12 has higher
mean value, 2.94 as it was compared to item 11 with 2.70 as the mean value.
Table 4.9: Mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the audio of
electronic teaching presentation
Item
Criteria
12
I like to hear the responding sound such as mouse-over
Mean
SD
2.94
1.242
2.70
1.151
the links or click on the links.
11
I like to have background music during the presentation.
* N= 150 respondents
Table 4.10 shows the mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the animation or video elements being used in the electronic teaching
presentation. Item 14 is the only item about the animation or video used in the
presentation. This item has 2.77 as the mean value as shown in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the
animation of electronic teaching presentation
Item
Criteria
14
I like to see the animation in presentation although it is
Mean
2.77
SD
1.245
not related to the content.
* N= 150 respondents
Table 4.11 shows the mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the layout of electronic teaching presentation. These included item
15 to 18 which referred to the layout of the presentation. The item obtained the
highest mean value, 4.11 is item 18. The item with the lowest mean value, 3.20 is
item 16.
62
Table 4.11: Mean and standard deviation for the students’ preferences on the layout
of electronic teaching presentation
Item
18
Criteria
Mean
I prefer the title is always on top of slides than at the
SD
4.11
.824
bottom of slides.
17
I prefer one point in a slide than all the points in a slide.
3.49
.918
15
I prefer the text on the left and the image/graphic on the
3.39
.897
3.20
.976
right than the text on the right and the image/ graphic on
the left.
16
I prefer the text on the top of the image/graphic than the
text at bottom of image/graphic.
* N= 150 respondents
4.6
Students’ Learning Style
For the students’ learning style, the related data has been analysed according
to the procedure based on the scoring table showed in Table 3.11. The sample is
then categorised into four groups. These four groups are namely doer, watcher,
thinker, and feeler. Table 4.12 shows the frequency table with the number and
percentage of the respondents according to the four groups. The highest percentage
of learner group goes to feeler which is 32 %. The following group is thinker with
28% and watcher with 22%. The least percentage is doer, only 18%.
Table 4.12: The frequency table for the students’ learning style
No
Learner
1
Feeler (Converger)
48
32
2
Thinker (Assimilator)
42
28
3
Watcher (Diverger)
33
22
4
Doer (Accommodator)
27
18
150
100
Total
* N= 150 respondents
Number of respondent
Percentage (%)
63
4.7
The Relationship between Final Year Students’ Learning Style and
Their Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic Teaching
Presentation
To determine whether there is any relationship between final year students’
learning style and their preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching
presentation, the researcher has to find out the Eta value in SPSS as it is planned in
chapter 3. Table 4.13 shows the value of Eta is 0.166 and Eta Squared is 0.028.
From the Table 3.20, this value indicated small relationship between these two
variables.
Table 4.13: The data analysis on the relationship between final year students’
learning style and their preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation
Student preferences
* learning style
4.8
Eta
Eta Squared
.166
.028
Conclusion
The data analysis has covered all of the instruments in the questionnaire
according to the research questions. The description has covered all the data
obtained for each section. In the next chapter, the researcher has furthered the
discussion on each of the section and finally concluded them.
64
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION
5.1
Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher would include further discussion about the data
obtained and suggestions recommended for further research. At the beginning, the
researcher started from the analysis on the most annoying about electronic teaching
presentation. Then, the researcher proceeded with the analysis on the students’
preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation. Then, the
researcher would discuss about the relationship between final year students’ learning
style and their preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation.
Besides that, some references from other research or readings would be in order to
support the discussion has been made.
5.2
The Most Annoying about Electronic Presentation
The results of the data analysis on the most annoying about electronic
presentation are shown in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4. These result tables are divided
according to the details of electronic teaching presentation which included its’ visual
design and the delivery method being used.
65
Table 4.3 shows the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on
the visual design is item 1 (text so small I couldn't read it) with 28.7% of students’
first choices and followed by the item 2 (full sentences instead of bullet points) with
16.0% of students’ selection. The students’ also found that too many fonts used
(11.3%) and slides hard to see because of the colour choice (10.7%) are listed at the
third and fourth for the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on
visual design perspective.
For the most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on the delivery
method perspective, the results of analysis can be referred to Table 4.4. 21.3%
students chose item 2 (the instructor reads slides to you). 18.0% of the students
chose item 1(no clear purpose of presentation) as the most annoying about electronic
teaching presentation on the delivery method perspective. 14.7% of the students
select item 5 (the instructor’s voice is undertone (not loud enough)) as their first
choice.
Paradi (2004) carried out a survey on the audience perspective on PowerPoint
presentations in September 2003 with 159 respondents to determine the most
annoying about the PowerPoint presentations that they see. Each of the respondents
selected the top three annoying elements from a list of elements and then asked for
extra items in a free-form question. The top things that audiences found annoying
about bad PowerPoint presentations are as below:
i.
The speaker read the slides to us (60.4%)
ii.
Text so small I couldn't read it (50.9%)
iii.
Full sentences instead of bullet points (47.8%)
iv.
Slides hard to see because of colour choice (37.1%).
According to a study from Think outside the Slide, the respondents had
selected the top three things that annoy them about bad PowerPoint presentations as
the following (Aaron, 2008):
i.
The speaker read the slides to us (67.4%)
ii.
Full sentences instead of bullet points (45.4%)
iii.
Text so small I couldn't read it (45.0%).
66
From the findings of this research and other studies, the lecturers are advised
to choose the suitable font size which is easy to read by the students. Health Science
Center at Houston Interactive Video, University Of Texas (2002) has suggested to
use font sizes in the range of 28 to 32 points because anything smaller may not be
readable from the back of the room. They added to recommend 32 point fonts,
because this size is the most appropriate for video or web transmission as instructors
might spread out the presentation material through web.
Besides that, students preferred to have the key word or main point in the
slides rather than the whole sentences with explanation as it has shown in the
research findings. The instructors should take some actions to reprocess their
presentation materials in order to encourage students’ interest to learn. Other than
that, instructors should not choose to have too many fonts in a presentation. The
emphasis on certain content can be done by bold, italic or coloured it (Splane, 2006).
Student also complained that slides are hard to see because of the colour choice.
Therefore, the instructors should have contrast between the background and the
content by using the concept light on dark or dark on light (Splane, 2006).
For the deliver method, instructors carried out active discussion instead of
reading out the slides. When the students do nothing besides learning, they will feel
bored and feel like the content of presentation seems unrelated to them. The trends
are going into the student-centred teaching and learning, therefore the instructors
should involve the students in the teaching and learning process.
On the other hand, the instructors should state clearly the purpose of
presentation. It is advisable to state the learning objectives at the very beginning of
the presentation as it can be as some general ideas for the students about the lesson
they would follow. The instructors have to take the surrounding condition of the
presentation into consideration as well. Some students stated the most annoying
about electronic teaching presentation is the instructors’ voice was undertone (not
loud enough). Therefore, instructors must make sure their voices are loud enough
67
and can project to be heard clearly in the whole classroom. If the room is too big, the
instructors should consider the use of microphone.
5.3
Students’ Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic Teaching
Preferences
The researcher has used 5-point Likert Scale to determine the students’
preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation. The visual
design of electronic teaching presentation has been detailed in the preferred
background, multimedia elements and its layout.
Table 4.5 shows the students’ preferences on the background of electronic
teaching presentation. The result showed that the students preferred image
background than the bright and striking colour background such as red and yellow.
For the multimedia elements used in the electronic teaching presentation, the
result of analysis is shown in Table 4.6. The multimedia elements included text,
graphic/ image, audio and animation/video. Generally, the students agreed to
integrate the multimedia elements in the electronic teaching presentation. The
students chose image or picture as the main element preferred to deliver the content
of presentation with the mean value 3.70. The list is then followed by animation or
video as the main element preferred by the students to deliver the content of
presentation with the mean value 3.51. The mean value of text element is 3.40
compare to the audio or sound element which has 3.23 as the mean value.
The data analysis on the students’ preferences on the text of electronic
teaching presentation is shown in Table 4.7. From the data analysis, the students
preferred simple san-serif font such as Arial, Tahoma and Verdana than the serif font
such as Times New Roman, Garamond and Georgia. The effect and transition of text
during the presentation obtained 3.44 as the mean value.
68
The researcher has detailed the graphic element into the types of image used
in electronic teaching presentation. The students like both presentation using
realistic photo (real image) with mean value 3.83 and also presentation using
illustration graphic such as clipart and cartoons with mean value 3.59. This is due to
they do not have a great difference between their mean values.
Table 4.9 shows the data analysis for the students’ preferences on the audio
elements being used in the electronic teaching presentation. Both items for the audio
elements in the electronic teaching presentation show a low mean value which is
lower than 3. These showed that the students do not like to hear the responding
sound such as mouse-over the links or click on the links and background music
during the presentation.
The data analysis for the students’ preferences on the animation or video
elements being used in the electronic teaching presentation is shown in Table 4.10.
The item with mean value 2.77 indicated that the students do not preferred the
integration of animation which is not related to the content in presentation. The
instructors should avoid integrating animation which is not related to the lesson.
Table 4.11 shows the mean and standard deviation for the students’
preferences on the layout of electronic teaching presentation. The item obtained the
highest mean value, 4.11 is “I prefer the title to be always on top of the slides than at
the bottom.” The item with the lowest mean value, 3.20 is “I prefer the text to be on
the top of the image/graphic than at bottom.” This indicates that the students do not
keen on the placement of the combination of text and graphic.
Multimedia resources can be used to develop active learning by allowing the
user to be an active learner (Baharuddin Aris, 1999). These are corresponding to the
finding from this research as the students agree to integrate the multimedia element
included text, graphic/ image, audio and animation/video in the electronic teaching
69
presentation with mean value at least 3.23. As the results showed the respondents
have chose image or picture as the main element preferred to deliver the content of
presentation with the highest mean value, Alley and Neeley (2005) advocate use of
visual evidence, such as a picture or a graph, rather than bulleted text. Doumont
(2005) also supports using visual elements, pointing out that visual language
enhances a presenter’s message, rather than competing against his or her oral
communication.
Vanderbilt Center for Teaching (2008) has stated that sans serif fonts are
better than serif fonts. They have reasoned that serif fonts have small
embellishments or lines at the base of each letter and these embellishments make it
easier to follow a line of text on the printed page, but they are a distraction on a
screen. Therefore, the instructors should select a sans serif font (like Helvetica or
Arial) instead of a serif font (like Times New Roman) for electronic teaching
presentation. Hence, the students preferred the san serif font due to the easiness to
read the content.
Instructors should help the students by writing the titles to the slides
especially for those slides with visual elements (Mackiewicz, 2008). There is a
research suggested that complete sentences used as titles and stating a main point
enhance audience recall of information (Alley, 2006). Besides that, Farkas (2005)
advocates using title slides throughout presentations. Therefore, the result of this
study indicated the students would prefer the title on the top of each slides.
Blokzijl and Naeff’s study is one of few to examine viewers’ preferences for
PowerPoint slide design, and it leads students’ opinions of PowerPoint presentation
design into the process by which they design their presentations. Blokzijl and
Naeff’s (2004) examined students’ perceptions of PowerPoint presentations and
found that good layout/legibility and use of diagrams, pictures, and graphs were two
design elements that students appreciated most.
70
5.4
Data Analysis on Students’ Learning Style
For the students’ learning style, the respondents have been categorised into
four groups. These four groups namely doer, watcher, thinker, and feeler. Table
4.12 shows the frequency table with the number and percentage of the respondents
according to the four groups. The highest percentage of learner group is feeler
(converger) with 32 %. The following group is thinker (assimilator) with 28% and
then watcher (diverger) with 22%. The least percent group is doer (accommodator)
with 18%.
The finding indicated that final year students from Faculty of Education are
varies in their learning style. There are four types of learners. The students would
have their own preferences to learn. Watchers view situations from many
perspectives and rely heavily upon brainstorming and generation of ideas. Thinkers
use inductive reasoning and have the ability to create theoretical models. Feelers
rely heavily on hypothetical-deductive reasoning. Doers carry out plans and
experiments and adapt to immediate circumstances.
The research carried out by Haley and Smith (2003) showed the students
from University of Southampton have different preferences in their learning style.
They used Honey and Mumford’s Inventory and their finding showed the distribution
of students according to their learning style as following: Activist (30.28%), Theorist
(14.68%), Reflector (40.37%), Pragmatist (5.50%) and mixed preference (9.17%).
Learning styles are individual preferences and tendencies that influence
learning (Smith, 1982). There can be a strong relationship between learning styles
and attitudes towards learning, including motivation to learn, involvement in learning
activities, attitudes towards instructors, and self-efficacy (Johnson & Johnson, 1978).
Therefore, learning styles may be an important variable that influences the
effectiveness of teaching and learning.
71
Knox (1977) added that efforts to change attitudes and modify the affective
domain are more likely to be successful if learning methods take into account
different learning styles. Therefore, knowledge of their preferred learning styles in
any given situation thus needs to be determined to ensure the use of appropriate
learning methods. Learning methods that provide for a variety of learning styles will
help towards achieving this goal, since they will automatically cater for different
types of learners. With this result, the discussion would be proceeded to the analysis
the relationship between the between final year students’ learning style and their
preferences on the visual design of electronic teaching presentation.
5.5
The Relationship between Final Year Students’ Learning Style and
Their Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic Teaching
Presentation.
The Eta value in SPSS has been used to determine whether there is any
relationship between final year students’ learning style and their preferences on the
visual design of electronic teaching presentation. The value of Eta is 0.166 and Eta
squared is 0.028. This showed that there was a weak relationship between final year
students’ learning style and their preferences on the visual design of electronic
teaching presentation.
This relationship pointed out the instructors should not design and produce
electronic teaching presentation based on their own preferences solely. They have to
consider the students’ learning style as students tend to have a preference for one
learning style over another. Instructors should provide a student-centred learning
environment because the students can learn and achieve better when they learn
according to their learning preferences.
72
5.6
Summary
In the previous section, the discussion has been done based on the data
obtained. All these data have been analysed according to the research objectives.
The findings showed the three most annoying about electronic teaching presentation
on the visual design arranged respectively are the text small in size which cannot be
read, full sentences instead of bullet points and too many fonts used. On the other
hand, the three most annoying about electronic teaching presentation on delivery
method arranged respectively are the instructors read the slide to the students, no
clear purpose of presentation and the instructors’ voice was undertone (not loud
enough). In the following part, the researcher determined that students agreed to the
use of the multimedia elements such as text, graphic/ image, audio and
animation/video. However, they preferred image/ graphics among the four elements.
Students liked image background than the bright plain colour background of
presentation. They preferred san-serif font type than the serif font type. They
preferred to have the title to be always on top of the slides than at the bottom. The
students’ learning style preferred was feeler (converger) with 32%. Finally, the
relationship between the final year students’ learning style and their preferences on
the visual design of electronic teaching presentation has been determined using its’
Eta value 0.166. This indicated there is weak relationship between the learning style
and the visual design of electronic presentation.
5.7
Implication of Research Finding
With the findings obtained, this research looks forward to be able to cause
some impact on the instructors in their teaching and learning skills especially on the
electronic teaching presentation for both the visual design and also the delivery
method. The instructors might have some basic ideas on the students’ preferences on
the visual design of electronic teaching presentation. The visual design of electronic
teaching presentation has been detailed in the preferred background, multimedia
73
elements and the layout of the electronic presentation. With this, instructors can
improve their electronic teaching presentation in terms of visual design.
Each student is different and has been grouped according to their preferred
learning style. As it has found there was relationship between the learning style and
the visual design of electronic presentation. Therefore, the instructors can adapt their
presentation according to the dominant learner in their class. With this, the students’
achievement can be improved as it is stated that students’ academic performance can
increase when methods of instruction match the learning styles and cognitive styles
of individual students (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Messick, 1976; Sperry, 1972).
5.8
Research Suggestion
According to the findings of the research, there are some suggestions would
be recommended to the instructors in order to improve the electronic teaching
presentation for both the visual design and the delivery method.
i.
The font type preferred by the students is san serif with the appropriate size at
least 18-point and above. Please use not more than two type of font face in a
presentation. The emphasis on certain content can be done by bold, italic or
highlight them.
ii.
The students preferred the visual such as graphic and image than other
multimedia elements.
iii.
The students preferred to have electronic teaching presentation with image
background rather than the colour background. The instructors should make
sure the contrast of the colour between the background and the content.
iv.
The instructors should avoid any audio or sound effect or the background
music in the presentation.
v.
The instructors should prevent to integrate the animation or video which is
not related to the content of lesson into the electronic teaching presentation.
vi.
The students preferred consistent layout and the title of the presentation is on
the top of each slide.
74
vii.
The instructors should show the keyword or main point only in their
presentation. The explanation should be discussed instead of putting
everything inside the slide and read them out.
viii.
The instructors should make sure that the all the students can hear his/her
voice.
ix.
The presentation is better to start from the learning objectives in order to let
the students be clear on the purpose of presentation.
5.9
Suggestion For Further Research
With the experience gained throughout the process to complete this research,
there are some recommendations would be discussed below as some advices to
expand the research or to conduct other future research on the related topics. This
was due to the presentation is always needed as a systematic medium to
communicate and sharing one’s idea, information even knowledge with others.
As the usage of internet is widely used in education, the future research can
enclose the characteristics of the presentation with both synchronous education and
asynchronous education. Besides that, the researcher can also compare the use of
the presentation between the instructors to teach their lesson and the students to
present their assignment.
Besides that, this research used only questionnaire as the research instrument.
Further research can be done through qualitative research by using other instruments
such as ethnography, fieldwork, participant observation and action research.
Besides that, one might include the respondents from the first year, second year and
third year undergraduate students. With this, new objective can be targeted to
determine the trend of the students’ learning style and learning experience with their
preferences on the design of electronic teaching presentation. The scope of the
75
respondents also can be enlarged to compare the students from different faculties in
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
5.10
Conclusion
This research determined the students’ preferences on the electronic teaching
presentation in order to achieve the research objectives. The findings of this research
can be used as a guideline to help the instructors to improve their electronic teaching
presentation. Therefore, the researcher hopes it leads to the contribution in the
educational technology.
76
REFERENCE
Aaron (2008). Five Ways to Fix Text-Heavy Slides Using Graphics. Retrieved
August 21, 2008, from http://blog.smartdraw.com/archive/2008/07/11/5ways-to-fix-text-heavy-slides-with-graphics.aspx
Albers, Michael, J., Mazur, Mary, B., and Mazur, B. (2003). Content and Complexity:
Information Design in Technical Communication, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Alley, M., Schreiber, M., Ramsdell, K., and Muffo, J. (2006). How the Design of
Headlines in Presentation Slides Affects Audience Retention. Technical
Communication. 53(2), 225-234.
