|
 ABSTRACT
Large classrooms have traditionally provided multiple blackboards on which an entire lecture could be visible. In recent decades, classrooms were augmented with a data projector and screen, allowing computer-generated slides to replace hand-written blackboard presentations and overhead transparencies as the medium of choice. Many lecture halls and conference rooms will soon be equipped with multiple projectors that provide large, high-resolution displays of comparable size to an old fashioned array of blackboards. The predominant presentation software, however, is still designed for a single medium-resolution projector. With the ultimate goal of designing rich presentation tools that take full advantage of increased screen resolution and real estate, we conducted an observational study to examine current practice with both traditional whiteboards and blackboards, and computer-generated slides. We identify several categories of observed usage, and highlight differences between traditional media and computer slides. We then present design guidelines for presentation software that capture the advantages of the old and the new and describe a working prototype based on those guidelines that more fully utilizes the capabilities of multiple displays.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
|
 |
2
|
Richard J. Anderson , Crystal Hoyer , Steven A. Wolfman , Ruth Anderson, A study of digital ink in lecture presentation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.567-574, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria
[doi> 10.1145/985692.985764]
|
| |
3
|
Buxton, W. A. S. Mountains, exploration, education, rich media and design. e-presence web archive. http://epresence.tv/mediacontent/archives/2004_dec9/?archiveID=110
|
| |
4
|
Chiu P, Liu O, Boreczky J, Foote J, Fuse T, Kimber D, Lertsithichai S, Liao C. Manipulating and annotating slides in a multi-display environment. Proc. of INTERACT '03, (2003) 583--590.
|
| |
5
|
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J.P., and Wenk, L. Classtalk: A Classroom Communication System for Active Learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3--47, (1996).
|
| |
6
|
Daniels, L. Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step. J. of Computing in Higher Education, 10, 2 (1999) 42--56.
|
| |
7
|
Friedland, G., Knipping, L., Schulte, J., Tapia, E. E-Chalk: A lecture recording system using the chalkboard metaphor. Interactive Technology and Smart Education 1 (2004) 9--20
|
| |
8
|
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., Door, V. The Interactive Whiteboard: a literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 14:2 (2005) 106--113.
|
| |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
David Holman , Predrag Stojadinović , Thorsten Karrer , Jan Borchers, Fly: an organic presentation tool, CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 22-27, 2006, Montréal, Québec, Canada
[doi> 10.1145/1125451.1125620]
|
| |
11
|
Matthew Kam , Jingtao Wang , Alastair Iles , Eric Tse , Jane Chiu , Daniel Glaser , Orna Tarshish , John Canny, Livenotes: a system for cooperative and augmented note-taking in lectures, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 02-07, 2005, Portland, Oregon, USA
[doi> 10.1145/1054972.1055046]
|
| |
12
|
Kjeldsen J., The rhetoric of powerpoint. Seminar.net -- Media, Technology and liftelong learning 3:1 (2007)
|
| |
13
|
Lanir, J., Booth, K. S., Understanding instructors' use of visual aids in classroom setting. Proceedings of ED-Media, AACE (2007), 788--794
|
| |
14
|
Levasseur D. G., Sawyer K. J. Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. The Review of Communication 6:1-2 (2006) 101--123
|
| |
15
|
Meyer, R.E., Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2003
|
| |
16
|
Meyer, R.E. and Moreno R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38, 1, (2003), 43--52
|
| |
17
|
MIT Open Courseware. http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/index.htm
|
| |
18
|
|
| |
19
|
Les Nelson , Satoshi Ichimura , Elin Rønby Pedersen , Lia Adams, Palette: a paper interface for giving presentations, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, p.354-361, May 15-20, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
[doi> 10.1145/302979.303109]
|
| |
20
|
Norman D. In defense of PowerPoint. (2004). http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/in_defense_of_p.html
|
| |
21
|
Parker I. Absolute PowerPoint. The New Yorker, 77,13 (2001) 76--87.
|
| |
22
|
Ratto, M., Shapiro, R. B., Truong, T. M., and Griswold,W. G. The activeclass project: Experiments in encouraging classroom participation. In proc. CSCL (2003)
|
| |
23
|
Guido Röüling , Christoph Trompler , Max Mühlhäuser , Susanne Köbler , Susanne Wolf, Enhancing classroom lectures with digital sliding blackboards, Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 28-30, 2004, Leeds, United Kingdom
|
| |
24
|
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J. Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21:2 (2005), 91--101.
|
| |
25
|
Sweller, J., Cognitive load during problem solving:, Cognitive Science, 12 (1988), 257--285.
|
| |
26
|
|
| |
27
|
Tufte E. The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT, 2003
|
CITED BY 3
|
|
Kellogg S. Booth, 25 Years ago I couldn't even spell Canadian, now I are one: momentos of collaborating on, with, and about technology, Proceedings of graphics interface 2008, May 28-30, 2008, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime
Windows Media Player
Real Player
Pdf
H.5