Does a presentation's medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations

Samuel T Moulton, Selen Türkay, Stephen M Kosslyn, Samuel T Moulton, Selen Türkay, Stephen M Kosslyn

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of PowerPoint in professional and educational presentations, surprisingly little is known about how effective such presentations are. All else being equal, are PowerPoint presentations better than purely oral presentations or those that use alternative software tools? To address this question we recreated a real-world business scenario in which individuals presented to a corporate board. Participants (playing the role of the presenter) were randomly assigned to create PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations, and then actually delivered the presentation live to other participants (playing the role of corporate executives). Across two experiments and on a variety of dimensions, participants evaluated PowerPoint presentations comparably to oral presentations, but evaluated Prezi presentations more favorably than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. There was some evidence that participants who viewed different types of presentations came to different conclusions about the business scenario, but no evidence that they remembered or comprehended the scenario differently. We conclude that the observed effects of presentation format are not merely the result of novelty, bias, experimenter-, or software-specific characteristics, but instead reveal a communication preference for using the panning-and-zooming animations that characterize Prezi presentations.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: This research was supported by a grant to SMK from Prezi (http://www.prezi.com), a commercial funder. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1. Experiment 1 audience ratings.
Fig 1. Experiment 1 audience ratings.
Audience members rated presentations on each dimension on a 5-level scale (1 = “not at all,” 5 = “extremely”). The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.
Fig 2. Experiment 1 audience rankings.
Fig 2. Experiment 1 audience rankings.
Audience members ranked the presentations from best to worst, with lower ranks indicating better presentations. The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.
Fig 3. Experiment 1 audience omnibus judgments…
Fig 3. Experiment 1 audience omnibus judgments of effectiveness.
Note: Means shown from pre-survey items are calculated based on responses from all participants (as opposed to only those who had experience with all presentation formats).
Fig 4. Experiment 2 audience ratings.
Fig 4. Experiment 2 audience ratings.
Note: rating dimensions are ordered by the magnitude of the difference between Prezi and the other presentation formats; for dimensions with no significant differences between presentation formats, only the overall mean is displayed.
Fig 5. Experiment 2 decision outcomes for…
Fig 5. Experiment 2 decision outcomes for each presentation group.

References

    1. McCluhan M. The medium is the message. In: Understanding of media: The extensions of man. 1964. p. 1–18.
    1. Salomon G. Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1994.
    1. Clark RE. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Rev Educ Res. 1983;53(4):445–59.
    1. Clark RE. Media will never influence learning. Educ Technol Res Dev. 1994;42(2):21–9.
    1. Stokes DE. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1997.
    1. Knoblauch H. Communicative Constructivism and Mediatization. Commun Theory. 2013. August 1;23(3):297–315.
    1. Parker I. Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts? [Internet]. The New Yorker. 2001 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from:
    1. Thielsch MT, Perabo I. Use and evaluation of presentation software. Tech Commun. 2012. May 1;59(2):112–23.
    1. Levasseur DG, Sawyer JK. Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. Rev Commun. 2006. January 1;6(1–2):101–23.
    1. Tufte ER. The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2013.
    1. Kjeldsen JE. Strategies of visual argumentation in slideshow presentations: The role of the visuals in an Al Gore presentation on climate change. Argumentation. 2013. February 16;27(4):425–43.
    1. Szabo A, Hastings N. Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Comput Educ. 2000. November 1;35(3):175–87.
    1. Bartsch RA, Cobern KM. Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ. 2003. August;41(1):77–86.
    1. Casteleyn J, Mottart A, Valcke M. The impact of graphic organisers on learning from presentations. Technol Pedagogy Educ. 2013. October 1;22(3):283–301.
    1. Ricer RE, Filak AT, Short J. Does a high tech (computerized, animated, Powerpoint) presentation increase retention of material compared to a low tech (black on clear overheads) presentation? Teach Learn Med. 2005. April 1;17(2):107–11. doi:
    1. Kosslyn SM, Kievit RA, Russell AG, Shephard JM. PowerPoint® presentation flaws and failures: a psychological analysis. Educ Psychol. 2012;3:230.
    1. Mantei EJ. Using Internet class notes and PowerPoint in the Physical Geology lecture: Comparing the success of computer technology with traditional teaching techniques. J Coll Sci Teach. 2000;29(5):301–5.
