COMPARATIVE STUDY ON CHALKBOARD AND POWERPOINT TEACHING METHODS FOR EFFECTIVE LEARNING
618 / 809
Authors
-
SADDIKUTI PRASHANTHI
Department of Agricultural Extension Education, S.V. Agricultural College, Tirupati
-
T. LAKSHMI
Department of Agricultural Extension Education, S.V. Agricultural College, Tirupati
Keywords:
Chalkboard Teaching, Power Point Presentations, Student Perceptions;, Teaching MethodsAbstract
This comparative study investigates the effectiveness of traditional chalkboard and modern Power Point teaching methods in contemporary education. The study was conducted among third-year B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture students at Sri Venkateswara Agricultural College, Tirupati. A descriptive survey method was employed, utilizing questionnaires distributed via Google Forms, with 120 randomly selected responses analyzed using statistical tools. Results indicated that
while PowerPoint presentations are perceived to offer better organization, clarity and visual aids, chalkboards are valued for their ability to stimulate interest, facilitate note-taking, and enhance student-teacher interaction. Specifically, 63.33 per cent of students found Power Point presentations well-organized and 86.67 per cent appreciated the visibility of lecture content. Conversely, 81.67 per cent of students reported better understanding through chalkboard teaching and 85.00 per cent valued the interaction it fosters. The study highlights that each method has distinct advantages: PowerPoint’s multimedia capabilities and ease of updating content versus the chalkboard’s simplicity and reliability. The findings suggest that an optimal teaching approach might integrate both methods to leverage their respective strengths, thereby enhancing educational quality and learning outcomes.
References
1. Argyle, M. 2017. Bodily communication (2nd
2. ed.). Routledge. Bartsch, R. A. and
3. Cobern, K. M. 2003. Effectiveness of
4. PowerPoint presentations in lectures.
5. Computers & Education. 41(1): 77-86.
6. Brophy, J. 1986. Teacher Influences on Student
7. Achievement. American Psychological
8. Association.
9. Clark, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. 2016. e-Learning
10. and the science of instruction: Proven
11. guidelines for consumers and designers
12. of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
13. Cline, H. F. and Ishi, M. A. 2006. The role of
14. traditional teaching methods in modern
15. education. Journal of Educational
16. Psychology. 98(2): 195-208.
17. Evertson, C. M. and Weinstein, C. S. 2006.
18. Handbook of classroom management:
19. Research, practice, and contemporary
20. issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Ghimire, S.K. and Joshi, P. 2023. Students’
22. Perception on Power Point Use in
23. Classroom. Journal of Balkumari
24. College. 12(1): 83-87.
25. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt,
26. M., Shahan, E. and Williamson, P. 2017.
27. Teaching practice: A cross-professional
28. perspective. Teachers College Record.
29. 119(5): 1-41.
30. Gurung, R. A. R. 2005. How do students really
31. study (and does it matter)? Teaching in
32. higher education. 10(3): 363-377.
33. 116
34. Hohenstein, J., Pieschl, S. and Goguadze, G.
35. 2018. In search of the “why” of learning:
36. The role of goal-setting, feedback, and
37. self-regulation in educational settings.
38. Educational Psychology Review. 30(3):
39. 1-28.
40. Igwe, G. M.2022. Undergraduate Students’
41. perception and Attitude toward the use
42. of PowerPoint for Lecture Delivery in
43. Tertiary Institution. Social Sciences and
44. Education Research Review, 9(2), 21-28.
45. Lee, J., Bostic, J. H. and Lee, J. 2011. The
46. impact of lecture note-taking skills on
47. academic performance. Accounting
48. Education. 20(6): 547-560.
49. Li, L. and Kirkup, G. 2007. Context,
50. communication and collaboration:
51. Knowledge construction in a multimedia
52. supported learning environment.
53. Interactive Learning Environments.
54. 15(1): 79-92.
55. Mayer, R. E. 2009. Multimedia learning (2nd
56. ed.). Cambridge University Press.
57. Merrill, M. D. 2002. First principles of
58. instruction. Educational Technology
59. Research and Development. 50(3): 43
60. 59.
61. Mueller, P. A. and Oppenheimer, D. M. 2014.
62. The pen is mightier than the keyboard:
63. Advantages of longhand over laptop
64. note taking. Psychological Science.
65. 25(6): 1159-1168.
66. Nouri, J. and Shah, S. 2020. Impact of
67. whiteboard and PowerPoint
68. presentations on students’ performance:
69. An empirical study. International Journal
70. of Education and Development using
71. Information and Communication
72. Technology. 16(2): 23-37.
73. Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K. and
74. Crawford, V. M. 2007. Teaching for
75. understanding: The complex nature of
76. classroom interactions in literacy and
77. mathematics. Educational Assessment,
78. Evaluation and Accountability. 19(2): 99
79. 113.
80. Peverly, S. T. 2006. The importance of
81. handwriting speed in adult writing.
82. Developmental Neuropsychology. 29(1):
83. 197-216.
84. Szabo, A. and Hastings, N. 2000. Using IT in
85. the undergraduate classroom: Should we
86. replace the blackboard with PowerPoint?
87. Computers & Education. 35(3): 175-187.
88. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. and Sweller, J.
89. 2016. When two sensory modes are
90. better than one: A review of the effects
91. of audio-visual presentation on learning.
92. Educational Psychology Review 28(3):
93. 459-474
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author owns the article's copyright until the article is accepted for publication. After acceptance, the author(s) assigns the article's copyright jointly to both the authors and the Publishers of the Journal of Research ANGRAU (ANGRAU) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