Alley, M., and Neeley, K. A. (2005). A case for sentence headlines and visual
evidence. Technical Communication. 52, 417–426.
Anderson, W. and Sommer, B. (1997). Computer-based lectures using PowerPoint.
The Technology Source. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from
http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp? show=article&id=1034.
Anderson, W. and Sommer, B. (1997). Computer-based lectures using PowerPoint.
Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?
show=article&id=503
77
Baharuddin Aris (1999). The Use of Information Technology in Education: Using an
Interactive Multimedia Courseware Package to Upgrade Teachers’
Knowledge and Change Their Attitudes. An Interactive Multimedia Doctoral
Thesis Produced in the CD-ROM Format
Bandolier (2007). Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Retrieved July 20, 2008,
from http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/glossary/qualres.html
Benson, C., Elman, A., Nickell, S., and Colin, Z. R.(2000). GNOME Human
Interface Guidelines. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/1.0/layout.html
Blokzijl, W. and Naeff, R. (2004). The instructor as stagehand: Dutch student
responses to PowerPoint. Business Communication Quarterly. 67, 70–77.
Brink, P. and Wood, M. (2001). Basic steps in planning nursing research from
question to proposal. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Brinkley, A., Dessants, B., Flamm, M., Fleming, C., Forcey, C., and Rothschild E..
(1999). The Chicago Handbook for Teachers: A Practical Guide to the
College Classroom. The University of Chicago Press. USA.
Bryant, S. M. and Hunton, J. E. (2000). The Use of Technology in the Delivery of
Instruction: Implications for Accounting Educators and Education
Researchers. Issues in Accounting Education l. 15(1), 129-162.
Burns, N., and Grove, S.K. (1987). The practice of research, conduct, critique, and
utilization. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Burns, N. and Grove, S. K. (1996). Understanding Nursing Research. New York:
Brown and Benchmark.
78
Burns, N., and Grove, S. K. (2001). The practice of nursing research (4th Ed.).
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.
Schwarz, C. J. (2008). Scale of Measurement. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from
http://www.stat.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/Stat-201/Handouts/node5.html
Cook, D. M. (1998). The Power of PowerPoint. Nurse Educator . 23(4), 5.
Cooper, A. and Robert, M. (2003). Reimann: About Face 2.0: The Essentials of
Interaction Design. Wiley.
Corno, L., and Snow, R.E. (1986). “Adapting Teaching to Individual Differences
Among Learners” M. C. Wittrock(ed), Handbook of Research on
Teaching,( 3rd ed). Macmillan and Co, New York.
Donna, J. C., Stephen, K. J. and Tracy, E. T. ( 2005). Tablet PCs: A. Educational Aid
For Lecture-based Survey Meterology Courses. University of Illinois.
Doumont, J. (2005). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Slides are not all evil.
Technical Communication, 52, 64–70.
Duffy, M.E. (1985). Designing research the qualitative –quantitative debate. Journal
of Advanced Nursing. 11(3), 225-232.
Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching Students Through Their Individual
Learning Styles: A Practical Approach. Reston Publishing.
Easterby, R., and Zwaga, H. (1984). Information design: The design and evaluation
of signs and printed material. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Finkelstein, E. (2000). PowerPoint and the Future of Education. Retrieved August 24,
2008, from http://www.presentation-pointers.com/showarticle/ articleid/386/
79
Entwistle, N. and Ramsden, P. (1982). Understanding student learning. New York:
Nichols Publishing Co.
Farkas, D. K. (2005). Explicit structure in print and on-screen documents. Technical
Communication Quarterly, 14, 9–30.
Feitcher, J.D. (1991). Effectiveness and cost of interactive videodisc instruction in
defense training and education. New York: Multimedia Review.
Felder, R. M. and Brent, R. (2005). Understanding Student Differences. Journal of
Engineering Education. 94(1), 57-72.
Felker, D.B., Pickering, F., Charrow, V.D., Holland, V.M. and Redish, J.C. (1981).
Guidelines for Document Designers. Document Design Project, American
Institutes for Research, Washington, D.C.
Fielding, M. (1994). Valuing difference in teachers and learners: building on Kolb's
learning styles to develop a language of teaching and learning. The
Curriculum Journal. 5(3),393-417.
Gabriel-Petit, P. and Petit, R. (2004). Interaction Design. Retrieved August 21, 2008,
from http://www.spiritsoftworks.com/services/ixd.htm
Gantt, P. A. (1998). "Maximizing Multimedia for Training Purposes" The
Technology Source, November. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from
http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034.
Garson, G. D. (2008). Nominal-by-Interval Association- Eta, the Correlation Ratio.
