The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentation and conventional lecture on pedagogical content knowledge attainment

References

• Adams, C. A. (2010). Teachers building dwelling thinking with slideware. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 10, 1–12.10.2989/IPJP.2010.10.1.3.1075
   Google Scholar
• Alkash, K., & Al-Dersi, Z. (2013). Advantage of using Power Point presentations in EFL classroom. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 1, 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Amare, N. (2006). To slide ware or not to slide ware: Students’ experiences with PowerPoint vs. Lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36, 297–308.10.2190/03GX-F1HW-VW5M-7DAR
   Google Scholar
• Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2008). An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 50, 148–153.10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.10.1177/0022487108324554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banegas, D. L. (2009). Content knowledge in teacher education: Where professionalization lies. ELTED, 12. Retrieved from http://www.elted.net/issues/volume-12/index.htm
   Google Scholar
• Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77–86.10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basson, E. (2009). Large group teaching and technology – Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. IASE /ISI Satellite. Retrieved from http://iaseweb.org/documents/papers/sat2009/8_1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40, 5–20.10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bester, G., & Brand, L. (2013). The effect of technology on learner attention and achievement in the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 33, 1–15.10.15700/201409161038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Can, Ş. (2010). Attitudes of pre-service teachers from the department of elementary education towards the effects of materials use on learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9, 46–54.
   Google Scholar
• Chigona, W., & Davids, Z. (2014). Educators’ motivation on integration of ICTs into pedagogy: Case of disadvantaged areas. South African Journal of Education, 34, 1–8.10.15700/201409161038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun, D., Smith, B., & Kern, R. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 64–80.10.1111/modl.12302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J. (2008). Powerpoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56, 39–45.10.3200/CTCH.56.1.39-46
   Google Scholar
• Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-8517-0
   Google Scholar
• Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation and the dynamics of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 147–160.10.1007/s10755-006-9017-5
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., &  Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. In Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Farkas, D. (2006). Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck design. Information Design Journal and Document Design, 14, 162–171.10.1075/idj.14.2.08far
   Google Scholar
• Frey, B. A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learners’ perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Research methods in applied setting. An integrated approach to design and analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kahraman, S., Çevik, C., & Kodan, H. (2011). Investigation of university students’ attitude toward the use of PowerPoint according to some variables. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1341–1347.10.1016/j.procs.2011.01.013
   Google Scholar
• Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 6–36.10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lui, S. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of ESL teacher educator. English Language Teaching, 6, 128–138.
   Google Scholar
• Marusic′, M., & Slisko, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics on the gain in students’ development of reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 301–326.10.1080/09500693.2011.582522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottley, J. (2003). Developing self-study materials with PowerPoint. LTSN Bioscience Bulletin, 9. Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/newsletters/ltsn9.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Norvig, P. (2003). PowerPoint: Shot with its own bullets. The Lancet, 362, 343–344.10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14056-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nouri, N., & Shahid, A. (2005). The effect of PowerPoint presentations on students learning and attitudes. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 2, 53–73.
   Google Scholar
• Pillay, R., Bozalek, V., & Wood, D. (2015). The use of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) to facilitate authentic learning: Experiences of South African social work educators. Social Work, 51, 515–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52, 858–886.10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shallcross, D. E., & Harrison, T. G. (2007). Lectures: Electronic presentations versus chalk and talk – A chemist’s view. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 8, 73–79.10.1039/B6RP90021F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, K. (2006). The do’s and don’ts of PowerPoint presentations. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106, 1745–1748.10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.029
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Susskind, J. E. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers & Education., 45, 203–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers and Education, 35, 175–187.10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00030-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xingeng, D., & Jianxiang, L. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of PowerPoint lectures to science students. Educational and Management Engineering, 9, 61–65.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, S. C., & Chen, Y. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 860–879.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, S. C., & Chen, Y. J. (2014). Fostering foreign language learning through technology-enhanced intercultural projects. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 57–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhongling, P., & Jianzhong, H. (2016). Learning process and learning outcomes of video podcasts including the instructor and PPT slides: A Chinese case. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53, 135–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar