You are here:

A Tale of Two Cultures: Cross Cultural Comparison in Learning the Prezi Presentation Software Tool in the US and Norway
ARTICLE

, Touro College, United States ; , University of Agder, Norway

JITE-Research Volume 12, Number 1, ISSN 1539-3585 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Abstract

Presentation software is an important tool for both student and professorial communicators. PowerPoint has been the standard since it was introduced in 1990. However, new “improved” software platforms are emerging. Prezi is one of these, claiming to remedy the linear thinking that underlies PowerPoint by creating one canvas and permitting the presenter to zoom in and out as each element is introduced. Users can move back and forth to display the separate elements and reflect how they fit into a larger context. As these new tools are introduced, there may be different responses to them depending on the cultural background of the user. In order to understand one such interplay, Prezi was introduced to students in a class in Norway and in the same way to a class in the U.S. The mixed method study compared the introduction of this new software tool to two undergraduate classes in Spring 2012. The two professors used the same introduction to the tool. The output was the final project presentation for the class done using the Prezi tool. Students evaluated each other’s presentations on 10 attributes and answered two open-ended questions about the presentations. They also completed an 8-question self-evaluation of their or their team’s presentation. The instructor/researchers also used the same questions to evaluate her class. An additional 13 questions were added to the instructor instrument. Each instructor/researcher also viewed videos of the presentations from the other class and evaluated these presentations using the same set of questions. Results showed that both sets of students used the new tool well despite minimal direct instruction. Most made their presentations less linear than they would have been in PowerPoint. They generally used the Prezi technique of grouping elements and constructing a pathway between groups. Most inserted multimedia such as photos, videos, and links. Some especially appreciated the Prezi feature of more than one user being able to work on a presentation at the same time. Peers liked each other’s presentations and found them engaging. However, open-ended comments were more directed to actual content than use of Prezi. In student feedback the answer to the first attribute, being engaging, appeared to create a halo for most of the other attributes. In evaluating their peers’ presentations, the U.S. students were significantly more positive than the Norwegian ones, reinforcing the belief that the American culture is well above the global norm in optimism. Norwegians were lengthier in their open-ended feedback to their peers and focused more on content and style than the Americans. In self-evaluations, Americans had more to say than Norwegians. They stressed the creative aspect of Prezi whereas Norwegians highlighted presentations being tidy and calm. Males were higher raters on average than females. The researchers were less positive than the students, reflecting stricter standards than students.