Retrieved July 25, 2008, from
http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/eta.htm
Garson, G. D. (2008). Reliability Analysis. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/reliab.htm
80
Grabe, M., Christopherson, K., and Douglas, J. (2005). Providing introductory
psychology students access to online lecture notes: the relationship of note
use to performance and class attendance. Journal of Education Technology
Systems. 33(3), 295-308.
Harrison, A. (1999). Power Up! Stimulating your Students with PowerPoint.
Learning and Leading With Technology. 26 (4), 6-9.
Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Its
Application in Geography in Higher Education. Journal of Geography. 99,
185-195.
Haley, V. and Smith, C.F. (2003). An investigation into the learning styles of
University of Southampton medical School entrants and outcomes of first
year primary BM exams. University of Southampton.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982). Manual of Learning Styles. London: P. Honey.
Hunt, N. and Tyrrell, S. (2001). Stratified Sampling. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from
http://www.coventry.ac.uk/ec/~nhunt/meths/strati.html
Irvine, J.J. and York, D.E. (1995). ‘Learning Styles and Culturally Diverse Students:
A Literature Review’. In Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education.
James A. Banks (Ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 484–97.
Jacobson, R. (2000). Information Design: The Emergence of a New Profession. MIT
Press. 15.
Jensen, R. E. and Sandlin, P. (1991). Why do it? Advantages and dangers of new
ways of computer-aided teaching/instruction. San Antonio, TX: Department
of Business Administration, Trinity University.
81
Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1998). Cooperative learning and social
interdependence theory. In R. Scott (Ed). Theory and Research on Small
Groups. New York: Plenum Press.
Keefe, J.W. (1989). Learning Style Profile Handbook: Accommodating Perceptual,
Study and Instructional Preferences, Vol. II. Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kennedy, M. B. (2000). Signal-Processing Machines at the Postsynaptic Density.
Science Magazine Volume 290. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5492/750?ijkey=38c376
bca44714940b5a198a79451c52a1c88072&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd ed). Forth Worth,
TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Key, J. P. (1997). Research Design in Occupational Education. Retrieved July 8,
2008, from http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/
aged5980a/5980/newpage15.htm
Kruse, K. (2004). What are "Synchronous" and "Asynchronous" Training? Retrieved
August 21, 2008, from http://www.e-learningguru.com/ articles/art1_7.htm
Knox, A. B. (1977). Adult Development and Learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass
Inc. Publishers.
Kolb, D. (1981). Learning Style Inventory. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.
Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement.30, 607-610.
82
Kristof, R. and Satran, A. (1995). Interactivity by Design. Adobe Press. Retrieved
August 21, 2008, from http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/cut/options/Jan_97/
Jan_97/opts_ress_interactivity.htm
Lewis, G. (2002). PowerPoint for Teaching and Learning. Centre for Academic
Practice.
Loo, R. (1997). Using Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI 1985) in the classroom,
Proceedings of the Association of Management 15(1), 47-51.
Mackiewicz, J.O. (2008). Comparing PowerPoint Experts’ and University Students’
Opinions about PowerPoint Presentations. Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
Mason, R. and Hlynka, D. (1998). PowerPoint in the Classroom: What is the Point?
Educational Technology. 45-48.
Messick, S. and Associates (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Oblinger, D. (1991). Introduction to multimedia in instruction. Maximizing
multimedia: A how-to-session for faculty. Unpublished manuscript
distributed during training, Dallas County Community College District at
Dallas. Courtesy of PBS Adult Learning Satellite Service.
Paradi, D. (2003). Survey Shows How to Stop Annoying Audiences with Bad
PowerPoint. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from
http://www.communicateusingtechnology.com/articles/pptsurvey_article.htm
Paradi, D. (2004). Survey Shows How to Stop Annoying Audiences With Bad
PowerPoint. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from
http://www.indezine.com/ideas/davesurvey.html
83
Parks, R. P. (1999). Macro Principles, PowerPoint, and the Internet: Four years of the
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Journal of Economic Education.200-209.
Ptaszynski J. G. (1997). PowerPoint as a technology enhancement to traditional
classroom activities. The Technology Source. Retrieved August 21, 2008,
from http://ts.mivu. org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034.
Sammons, M. C. (1997). Using PowerPoint Presentations in Writing Classes. The
Technology Source. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from
http://technologysource.org/article/using_powerpoint_presentations_in_writin
g_classes/
Smith, R.M. (1982). Learning how to learn: Applied theory for adults. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stice, J.E. (1987). Using Kolb’s Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learning.
Engineering Education. 77(5), 291–296.
Splane, M.(2006).PowerPoint Presentation Advice. Retrieved September 1, 2008,
from http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/splane_m/PresentationTips.htm
Sperry, L. (1972). Learning performance & individual differences: essays and
readings. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Starr, L. (2000). PowerPoint – Creating Classroom Presentations. Education World.
