User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Gifted Child Today > Volume 29 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Aly, M., Elen, J., & Willems, G. (2004). Instructional multimedia program versus standard lecture: A comparison of two methods for teaching the undergraduate orthodontic curriculum. European Journal of Dental Education, 8, 43–46.
  • Bajaj, G. (2004). Presentation storyboarding: Retrieve your inspiration. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.indezine.com/ideas/storybrd.html#intro.
  • Baker, R. M., & Dwyer, F. (2005). Effects of instructional strategies and individual differences: A meta-analytic assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32, 69–84.
  • Becker, H. J. (2001, April). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the 2001 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Irvine, CA.
  • Bhaerman, R., & Selden, D. (1970). Instructional technology and the teaching profession. Teachers College Record, 71, 391–406. Retrieved November 12, 2005, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=1731.
  • Brand, R. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.
  • Burns, M. (2003). Beyond show and tell: Using spreadsheets as problem-solving tools. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(2). Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www.iste.org/L&L.
  • Burns, M. (2005). Just right: Rethinking the how and why of technology instruction. Ubiquity, 6(8). Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www.acm.org/ubiquity.
  • Clark, R. A. (2002). Learning outcomes: The bottom line. Communication Education, 51, 396–404.
  • Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Davis, J. K., & Klausmeister, H. J. (1970). Cognitive style and concept identification as a function of complexity and training procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 423–430.
  • Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 3–6. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (2003). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
  • Erickson, H. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Farwell, J. (2005). Build a better presentation: Put yourself in the leading role. PC Today, 3(5), 46–48.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  • Graff, M. (2005). Differences in concept mapping, hypertext architecture, and the analyst-intuition dimension of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 25, 409–422.
  • Grieve, T. D., & Davis, J. K. (1971). The relationship of cognitive style and method of instruction to performance in ninth grade geography. Journal of Educational Research, 65, 137–141.
  • Guetskow, H. (1951). An analysis of the operation of set in problem-solving behaviors. Journal of General Psychology, 45, 219–244.
  • Harknett, R. J., & Cobane, C. T. (1997). Introducing instructional technology to international relations. Political Science and Politics, 30, 496–500.
  • Holzl, J. (1997). Twelve tips for effective PowerPoint presentations for the technologically challenged. Medical Teacher, 19, 175–179.
  • Jones, N. B. (2004). Sticking up for PowerPoint. District Administration, 40(5), 9.
  • Kagan, J., Moss, H. A., & Sigel, I. E. (1963). The psychological significance of styles of conceptualization. In J. F. Wright & J. Kagan (Eds.), Basic cognitive processes in children. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 28, 73–112.
  • Kaplan, S. (2004, July). Designing curriculum for diverse gifted learners. Paper presented at the meeting of the University of Connecticut Confratute Institute, Storrs, CT.
  • Kaplan, S. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 107–133). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Kerr, S. T. (1991). Lever and fulcrum: Educational technology in teachers’ thought and practice. Teachers College Record, 93(1), 114–136.
  • Kritsonis, W. (1997/1998). National learning-styles studies impact classroom pedagogy. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 1–3.
  • Levy, S. (1996). Starting from scratch: One classroom builds its own curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures: The effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, 3(1), 18–21.
  • Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Matheson, V., Abt-Perkins, D., & Snedden, D. (2002, January). Making PowerPoint interactive with hyperlinks. Poster session presented at the annual American Economic Association Convention, Atlanta, GA.
  • Murphy, T. (2004, October). Research based methods for using PowerPoint, animation, and video for instruction. SIGUCCS’04. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www.bitbetter.com/powertips.htm.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). The condition of education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 7, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000062.
  • National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 (2001).
  • Nolan, J., & Francis, P. (1992). Changing perspectives in curriculum and instruction. In C. D. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in transition (pp. 44–60). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Nystrand, M. (1992, April). Dialogic instruction and conceptual change. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association convention, San Francisco.
  • Odom, R. D., McIntyre, C. W., & Neale, G. S. (1971). The influence of cognitive style on perceptual learning. Child Development, 42, 883–891.
  • Reiser, R., & Gagné, R. (1983). Selecting media for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Teachers as talent scouts. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 75–82.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Sandholtz, J. H. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of teacher development programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 349–374.
  • Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106, 487–512.
  • Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology—Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Stager, G. (2004). Pointing in the wrong direction. District Administration, 40(1), 71.
  • Szaboa, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35, 175–187.
  • Thirlway, M. (1994). Writing software manuals. Cambridge, England: Prentice-Hall.
  • Tomlinson, C. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for high ability learners. Theory Into Practice, 44, 160–166.
  • Tufte, E. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
  • VanSciver, J. H. (2005). Motherhood, apple pie, and differentiated instruction. Phi Delta Kappan 87, 534–535.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the non-negotiables? Theory Into Practice, 44, 90–97.
  • Weiss, E. H. (1991). How to write useable user documentation (2nd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Willis, J., & Mehlinger, H. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Butter & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook on research in teacher education (pp. 978–1029). New York: Macmillan.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 29
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Fall 2006



Beyond Presentations: Using PowerPoint as an Effective Instructional Tool

Catharina F. de Wet

I watched a social studies teacher present a lesson on the Civil War by means of a PowerPoint presentation. Slide by slide flashed on the screen, filled with bulleted lists of information that the teacher read to her students word for word. Students were staring at their handout pages with glassy eyes, lulled into a state of comatose compliance by the thought that all they had to do was study the handout for the test later that week. It strongly reminded me of my eighth-grade history teacher, more years ago than I care to admit, who had a similar teaching style, albeit without the visual component. We would walk into the classroom, sit down, and take out our notebooks. She would start talking and we would write furiously, trying to take down her notes word for word, for we would be expected to regurgitate those facts in the test coming up in the following week.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.