Citation

Brock, S.E. & Brodahl, C. (2013). A Tale of Two Cultures: Cross Cultural Comparison in Learning the Prezi Presentation Software Tool in the US and Norway. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 12(1), 95-119. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved January 15, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Adams, C. (2006). PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 389-411.
  2. Adorno, T.W. (2009). ‘Kultur’ and culture. Social Text, 27(2), 145-158. .
  3. Alshare, K., & Hindi, N.M. (2004). The importance of presentation skills in the classroom: Students and instructors perspectives. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(4), 6-15.
  4. Barnatt, C. (2008, March 30). Explaining Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/7BAXvFdMBWw Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  5. Bender, C., & Bull, P.H. (2012). Using Prezi in a middle school science class. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2012, 2708-2713. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/39996 Berry, J.W. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (3rd ed.), 652. Downloaded eBook (free on EBSCOhost). Book Collection (EBSCOhost).
  6. BrainRulesBook. (2008, March 6). Death by PowerPoint. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/FJ5dbUCu2Ug Brock, S. & Joglekar, Y. (2012). Empowering PowerPoint: Slides and teaching effectiveness. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 6, 85-94. Retrieved from http://www.ijikm.org/Volume6/IJIKMv6p085-094Brock545.pdf
  7. Brodahl, C., Hansen, N.K., & Hadjerrouit, S. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education students' perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, IIP73-IIP103. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10IIPp073-103Brodahl948.pdf Burke, L.A., & James, K.E. (2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in business education: An empirical investigation of student-perceived novelty and effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 278296.
  8. Carter, T. (2002). The importance of talk to mid-career women's development: A collaborative inquiry. The Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 55-91.
  9. Chen, C., Lee, S.Y., & Stevenson, H.W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170-175.
  10. Cyphert, D. (2004). The problem of PowerPoint: Visual aid or visual rhetoric? Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 80-84.
  11. Derrick, E.J. (2006). Tools for student engagement that facilitate development of communication skills. In K. Elleithy, T. Sobh, A. Mahmood, M. Iskander & M. Karim (Eds.), advances in computer, information, and systems sciences, and engineering (pp. 481-484). Springer Netherlands.
  12. Elkjær, J.K. (Ed.) (2009). Global leadership country report. Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.
  13. Fransson, G., & Holmberg, J. (2012): Understanding the theoretical framework of technological pedagogical content knowledge: A collaborative self-study to understand teaching practice and aspects of knowledge. Studying Teacher Education, 8(2), 193-204.
  14. Frey, B., & Birnbaum, P. (2002). Learners' perceptions on the use of PowerPoint in lectures. Computers and Education, 41, 72-86.
  15. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049.
  16. Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543.
  17. Hadjerrouit, S. (2005). Designing a pedagogical model for web engineering education: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education, 4, 115-140. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol4/v4p115-140Hadj50.pdf Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903–918.
  18. Huxham, M. (2010). The medium makes the message: Effects of cues on students' lecture notes. Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 179-188.
  19. Isaacs, G. (1994). Lecturing practices and note-taking purposes. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 203-217.
  20. Klein, J. (2009, December 28). Time, 174(25), 86-93.
  21. Koohang, A., Riley, L., & Smith, T. (2009). E-learning and constructivism: From theory to application. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 91-109. Retrieved from http://www.ijello.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p091-109Koohang655.pdf Kunkel, K. (2004). A research note assessing the benefit of PowerPoint software in different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology, 32, 188-196.
  22. Lee, Y.T., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1997). Are Americans more optimistic than the Chinese? PSPB, 23(1), 34-40.
  23. Mason, M. (2009). How the 'snow-woman effect' slows women's progress. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1-4.
  24. Mantell, R. (2012). Must-have job skills in 2013. Online Wall St. Journal, 11 Nov. 2012. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324735104578118902763095818.html
  25. McCrae, R., Yik, M.S.M., Trapnell, P.D., Bond, M.H., & Paulhus, D.L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 1041-1055.
  26. Neal, E. (1998, June 19). Using technology in teaching: We need to exercise healthy skepticism. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 113 A Tale of Two Cultures
  27. Noppe, I., Achterberg, J., Duquaine, L., Huebbe, M., & Carol, W. (2007). PowerPoint handouts and college student learning outcomes. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 48(1), 2-10.
  28. Olaussen, B.S., & Bråten, I. (1999). Students’ use of strategies for self-regulated learning: Cross-cultural perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(4), 409-443.
  29. O’Reilly, T. (2005). The open source paradigm shift. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, & K. Lakhani (Eds.). Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 461-481). Boston: The MIT Press.
  30. Schrage, M. (2008). A better workforce. The Conference Board Review, 37-45.
  31. Sørnes, J.O., Stephens, K.K., Sætre, A.S., & Browning, L.D. (2003). Leveling differences and reinforcing similarities: The interaction between information and communication technologies and national culture. Proceedings of the 2003 Informing Science and IT Education Conference, Pori, Finland, 1157-1181. Retrieved from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/IS2003Proceedings/docs/144Soern.pdf Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers and Education, 35, 175-187.
  32. Tufte, E. (2003). PowerPoint is evil. Wired, 11. Retrieved from Wired: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
  33. Virtanen, P., Myllärniemi, J., & Wallander, H. (2012). Diversifying higher education: Innovative tools to facilitate different ways of learning. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Communication Technologies in Education (ICICTE) 2012, 105-116. Retrieved from http://www.icicte.org/Proceedings2012/Papers/03-2-Virtanen.pdf Zhang, X., & Olfman, L. (2010). Studios, mini-lectures, project presentations, class blog and wiki: A new approach to teaching web technologies. Journal of Information Technology Education, IIP187-IIP199. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9IIPp187-199Zhang813.pdf
  34. Zuckerman, L. (1999, April 17). Words go right to the brain, but can they stir the heart? New York Times, A17-A19. Brock& Brodahl

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.