Retrieved August 25, 2008, from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech013.shtml
Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s Power in the Classroom: Enhancing Students’
Self-efficacy and Attitudes. Computers & Education. 45(2), 203-215.
84
Sweller, J. (2007). Research points the finger at PowerPoint. Retrieved August 26,
2008, from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/powerpointpresentations-a-disaster/2007/04/03/1175366240499.html
Talbot, D. M., Maier, E., and Rushlau, M. (1996). Guess who’s coming to doctoral
programs: Factors influencing potential students’ choice doctoral programs in
student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal. 16(1), 5-15.
Taylor, R. P. (1980). Introduction. In R. P. Taylor (Ed.) The computer in school:
Tutor, tool, tutee. 1-10. New York: Teachers College Press.
Thyer, B.A. (1993). Single System Research Designs. R.M. Grinnell, Jr (ed.) Social
Work Research and Evaluation (4th ed). 94-117.
Tufte, E. (2003). PowerPoint is evil. Wired. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
Uys, H. H. M. & Basson, A. A. 1991. Research Methodology in Nursing. Pretoria:
HAUM.
University Of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Interactive Video. (2002).
Developing Your PowerPoint Presentation. Retrieved September 1, 2008,
from http://www.uth.tmc.edu/schools/video/video/develop.htm#fonts
Vanderbilt Center for Teaching. (2008). Multimedia Presentations. Retrieved August
20, 2008, from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_
resources/technology/presentations.htm
Vertelney, Arent and Lieberman (1990). Web Interface Design: The Elements of
Interface Design. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from:
http://www.edtech.vt.edu/edtech/id/interface
85
Waller, R. (1979). Functional Information Design: Research and Practice.
Information Design Journal. 1, 43-50.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The Social Dimension of Asynchronous Learning Networks.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1), 1-16.
Wegner, T. (2002). Applied Business Statistics. Methods and Applications.
Lansdowne: Juta Gariep.
Whitehead, B. (2005). Integrating technology in the classroom makes learning more
interactive and dynamic. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from http://www.webconferencing-zone.com/4094-integrating-technology-in-the-classroom.htm
Will, G. H. (2000). Quantitative Research Design. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0001/wghdesign.html
Wynn, S. (1996). Coming up for A.I.R: How can electronic presentations be
effectively incorporated into the teaching environment? Abbott, J. and
Willcoxson, L. (Eds). Teaching and Learning Within and Across Disciplines.
185-188.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Professional Development in Higher Education: A
Theoretical Framework For Action Research. London: Kogan Page.
86
APPENDICES
87
Questionnaire
Students’ Perception on the Electronic Teaching Presentation
This questionnaire focuses on the students’ perception on the electronic teaching
presentation especially the undergraduate students from Faculty of Education,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Please answer all the questions in this questionnaire.
There are FOUR sections.
Section A: Respondents’ background
Section B: The Most Annoying about Electronic Teaching Presentation
Section C: The Students’ Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic
Teaching Presentation
Section D: Students’ Learning style
Your feedback is precious. Thank you very much for your cooperation and the
willingness to complete this questionnaire.
This questionnaire was prepared by
Lim Siew Huang
Faculty of Education
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
88
Section A: General Information
Instruction: Please fill in the blanks.
Gender: Male / Female
Course :
_________
Section B: The Most Annoying about Electronic Teaching Presentation
Part 1: Visual Design of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Instruction: Please rank the following from the most annoying to the less annoying (from 1 to
10)
Annoying Things
Rank
Text so small I couldn't read it
Full sentences instead of bullet points
Slides hard to see because of colour choice
Moving/flying text or graphics
Annoying use of sounds
Overly complex diagrams or charts
No flow of ideas - jumped around too much
Too many fonts used
Graphic images that did not fit the topic of the slide
Poor quality video or audio segment
Other annoying things:
__________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Part 2: Delivery Method of Electronic Teaching Presentation
Instruction: Please rank the following from the most annoying to the less annoying (from 1 to
10)
Annoying Things
Rank
No clear purpose of presentation
The instructor reads slides to you
The instructor does not have eye contact with audience
The instructor speaks in monotone
The instructor’s voice is undertone (not loud enough)
The instructor static in one fixed position
The instructor never ask any question
The instructor asks you to read the slides yourself
The instructor speaks something else which is not related to the presentation
The instructor does not show the presentation slide using the slide show mode
Other annoying things:
__________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
89
Section C: The Students’ Preferences on the Visual Design of Electronic Teaching
Presentation
Instruction: Please choose and tick (/) on an appropriate answer for each question.
SA
= Strongly Agree
A
=Agree
U
=Undecided (Neither agree nor disagree)
DA
=Disagree
SDA
=Strongly Disagree
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Item
I prefer bright and striking colour such as red and yellow.
I prefer the presentation with image background.
I prefer text as the main element to deliver the content of
presentation.
I prefer serif font such as Times New Roman, Garamond
and Georgia.
I prefer simple san-serif font such as Arial, Tahoma and
Verdana.
I like the effect and transition of text during the
presentation.
I prefer image/picture as the main element to deliver the
content of presentation.
I prefer presentation using illustration graphic such as
clipart and cartoons.
I prefer presentation using realistic photo (real image).
I prefer audio/sound as the main element to deliver the
content of presentation.
11
I like to have background music during the presentation.
12
I like to hear the responding sound such as mouse-over
the links or click on the links.
I prefer presentation showing animation/video as the
main element to deliver the content.
I like to see the animation in presentation although it is
not related to the content.
I prefer the text on the left and the image/graphic on the
right than the text on the right and the image/ graphic on
the left.
I prefer the text on the top of the image/graphic than the
text at bottom of image/graphic.
I prefer one point in a slide than all the points in a slide.
I prefer the title is always on top of slides than at the
bottom of slides.
13
14
15
16
17
18
SDA
DA
U
A
SA
90
Section D: Students’ Learning style (Based on Kolb’s Learning Style)
What kind of learner are you? Kolb refers to these four stages as: concrete experience (CE),
reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC) and active experimentation (AE).
Read each statement carefully. To the left of each statement, write the code that best
describes how each statement applies to you. Answer honestly as there are no correct or
incorrect answers. It is best if you do not think about each question too long, as this could lead
you to the wrong conclusion.
PART 1
Place either on an AE or a RO next to the statement below, depending upon which part of
the statement mostly closely describes you.
1) _____
(AE) – I often produce off-the-cuff ideas that at the first might seem silly
or half-baked.
(RO) – I am thorough and methodical.
2) _____
(AE) – I am normally the one who initiates conversations.
(RO) – I enjoy watching people.
3) _____
(AE) – I am flexible and open-minded.
(RO) – I am careful and cautious.
4) _____
(AE) – I am happy to have a go at new things.
(RO) – I draw up lists up possible courses of actions when starting a new
project.
5) _____
(AE) – I like to try new and different things without too much preparation.
(RO) – I investigate a new topic or process in depth before trying it.
6) _____
(AE) – I like to get involved and to participate.
(RO) – I like to read and observe.
7) _____
(AE) – I am loud and outgoing.
(RO) – I am quiet and somewhat shy.
8) _____
(AE) – I make quick and bold decision.
(RO) – I make cautious and logical decisions.
9) _____
(AE) – I speak slowly, after thinking.
(RO) – I speak fast, while thinking.
Total of AE s: ______
Total of RO s: _______
The one that has the larger number is your task preference.
PART 2
Place either on an AC or a CE next to the statement below, depending upon which part of the
statement mostly closely describes you.
1) _____
(AC) – I ask probing questions when learning a new subject.
(CE) – I am good at picking up hints and techniques from other people.
2) _____
(AC) – I am rational and logical.
(CE) – I am practical and down to earth.
3) _____
(AC) – I plan events down to the last detail.
(CE) – I like realistic but flexible plans.
4) _____
(AC) – I like to know the right answers before trying something new.
(CE) – I try things out by practicing to see if they work.
5) _____
(AC) – I analyze reports to find the basic assumptions and inconsistencies.
(CE) – I rely upon others to give me the basic gist of reports.
6) _____
(AC) – I prefer working alone.
(CE) – I enjoy working with others.
7) _____
(AC) – Others would describe me as serious, reserved and formal.
(CE) – Others would describe me as verbal, expressive and informal.
91
8) _____
(AC) – I use facts to make decisions.
(CE) – I use feelings to make decisions.
9) _____
(AC) – I am difficult to get to know.
(CE) – I am easy to get to know.
Total of AC s: ______
Total of CE s: _______
The one that has the larger number is your task preference.
Scoring procedures:
Each preference (high score) from the two above parts is used to determine your learning style:
If you are AE and CE
If you are RO and CE
then you are a Doer (Accommodator)
then you are a Watcher (Diverger)
Concrete Experience and
Reflective Observation and
Active Experimentation
Concrete Experience
If you are RO and AC
If you are AE and AC
then you are a Thinker (Assimilation)
then you are a Feeler (Converger)
Reflective Observation and
Active Experimentation and
Abstract Conceptualization
Abstract Conceptualization
Note that you learn in All four styles, but you normally learn by starting in and using one style
the most.
1. Diverger - view situations from many perspectives and rely heavily upon brainstorming
and generation of ideas.
2. Assimilator - use inductive reasoning and have the ability to create theoretical models.
3. Converger - rely heavily on hypothetical-deductive reasoning.
4. Accommodator - carry out plans and experiments and adapt to immediate circumstances.
Source: Clark,D (2000). Learning Styles. http:www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/kolb.html/