    1. Weinraub HJ. Using multimedia authoring software: The effects on student learning perceptions and performance. Financ Pract Educ. 1998;8(2):88–92.
    1. Wilmoth J, Wybraniec J. Profits and pitfalls: Thoughts on using a laptop computer and presentation software to teach introductory social statistics. Teach Sociol. 1998. July;26(3):166.
    1. Worthington DL, Levasseur DG. To provide or not to provide course PowerPoint slides? The impact of instructor-provided slides upon student attendance and performance. Comput Educ. 2015. July;85:14–22.
    1. Astleitner H. Teaching critical thinking online. J Instr Psychol. 2002;29(2):53–76.
    1. Bartlett RM, Strough J. Multimedia versus traditional course instruction in introductory Social Psychology. Teach Psychol. 2003. November;30(4):335.
    1. Beets SD, Lobingier PG. Pedagogical techniques: Student performance and preferences. J Educ Bus. 2001. April;76(4):231–5.
    1. Chou PN, Chang CC, Lu PF. Prezi versus PowerPoint: The effects of varied digital presentation tools on students’ learning performance. Comput Educ. 2015. December 15;91:73–82.
    1. Daniels L. Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step. J Comput High Educ. 1999. Spring;10(2):42–56.
    1. DeBord KA, Aruguete MS, Muhlig J. Are computer-assisted teaching methods effective? Teach Psychol. 2004;31(1):65–8.
    1. Meo SA, Shahabuddin S, Al Masri AA, Ahmed SM, Aqil M, Anwer MA, Al-Drees AM. Comparison of the impact of PowerPoint and chalkboard in undergraduate medical teaching: an evidence based study. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013. January 1;23(1):47–50. doi:
    1. Nouri H, Shahid A. The effect of Powerpoint presentations on student learning and attitudes. Glob Perspect Account Educ. 2005;2:53–73.
    1. Pippert TD, Moore HA. Multiple perspectives on multimedia in the large lecture. Teach Sociol. 1999. April;27(2):92.
    1. Rankin EL, Hoaas DJ. The use of PowerPoint and student performance. Atl Econ J. 2001. March;29(1):113.
    1. Savoy A, Proctor RW, Salvendy G. Information retention from PowerPointTM and traditional lectures. Comput Educ. 2009. May;52(4):858–67.
    1. Susskind JE. PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Comput Educ. 2005. September;45(2):203–15.
    1. Susskind JE. Limits of PowerPoint’s Power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Comput Educ. 2008. May;50(4):1228–39.
    1. Erwin TD, Rieppi R. Comparing multimedia and traditional approaches in undergraduate psychology classes. Teach Psychol. 1999. January;26(1):58.
    1. Jensen RE, Sandlin PK. Why do it? Advantages and dangers of new waves of computer-aided teaching/instruction. J Account Educ. 1992. March 1;10(1):39–60.
    1. Lowry RB. Electronic presentation of lectures—Effect upon student performance. J Tert Educ GROUP R Soc Chem [Internet]. 1999. [cited 2016 Sep 3]; Available from:
    1. Smith SM, Woody PC. Interactive effect of multimedia instruction and learning styles. Teach Psychol. 2000. Summer;27(3):220–3.
    1. Vyas P, Sharma S. A study on the efficacy of PowerPoint for writing instruction. Int J Instr Technol Distance Learn. 2014;11(8):29–42.
    1. Amare N. To slideware or not to slideware: Students’ experiences with PowerPoint vs. lecture. J Tech Writ Commun. 2006. August 1;36(3):297–308.
    1. El Khoury RM, Mattar DM. PowerPoint in accounting classrooms: Constructive or destructive? Int J Bus Soc Sci [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2016 Sep 5];3(10). Available from:
    1. Blokzijl W, Naeff R. The Instructor as Stagehand Dutch Student Responses to PowerPoint. Bus Commun Q. 2004. March 1;67(1):70–7.
    1. Frey BA, Birnbaum DJ. Learners’ perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. 2002 [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from:
    1. Nowaczyk RH, Santos LT, Patton C. Student perception of multimedia in the undergraduate classroom. Int J Instr Media. 1998;25(4):367.
    1. Perry T, Perry LA. University students’ attitudes towards multimedia presentations. Br J Educ Technol. 1998. October 1;29(4):375–7.
    1. Tang TLP, Austin MJ. Students’ perceptions of teaching technologies, application of technologies, and academic performance. Comput Educ. 2009. December;53(4):1241–55.
    1. Rudow SR, Finck JE. Pointing with power Or creating with chalk. Contemp Issues Educ Res Online. 2015;8(3):n/a.
    1. Apperson JM, Laws EL, Scepansky JA. An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Comput Educ. 2008. January;50(1):148–53.
    1. Burke LA, James KE. PowerPoint-Based lectures in business education: An empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. Bus Commun Q [Internet]. 2008. July 17 [cited 2016 Sep 3]; Available from:
    1. Clark C. The impact of entrepreneurs’ oral “pitch” presentation skills on business angels’ initial screening investment decisions. Venture Cap. 2008. July;10(3):257–79.
    1. Harknett RJ, Cobane CT. Introducing instructional technology to international relations. PS Polit Sci Polit. 1997. September;30(3):496–500.
    1. Roehling PV, Trent-Brown S. Differential use and benefits of PowerPoint in upper level versus lower level courses. Technol Pedagogy Educ. 2011. March 1;20(1):113–24.
    1. Sugahara S, Boland G. The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the accounting classroom. Account Educ. 2006. December;15(4):391–403.
    1. Guadagno RE, Sundie JM, Hardison TA, Cialdini RB. The persuasive power of PowerPoint® presentations In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Persuasive Technology: Persuasive Technology and Design: Enhancing Sustainability and Health [Internet]. ACM; 2011. [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 2 Available from:
    1. Park J, Feigenson N. Effects of a visual technology on mock juror decision making. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2013. March 1;27(2):235–46.
    1. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan; 2011. 511 p.
    1. Gunelius S. Stand Out From Competitors With Prezi Presentations [Internet]. Forbes; 2011. [cited 2016 Sep 5]. Available from:
    1. Perron BE, Stearns AG. A review of a presentation technology: Prezi. Res Soc Work Pract. 2011. May 1;21(3):376–7.
    1. Rockinson-Szapkiw AJ, Knight A, Tucker JM. Prezi: Trading linear presentations for conceptual learning experiences in counselor education. In 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from:
    1. Settle Q, Abrams KM, Baker LM. Using Prezi in the classroom. NACTA J. 2011. December;55(4):105–6.
    1. Strasser N. Using Prezi In higher education. J Coll Teach Learn TLC. 2014;11(2):95–98.
    1. Adams S. How Prezi’s Peter Arvai plans to beat PowerPoint. Forbes; [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from:
    1. McCloud S. Reinventing comics. New York, NY, USA: Paradox Pres; 2000.
    1. Bederson BB. The promise of zoomable user interfaces. Behav Inf Technol. 2011. December 11;30(6):853–66.
    1. Good L, Bederson BB. Zoomable user interfaces as a medium for slide show presentations. Inf Vis. 2002. March;1(1):35.
    1. Courtney SM, Ungerleider LG, Keil K, Haxby JV. Object and Spatial Visual Working Memory Activate Separate Neural Systems in Human Cortex. Cereb Cortex. 1996. January 1;6(1):39–49.
    1. Haxby JV, Grady CL, Horwitz B, Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M, Carson RE, et al. Dissociation of object and spatial visual processing pathways in human extrastriate cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1991. March 1;88(5):1621–5.
    1. Wilson ML, others. A longitudinal study of exploratory and keyword search In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries [Internet]. ACM; 2008. [cited 2016 Aug 16]. p. 52–56. Available from:
    1. Kozhevnikov M, Kosslyn SM, Shephard JM. Spatial versus object visualizers: A new characterization of visual cognitive style. Mem Cognit. 2005;33:710–726.
    1. Luria AR. The mind of a mnemonist: A little book about a vast memory. Harvard University Press; 1968.
    1. Pavio A, Csapo K. Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognit Psychol. 1973;5(2):176–206.
    1. Ponce HR, Mayer RE. Qualitatively different cognitive processing during online reading primed by different study activities. Comput Hum Behav. 2014. January;30:121–30.
    1. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning In: Brian H. Ross, editor. Psychology of Learning and Motivation [Internet]. Academic Press; 2002. [cited 2013 Dec 19]. p. 85–139. Available from:
    1. Nesbit JC, Adesope OO. Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2006. Fall;76(3):413–48.
    1. Adams C. PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. J Curric Stud. 2006. August 1;38(4):389–411.
    1. Brock S, Brodahl C. A Tale of two cultures: Cross cultural comparison in learning the Prezi presentation software tool in the US and Norway. In: Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 95–119. Available from:
    1. Conboy C, Fletcher S, Russell K, Wilson M. An Evaluation of the potential use and impact of Prezi, the zooming editor software, as a tool to facilitate learning in higher education. Innov Pract. 2012;7:31–45.
    1. Mason GS, Shuman TR, Cook KE. Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Trans Educ. 2013. November;56(4):430–5.
    1. Ballentine BD. High concept and design documentation: Using Prezi for undergraduate game design. In: 2012 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. 2012. p. 1–5.
    1. Duffy RM, Guerandel A, Casey P, Malone K, Kelly BD. Experiences of using Prezi in psychiatry teaching. Acad Psychiatry. 2014;1–5.
    1. Virtanen P, Myllärniemi J, Wallander H. Diversifying higher education: facilitating different ways of learning. Anderson G, editor. Campus-Wide Inf Syst. 2013. June 21;30(3):201–11.
    1. Harris D. Presentation software: Pedagogical constraints and potentials. J Hosp Leis Sports Tour Educ Pre-2012. 2011. April;10(1):72–84.
    1. Bean JW. Presentation software supporting visual design: Displaying spatial relationships with a zooming user interface. Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2012 IEEE International 2012 Oct 8 (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
    1. Casteleyn J, Mottart A, Valcke M. Creating visual aids with graphic organisers on an infinite canvas—the impact on the presenter. Res Learn Technol [Internet]. 2015. February 20 [cited 2015 Dec 27];23(0). Available from:
    1. Hegarty M. The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Top Cogn Sci. 2011. July;3(3):446–74. doi:
    1. Harvard Business Publishing—Cases [Internet]. [cited 2016 Sep 10]. Available from:
    1. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(3):231.
    1. Hunt RR. The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did. Psychon Bull Rev. 1995;2(1):105–112. doi:
    1. von Restoff H. The effects of field formation in the trace field. Psychol Res. 1933;18(1):299–342.
    1. Turkle S. How computers change the way we think. Chron High Educ. 2004;50(21):B26.
    1. Simons RF, Detenber BH, Roedema TM, Reiss JE. Emotion processing in three systems: The medium and the message. Psychophysiology. 1999;36(5):619–627.
    1. Lang A, Borse J, Wise K, David P. Captured by the World Wide Web orienting to structural and content features of computer-presented information. Commun Res. 2002;29(3):215–245.
    1. Moreno R, Mayer RE. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol. 1999;91(2):358–68.
    1. Li H, Bukovac JL. Cognitive impact of banner ad characteristics: An experimental study. Journal Mass Commun Q. 1999. Summer;76(2):341–53.
    1. Shanmugasundaram M, Irani P. The effect of animated transitions in zooming interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2008. [cited 2016 Sep 5]. p. 396–399. (AVI ‘08). Available from:
    1. Rieber LP. Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. J Educ Psychol. 1991. September;83(3):318–28.
    1. Tversky B, Morrison JB, Betrancourt M. Animation: can it facilitate? Int J Hum-Comput Stud. 2002. October;57(4):247–62.
    1. Sundar SS, Kim J. Interactivity and Persuasion. J Interact Advert. 2005. March 1;5(2):5–18.
    1. Lai Y-L, Hui K-L, Liu N. To animate or not to animate?-The effects of animation on recall, product perceptions & attitude. PACIS 2007 Proc. 2007;6.
    1. Coyle JR, Thorson E. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in Web marketing sites. J Advert. 2001. Fall;30(3):65–77.
    1. Sirikasem P, Shebilske WL. The perception and metaperception of architectural designs communicated by video-computer imaging. Psychol Res. 53(2):113–26.
    1. Turkay S, Moulton ST. The educational impact of whiteboard animations: An experiment using popular social science lessons In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Learning International Networks Consortium (LINC). Cambridge, MA, USA; 2016. p. 283–91.
    1. Zongker DE, Salesin DH. On creating animated presentations. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation [Internet]. Eurographics Association; 2003. [cited 2016 Sep 5]. p. 298–308. Available from:
    1. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended thought In: Unintended Thought. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press; 1989. p. 212–52.
    1. Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
    1. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986.
    1. Petty RE, Wegener DT. The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 37–72.
    1. McNeill T. PowerPoint -v- Prezi [Internet]. E-learning & Digital Cultures. 2009. [cited 2016 Oct 1]. Available from:

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